Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Bowling for Columbine State: Closed Requested By: Ken Arromdee Other Parties: User:Schrodinger82 User:PPGMD Mediated By: Nathannoblet Comments: In Arbitration

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 2 Using existing policy to guide the creation of new policy 3 Impasse

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Ken Arromdee 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Bowling for Columbine and the talk page.

Who's involved?

Mostly me (Ken Arromdee) and User:Schrodinger82.

I am involved also User:PPGMD

I don't know whether I'm involved with this or not. I'd rather not be. Anyway, just to lete everyone know I'm editing Bowling for Columbine and I'm also aware of this page. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to not be a party, but I'm aware of what's going on here. --GunnarRene 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

The user insists on removing material from the page on grounds I disagree with. My biggest disagreement is that he only considers movie critics to be legitimate sources of criticism on the movie, so that criticisms of the movie being factually misleading, made by political commentators, don't count. There are other disagreements.

By PPGMD:

User Schrodinger82 claims that sites like Hardylaw and others are "partisan hacks" and are disagreeing based on the grounds of their own viewpoint. He claims that under WP:RS that aren't reliable sources because they aren't noted movie critics, nor do they have advanced degrees in subjects related to movie making or film editing.

His and other edits similar to his has removed a large amount of content under these grounds, and in most cases removing cited evidence, that makes paragraphs make little sense. These edits have pracitcally removed removed the entire section.

Examples of "cited evidence" was, with the exception of the B-52 Display (Something that I never removed personally), are usually irrelevant to to the claims being made. RS guidelines clearly states that "Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable." I believe that to be the case here. Here is 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]

Does this criticism have a citation? Sure. Is the cited information in any way relavant to the actual criticism? No. Bushnell is criticizing Moore for saying, "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl." Simply "suggesting" that the boy had already been suspended once before for stabbing something with a pencil does not invalidate Moore's statement, because we don't know why the boy stabbed her either. This response is roughly equivalent to saying, "Bob criticizes Richard Feynman for saying that no one knows why triboluminescence happens. He points to an article, saying that sugar crystals produce light when crushed." Furthermore, what do you mean by the phrase "suggests"? Either he was suspended, or he wasn't. Are you telling me that the paper isn't sure? Yes, there are sources. But how are these sources relevant to the movie? Saying "because Bushnell says they are!" isn't enough, especially considering the fact the Bushnell was deemed unworthy of having a wikipedia page of his own. If you feel this article is relevant because it sheds more light on the Kayla Rolland shooting, then you should add it to Wikipedia's Kayla Rolland entry (Funny enough, there's no mention of it there.).

This is just one example. I have asked time and time again for these guys to explain why it's relevant to the movie, or why it is encyclopedic. They have attempted to re-add this passage over a half-dozen times that I know of, but they have yet to provide a single response, except for one case where Ken responded by simply saying that the act asking questions was "not a legitimate tactic." Apparently, I'm not allowed to ask why specific passages are relevant. I'm only supposed to take their word on it that they are.

As for my comments on the movies editing, my stance is simple. This movie has been well reviewed by over 96% of movie critics. It was well recieved within the documentary film community, and has won very prestitgious awards from them. These people are going to be fully conscious of Moore's editing techniques, and can make a determination of whether or not his editing is fair. Apparently, they thought that it was. The two Heston speeches that Moore edited together, for instance, have a completely different "look," "feel," and "sound" to them, something that a trained film maker would be able to recognize immeadiately. I see absolutley no reason why we should take the word of people like David Hardy over theirs. Now, if you had examples of the International Documentary Association saying, "Upon further review, we have determined that Moore's film does not fit the standards of a documentary due to manipulative editing techniques that we were unaware of at the time," then it would be notable. But they have yet to do that. Right now, the vast majority of people who know about editing have given Moore praise for it. I do not see why we should give vastly more attention to guys like Hardy on the subject of editing, when they are a) not experts, and b) not in the majority. They may be the majority opinion among self-published, non expert, partisan websites, but that only amounts to being the most notable of non-notable sources according to Wikipedia standards. Sorry, but it is NPOV to give a non-expert minority opinion 90% of the article space. Here's another example:

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. Kopel says the film omits key facts while stringing together other facts to lead to a conclusion, which he says is blatantly untrue, or at the least somewhat deceptive. [4]

Okay, first off, Dave Kopel claims that it's not a "pure" documentary. So what? What credentials does he have on this subject? What standards is he trying to apply here? Secondly, the passage cited shows that Moore himself doesn't call it a "pure documentary," so why is this even an issue? Who exactly is Kopel addressing in this criticism in the first place? Basically, it's a strawman, because Kopel is criticizing the movie for not being something that no one claims it to be in the first place. But by including the passage here, it implies that there are people who DO claim that it's a "pure" documentary, whatever the heck that means. The point on "omits key facts while stringing together other facts to lead to a conclusion" is again a subjective opinion on the movies editing, and therefore warrants the opinion on experts within the field in order to meet Wikipedia standards. As of now, the experts that we DO have, e.g., the documentary film industry itself, seems to disagree. The comment of "blatantly untrue" is again a subjective point, and the article should stick to the facts.

Other examples are where critics simply editorializing and leading audiences with their own viewpoints of what Moore misleads them to believe, rather than sticking to the facts. For instance, "Kopel claim that the sence is edited in such a way that it makes it look like the legally required waiting period and bypassed." At no point in the movie does Moore ever make or imply that the situation bypasses legal measures, nor is that the point that Moore is trying to make. The comments of "Kopel states that what actually occurred behind the scenes is that Moore had to deposit thousands of dollars into the account and produce photo identification, then wait at the bank for an FBI background check" might technically be true, but again, how is that relavant to Moore's point? Wow, you mean that Moore had to deposit money before opening an account? Color me shocked. Nowhere does Moore imply anywhere to the contrary, making the entire point moot.

That, and all these side comments and attempts to editorialize end up making the page much unnecessarily bulky and far less elegant. -Schrodinger82 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the criticism should not be included because the actual criticism is invalid. I could respond to that, but I'm not going to, because I'm not going to fall into that trap; whether the criticism is valid is irrelevant. A criticism section describes common criticisms of the subject without regard to their validity. We aren't supposed to decide "we shouldn't use that criticism because it's a straw man/irrelevant/editorializes too much/etc." Likewise, if Moore is being criticised for misleading editing, stop telling us that a trained filmmaker would think it's not misleading. By doing that, you are saying "we should not use Hardy's criticism because a trained filmmaker would say it is wrong". That isn't how things work.

Moreover, you're still saying that since people like Hardy aren't film critics, we shouldn't take their criticism at their word. Hardy is a political commentator, which is enough. You do not have to be a film critic to criticise a film on a political basis. Ken Arromdee 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that certain examples of criticism shouldn't be included because the criticism is invalid, irrelevant, makes unsubstantiated inferences about the material, does not address the material, and comes from a non-notable source. Once again, I point to the Kayla Rolland example. Rather than explaining why that particular tidbit is encyclopedic, after being asked on numerous occasions, all you can respond with is by saying that you shouldn't have to. I'm not saying "we should not use Hardy's criticism because a trained filmmaker would say it is wrong." I'm saying "we should not use Hardy's criticism because he is not a trained filmmaker attempting to make a comment on filmmaking tactics, and a quantifiable and identifiable community of people who are trained filmmakers apparently have no problem with his movie." Here's what the NPOV page says, which is a firm policy, rather than a guideline:

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. 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).

Hardy is not a recognized authority on this subject. People who are recognized authorities and who are composed of an identifiable and quantifiable population apparently have good praise for his film. It is not NPOV to give the judgement of David Hardy equal or greater space on them on this subject, especially on matters of opinion. Saying that Moore uses editing for effect is a fact. Specific cases of editing will generally be non-notable (There are THOUSANDS of cuts that occur within a movie, are you going to make note of all of them?). Citing a specific example is misleading as notable because you claim that it's misleading is a matter of opinion, and should therefore fit the NPOV standards for including opinion outlined above. If Michael Moore's techniques are so deplorable, then why are you having such a hard time finding authorities in the field who speak against them?

You claim that Hardy should be included because he's a political commentator. First off, at what point does someone "officially" become a reputable political commentator? What are his credentials in the field? Has he published any papers on the subject? Does he have a PhD in the subject? Political science is still a science, after all. There are already so many other well credentialed political commentators out there, so I'm curious as to what makes Hardy so darned special (other than the fact that his politics happen to be in alignment with your own.). Again, this is the lawyer who tries to refute homicide statistics with murder statistics, and then calls Moore a liar because Moore's statistics apparently use a definition of homicide that would be legally accurate (e.g., self-defense counts as homicide, but not murder.). Furthermore, if Hardy is simply criticizing the movie on political grounds alone, then why are his arguments being included here? I'm sure that there are already pages on wikipedia covering the gun control debate, why not add Hardy's comments to one of those? As to your comments of, "You do not have to be a film critic to criticise a film on a political basis," his examples aren't criticizing the film on a political basis. He's criticizing it on its editing. A subject that he is most definitely not an expert on. Again, you can note the fact that Hardy has a book. But the specific claims we include should a) be within a field that he is a known expert in, and b) actually relevant to the facts of the film. So if Michael Moore makes a false comment about Waco and Hardy comments to the contrary, feel free to comment away, because he's an authority on that case. But when it comes to matters of editing, I would leave that to the professionals.

P.S. Upon further review, David Hardy isn't even listed at all on the Branch Davidians page, and is only listed as an external link on the David Koresh page. Apparently, neither of those pages seem to find him very notable, despite the fact that his work on the Waco case is probably his most notable real world accomplishment. Why should the BFC page consider him more of an expert than the Branch Davidian page? I would sooner trust his legal work on Waco then I would trust his expertise in documentary film making. -Schrodinger82 07:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would like the material not to be removed from the page.

By PPGMD:

I would like to see some compromise and neutral third party to help interpret WP:RS in this case.

"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. Just because you don't need peer review like a scientific article, doesn't mean established standards don't apply. -Schrodinger82 22:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Except you seem to skip over the short section many may not be dicusssed with the same academic contexts, Hardylaw's bowling on Columbine section goes well beyond a normal website, it isn't some Joe Blow claiming that he thinks Moore is a liar, he's someone that has built up sources showing original versions of many of his edits, and in fact catches Moore in one outright lie. His site has more academic standing on Wikipedia then the movie itself would. PPGMD 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, in terms of pop-culture significance. For instance, you can include the fact that notable figures like Matt Stone and Trey Parker include a Michael Moore parody in their notable film Team America, even though you don't have an academic source on the matter, because that's strictly a pop-culture reference. And if you notice, no one is disputing that that reference should be included. However, what you're discussing is not a pop culture reference at all, but the practice of film editing, which is an academic field, and which does have noted authorities. You claim that Hardy caught Moore in an "outright lie." Really? Where's your proof of this? Sorry, but pointing out that Moore edited his movie is not the same thing as being caught in an outright lie. Wikipedia policy clearly states that, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "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." The fact that you think Moore is a liar is not enough, you need to present a reliable source per Wikipedia standards, and Hardy doesn't cut it. You claim that Hardy is more academic than BFC, but where's your proof? Here is one example on the issue of homicide statistics. Moore writes:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Okay, so Moore lists where he got all his numbers. Hardy's page, to this day, still accuses Moore of being a liar. Here's his reasoning:

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Wow, so because Hardy couldn't find Moore's numbers on google, obviously, Michael Moore is a liar. It's not like Michael Moore could get his numbers from sources other than google, or anything like that. Now does that sound like academic research to you? It sure as heck doesn't to me. Being caught in a lie would entail actually checking up on the sources that Michael Moore listed, and discovering that Moore lied about them. To this day, Hardy STILL has not done this. If I wrote an academic paper that made conclusions based entirely on what I was unable to find on google, my teachers would fail me on the spot. Just out of curiousity, would Hardy make these types of arguments in the courtroom? "Your honor, the prosecution claims that my witness was scene leaving the crime scene at the night of the murder. But I ran a search on google and turned up nothing, proving that the prosecution's witness is a liar." No, I don't think so. Hardy is not a reliable source on this matter, period. -Schrodinger82 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it might verify Moore's number's because he doesn't cite the year or where he got it from like academic documentaries. Anyways as I said on talk I am going to wait for someone that doesn't outright call sources partisans hacks to be invovled. PPGMD 23:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If Hardy wants to call up those institutions himself, he's free to do so. He's had several years to try. If he wants the exact years, he can ask them himself, or try e-mailing Moore. He doesn't do this, however, because it would not support his case. As for my use of the phrase "partisan hacks," "partisan" is a term that is mentioned in the RS guidelines under "Partisan, religious and extremist websites", and the label itself is accurate in this case. "Hacks" is a reference to the level of academic support and standing behind them, which is inarguably shoddy. When you have a criminal lawyer who doens't understand the difference between homicide and murder and then uses that to accuse someone else of lying, then you have a problem.

Further, I find it amusing how you find my use of the phrase "partisan hacks" enough to discredit my opinions of the specific sources, even though that's simply a statement of opinion, in reference to the fact that RS guidelines state that we should use such sources cautiously. Meanwhile, you accuse the subject of the article of being an outright liar, which is a statement of fact. Sorry, but you are not one to discuss bias on this matter. -Schrodinger82 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that he didn't call up those institutions, he said he can't verify any of those figures from any period that is available. And it's also likely that he e-mailed Moore, but the chances of response for anyone of us e-mailing him is likely very low, even lower if you are a noted critic. Nor are you in a very good position, we are both working from opposite ends of the political spectrum, it would be best to agree to disagree until a mediator can step in. PPGMD 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardy claims, "As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search," implying that this was the last thing that he attempted. This was all printed prior to Moore's response and has yet to be updated, implying that he has not done anything since. Further, being able to cite Moore's response specifically, checking Moore's sources, and discovering that said sources contradicted him would be pretty damning, wouldn't you say? I find it incredibly hard to believe that Hardy would go to all that trouble to check Moore's sources, but wouldn't go through the trouble of actually printing his discoveries. Basically, at this point, you are now referring to blind faith alone. Sorry, but it takes more than blind faith to convince me that Hardy is credible. Hardy claims that he looked for numbers supporting Moore's claims, but he makes absolutely no notes about his methodology. Ergo, it is not academic in the least.

As for working from opposite ends of the spectrum, you are correct. I am from the end saying that verifiability, npov, and rs regarding statements of opinion should be followed, with specific excerpts cited above. You are from the end saying that they should not. -Schrodinger82 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First wrong section, second this page isn't for debate. And finally no it's not pretty damning because if you came out and claim that Moore was outright lieing and Moore then came out finally with a period that he could verify then it would make Harding look foolish. OTOH Harding does it the proper way (actually damn near the Wikipedia way) which is attempt to verify and state that he could find anything that matches it, but without a period it's hardly conclusive. PPGMD 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Harding does it the proper way (actually damn near the Wikipedia way) which is attempt to verify" Prove it. Show us where Hardy says he looked up the specific sources that Moore listed and asked them himself. Go ahead, I'll wait. You can't do this, because it isn't there. In fact, not ony is this not there, but I can verify for myself. Moore states that "65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology." Hardy gets his numbers from the "Australian Bureau of Statistics," and only from 1980 to 1995. Which is not only the wrong organization, but completely outdated. Wow, so a movie released in late 2002 doesn't have an exact match between 1980 and 1995? I'm completely shocked. Yes, Hardy may have sources, but did you actually bother to check them? Obviously, you do not. Again, here's what Wikipedia says: "Look out for false claims of authority. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable." The same appears to be true here. Sorry, but you can't just assume that Hardy checked Moore's sources, particularily when his sources don't match up with Moore's, and considering the fact that his critique was written before Moore even wrote his response. -Schrodinger82 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that some places only compile (or at least make available) statistics up to a certain period, as up to the minute numbers would be incorrect. Also the Bureau of Statistics have official numbers, likely the source for the Institute of Criminology's numbers for their reports. We can go round and round attempting to poke holes in each other defense without convincing the other, you and I are simply wasting our breath. PPGMD 01:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the "Bureau of Statistics" has the correct number, if they only go up to 1995, 7 years before the release of the movie, and 4 years before the Columbine shooting. As for your claim that they are "likely the source for the Institute of Criminology's numbers," for some reason, I'm guessing that it's the other way around, since the criminology experts are going to be the ones who are going to be finding the dead bodies and pronouncing the cause of death in the first place. The fact is, you are now making claims that not even your source is making, and attempting to present them as fact. That is inherently dishonest. -Schrodinger82 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is going to go round and round. Why don't you e-mail Harding and find out, he replies to many of his e-mails? Frankly I am getting tired of this, I am going to wait for a mediator to get invovled, we aren't going to ever work anything out on our own. PPGMD 01:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I did e-mail him a few years back about the murder/homicide issue. Never got a reply. Why don't you try? Maybe you'll have better luck, since apparently you know first hand that he usually replies. -Schrodinger82 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We haven't found/assigned a mediator just yet, and while this appears to be quite a convoluted situation, you both still seem to be discussing things. I'd like to ask you, though: Mediation being a means to develop a solution that is palatable to all parties, what points are you currently sticking with that you would be willing to negotiate on? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually we sort of stopped talking because neither of us is going to convincing achieve it on our own, I think I finally convinced him of that. Anyways it mostly has to do with WP:RS being applied to sources that are inhiriently opinated, ie this work is a work of Moore's opinion thus any response is likely to have some opinion invovled. He is mostly arguing that since they don't have an advancded degree in film editing their opinion is non-notable, where as Hardy in particular is well sourced, and well regarded at the very least among the conservative communities. This is the same thing that was discussed with Cakeprophet on IRC. To me important parts are stuff that is more easily documented like how Moore edited Heston speechs, that almost entirely changed their meaning. Or the B-52 plauqe. PPGMD 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, PPGMD's complaint isn't that the article is excessive in its praise of Moore (Which it isn't, by any count). His complaint isn't that people are citing non-expert leftwing sources on one side while refusing to cite non-expert rightwing sources from the opposition (Which they aren't.). His sole complaint is that the criticism section does not fit his arbitrary standards of how long he would like for it to be, roughly 75% of the entire article. He accuses me of being partisan and extremely left, but he has yet to post specific examples of me putting extreme leftist views in the article. All he seems to mean by this is, "If you don't want to include criticism from the extreme right, then you must be from the extreme left." Funny, but I would consider that to be "neutral."

You have one side insisting that the article should be trimmed down, and the other side saying that it should. It's hard to compromise between that, because either you're trimming down, or you aren't. No one is calling for a removal of criticism entirely. I have cited numerous excerpts throughout the discussion on Wikipedia guidelines and policies for NPOV, RS, Verifiability, and the use of the "unbalanced tag" in reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric_controversy . Meanwhile, the only thing that PPGMD has managed to provide in his defense is that he personally believes that his sources are reliable, and a single line in the wikipedia guideslines stating that pop culture references do not need to fit the standard for peer review. Which would be a good point, if it weren't for the fact that no one was challenging his sources on those grounds in the first place, making it a complete and utter non-sequitor. Even the passages that he himself refers to states that you must still use reliable use reliable sources, and that personal websites should not be used. In terms of the pop culture standard, there's a big, big difference between saying "In the pilot episode of Heroes, Peter jumps off a building," and accusing a real life documentary film maker of being an outright liar. Again, I don't see how you can really compromise on this. Either you use reliable sources, or you don't. But if you don't use the standards of Wikipedia, then where exactly do you draw the line? PPGMD's main defense here is that RS is only a "guideline," and therefore doesn't always have to be followed. Fair enough, but he presents absolutely no specific reasons why they shouldn't be followed here. He doesn't even bother trying to explain himself. However, just to be fair, I will say that I am willing to compromise by including the B-52 plaque entry, because that can be factually verified. The idea that Moore "almost entirely changed their meaning" regarding the NRA speech cannot, and has no expert opinion to back it up.

Specific examples of some of the trimming that PPGMD attempted to revert on numerous occasions have already been presented. These examples are either unsubstantiated, irrelevant, or both. For instance, PPGMD has attempted to bring the Kayla Rollands excerpt over half a dozen times, despite being asked for a reason or justification each time he did, and despite the fact that he was never able to come up with even an acknowledgement of the question. This shows a severe sense of contempt over the use of discussion and consensus building, and a lack of concern over whether or not specific excerpts are actually encyclopedic. PPGMD is trying to use the general idea to that criticism should be included to include anything he can get his hands on, no matter how unsubstantiated or irrelevant. Again, how do you compromise on something like that? Either you include it, or you don't. We have no solid arguments for the former.

The other point is that PPGMD has shown that he is trying to push his own opinions as fact, by placing what he believes to be true over what can be verified (thus breaking the main policy of Wikipedia). For instance, he insists on including Hardy's opinions because he claims that they show that Moore has been caught in an "outright lie," and that they are "blatent examples of the attempt to mislead viewers in the movie." He That is what PPGMD believes. Unfortunately, that might be what PPGMD beleives, but unless we have specific examples of Moore saying Ken defends these comments because "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." Which is fine. The problem is that the portions that I removed don't meet that either standard. There's a big difference between Moore directly stating that the Earth is cube shaped, and the examples that we've actually been given.

Again, I think a big part of this discussion is to take advantage of "Asymmetric controversy," since the people who bash Moore are going to be more fanatical then the people who don't. The only way to safeguard against this is by continuing to fall back on RS standards. If we do decide to start including non-notable people like Hardy, Kopel, and Bushnell in the field of editing, then I think that it would only be fair to include other non-notable individuals like Erik Moller of Kuro5hin in response. Moller states that:

First, the "from my cold, dead hands" part: This is used by Moore as a visual citation to introduce Heston. It is perhaps one of his most famous quotes, shown on national TV even here in Germany. It tells viewers: Aha, this is the person we are talking about. Nowhere does Moore say or imply that these words were uttered at the rally in Denver, and in fact, their reptition later in the movie at another occasion (oddly claimed by critics to be again "misattributed") is simply a reminder of this. It is Moore's way to say: Viewers, meet Charlton Heston, gun nut extraordinaire.

The "visual of a billboard and a narration" is viewed by you as evidence that Moore is trying to somehow tie the two events together, when in reality, it is quite obvious that he does it to separate the introduction of Heston from his speech in Denver. Moore is a professional filmmaker -- he concentrates on maximum impact of each of the statements he cites, and to accomplish that effect, uses subtle interludes instead of long-winded introductions. This is a common technique, but because conservative readers are not familiar with the basics of filmmaking, they believe critics who claim that he is "distorting" the interview. What he does is standard filmmaking practice.

The same goes for the interview which follows. Moore's critics would expect us to have him quote Heston in his entirety, have him present fully the PR that the NRA has used to justify its rally in Denver for reasons of "balance". The NRA was fully aware of the scandal it would cause through its rally and decided to push on because they believed to have enough media support to successfully do so. They were right. You claim that there was "no way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members." 10 days are more than enough to give advance warning of a change in location or date, had the NRA really wanted to. It is probably correct that their primary reason for not doing so was to save money, not to piss off the victims of Colubmine. That does not change the fact that they did just that. Moore presents the most important part of the speech to back up this point and ignores the fluff. This is what good documentary filmmaking is about. And here the critics again ignore important evidence:

When Heston mentions the mayor of Denver, the crowd boos loudly. Heston maganimously holds up a hand to read the mayor's letter (only to explain in detail why he chose to ignore the request -- not mentioning at all the reasons you have given!). This booing by the crowd, not mentioned with a single word in your transcript or your article, shows that the crowd was fully aware of the controversy they would cause by coming to Littleton after children were being killed there -- and they effectively said "Fuck you". To say that they could not have done otherwise is a bold lie by Moore's critics.

But for some reason, i doubt that you would want to include all that. Nor do I wish to see the article bogged down with these types of discussions. If people want to find these arguments, then that's what the external links are for. -Schrodinger82 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great except we have this sticky thing called laws that get in the way, New York State law requires 10-50 days notice for any annual meeting, and for any changes to that date and place that must be the same notice. It would be impossible (short of the NRA just sitting on a warehouse of mailing equipment) for them to have gotten 4 million notices out in under 24 hours. You also have to account for the travel plans of the 22,000 members flying in to attend the meeting. Being a political piece political commentators should be allowed, Hardy, and at the very least Kopel are considered notable political commentators when it comes to the works of Mr. Moore. PPGMD 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All of this is completely tangential. But I will say this: 1) People make exceptions to the rules all the time. If the NRA wanted to cancel early, I seriously doubt that the mayor wouldn't have understood and let them back out of their obligation. If you have somehting to the contrary, feel free to let us know. 2) You wouldn't need to contact 4,000,000 people. You would only need to contact the people planning to attend. Are you telling me that the NRA doesn't have some sort of RSVP system? And once again, you try to fall back on your "political commentators" excuse. Sorry, but "political commentator" seems to just be a fancy buzz word you have for "people who share an opinion that I happen to agree with." Which is fine, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. -Schrodinger82 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New York LAW (the state that they are chartered in) requires that ALL members be notified to the date and time of the annual meeting, and any changes. New York Law also requires that the board of directors be voted on within 13 months of the last election (which would have been about a year apart). Finally you have the travel plans to for the 22,000 people which is often expensive if not impossible to be changed at the last minute, along with the fact that they would have to find a new meeting location that they could use within a month of the planned date so they can abide by New York Law. Finally Moore himself is a political commentator, thus his peers would include that group.PPGMD 03:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh) Why are you trying to turn this into a political discussion? Sheesh, dude. I don't have time to dissect what every nutcase on the web has to say in his defense, and this isn't the time or the place for it either. As for Moore being a political commentator, you're right, he is. But that's about as useful in this discussion as pointing out that President GWB is a Texan, and claiming that therefore, all his peers who are also from Texas should be just as notable. Michael Moore isn't notable because he's a "political commentator." Michael Moore is notable because he's an award winning filmmaker who's had several shows of his own. Referring to Hardy, Kopel, and Bushnell as his "peers" is blatantly wrong. If you want to discuss his "peers," then here's a thought: Try citing other award winning documentary filmmakers. -Schrodinger82 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I have already refuted the person you are quoting knows nothing about the laws governing non profit corporations, why don't you take a look at the speech as presented by Moore and the one that Heston actually gave. http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html That's the type of work that Hardy does on his website, I'm not going to quote it here because honestly it's tedious taking a look at two page edits. As far as Texans being GWB's peers, well if he's talking about something that has to relate with Texas the news media, and likely quoted by Wikipedia is going to find prominent Texans that disagree with the President, though their likely to be politicians because those are easier to find, but you occasionally see others. BFC is a political work, though it's falls in the documentary category with the way it's shot, it's above all else a political work. Finally if his critics weren't notable then why did Moore respond to them on his website? PPGMD 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Big deal. The person that you're quoting knows nothing about the laws concerning murder/homicide, which I would believe would be a tad less flexible than the laws concerning annual events. No one ever got the death penalty for cancelling an event. No one denies that Moore edits his films. No one. The problem is that there's a big difference between editing and lying. So all you have to do is be a prominent Texan to be a reliable source in Wikipedia? So, for instance, if I'm known in Texas because I make a lot of memorable ads for my local car dealership, that would make me a notable Texan and therefore GWB's peer? Where exactly are you drawing the line? The simple fact is, Hardy, Kopel, and Bushnell do not qualify as Moore's "peers," and are not renown experts in the field of political commentary or documentary film editing. Their complaints, meanwhile, are specific to the latter. Saying that Moore uses misleading editing is not an attack on his politics. It's an attack on his editing. If people want to see attacks on Moore's politics, then they should probably go to the page on gun control.

The fact that this is a political work doesn't excuse you. For instance, "Battlestar Galactica" is a political work. The creator for the show recently confessed that the current actions of the Cylons is meant to represent the current Bush administration. That does not mean that we should have 75% of the BSG article an attack on the shows politics. It does not mean that we should include non-notable sources of people who are neither involved in entertainment, nor prominently involved in politics, and have them express their views on how the show is edited. If you want to include something that says, "Moore has the following critics, who he responded to on his website," then fine. But there isn't much credence to their original claims. -Schrodinger82 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Schroedinger: First of all, User:PPGMD didn't initiate this. I did. You seem to be forgetting this.

Second, a lot of what you're saying seems to fall into this pattern:

• Critic of Moore makes some statement which you don't want to include in the article.
• You attempt to argue that the criticism is baseless
• You imply that because of that, the criticism shouldn't go into the article.

For instance, one criticism is that Moore blames the NRA for not cancelling uncancellable events. Then you try to argue that "people make exceptions to rules all the time" and that therefore the NRA should have been able to cancel the events.

That is irrelevant. If a well-known criticism of Moore is that he blames the NRA for not cancelling uncancellable events, that can go in the article.

If *you* try to rebut that criticism, that doesn't affect the article one bit.

If you want to rebut the criticism, you can find a reasonably well-known source who makes the rebuttal, and put that in the article (though I suspect you may have a hard time finding a source which says that uncancellable events can be cancelled). But you *cannot* just make the rebuttal yourself.

A huge portion of your comments seems to be a claim that the criticisms should not be in the article because you, personally, can argue that the criticisms are wrong. Your personal opinion is irrelevant here. Ken Arromdee 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Way to completely misrepresent my words and stance, dude. Yes, of course my refutation is irrelevant to the article. The point is, I shouldn't have to refute the point in the first place, because it comes from a non-notable source, and is only tangentially related to the movie. My main argument time and time again has been that these points are non-notable and and don't meet wikipedia guidelines. The fact that I think he's wrong is a side effect. If he doesn't fit the reliable sources guidelines, then of course there's a good chance that his ifnromation is wrong. That's why we have reliable sources guidelines in the first place. To minimize the chance of that happening. That's also why my main argument for why we should omit these comments is because they don't meet said guidelines, and not because I personally disagree with them. Again, stop trying to misrepresent my argument. It's amazing how your attempt for comment on how "a lot of what you're saying seems to fall into this pattern:" makes no mention of the RS and NPOV standards at all. Strawman, much?

"Hey, let's include this from some random blogger who insists that Harry Potter is an Illuminati conspiracy on the Harry Potter page!"

"Uh... you realize that that the blogger in question isn't a reliable source, right?"

"Well, he's an expert on Harry Potter/Illuminai theories. That should mean something, right?

"No it really should.

"Look, I shouldn't NEED to cite expert sources when it comes to factual information. Well, what about this excerpt that points to page 23 and insists that it shows that JK Rowling was part of 9/11. Are you going to tell me that you disagree with that?"

"Why, yes. Yes I do disagree with that."

"Aha! So you're saying that the only reason not to include him is because you think he's wrong! Well I'm sorry, but you delete these criticism just because you personally disagree with them. Unless you can come up with a REPUTABLE source saying that J.K. Rowling wasn't responsible for 9/11, then I'm going to have to include it."

"?!?"

How did I start off my response? Did I start off by saying, "You're completely wrong, so we shouldn't include it"? No. What I said was, "All of this is completely tangential." Here's what else I said: "But for some reason, i doubt that you would want to include all that. Nor do I wish to see the article bogged down with these types of discussions. If people want to find these arguments, then that's what the external links are for." Unless Moore explicitly claims, "There were no laws at the time that would have heeded the NRA from cancelling meetings," then the point is irrelevant to the movie as a whole. Sorry, but this falls under "nitpicking." You can The entire point is also irrelevant unless Hardy shows that the NRA actually tried to cancel their event, but were unable to, since we don't even know if that factored into the NRA's decision, and to what degree (For that, we would need an official statement from the NRA.). Basically, you're having to delve 6 or 7 layers into a single idea that Moore supposedly implied. My problem isn't that I think the criticism is wrong. My criticism is that I think that it's irrelevant and unverified. Moore never makes a direct statement that to the contrary, and Hardy never backs up his information as relevant.

In fact, the use of the law itself is wrong. Here is Hardy's statement: "NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting." Even if you assume that statement is true, it would still not be worth including. The last time I checked, 11 was more than 10. Do I need a "well known source" confirtming this? The law citation is not relevant in this case, since it would not have prevented the NRA from changing it's location, something that we have no evidence that they attempted to do in the first place. Period. You can argue that "well, one day to cancel isn't enough," but that's a statement of non-expert opinion, from a non-notable source. The fact is, Hardy, despite being a lawyer, has shown himself to be sketchy on the law in the past (Murder/Homicide example). Yes, he is a lawyer, but lawyers are a dime a dozen, and it's not like he's a law professor. He is not a reliable source on this matter, his own claims contradict him, and even if it didn't, it would all be only tangential to the actual movie.

Sorry, but the burden of proof should be on you to show that your criticisms are reliable and relevant. It shouldn't be up to me to find reputable sources that say they aren't. You're basically trying to bypass the NPOV policy and RS guideline, by stating that every source is admissable and should be left unquestioned on the article unless you can find a notable source that specifically addresses them. Of course, even if you do find a notable source that specifically addresses them, PPGMD will just respond by saying, "See? Moore addresses them on his website, that proves that he's notable!" So in a nutshell, it is impossible to prove that a criticism doesn't fit NPOV and RS guidelines ever, and therefore shouldn't fit the standards of the articles. I don't buy that. If you think that Hardy and Co. are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, then cite the specific guideline and policy. The fact that you haven't done so tells me that they don't meet the standards, and therefore, don't warrant any mention. -Schrodinger82 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you know a way to print 4 million mailers in under 24 hours I'm all ears.PPGMD 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, tangential. So let's see. If I respond to this comment, then Ken replies with, "Aha! You proved that you persoanlly disagree with PPGMD's statement, thereby proving you're biased and therefore we should include it! Because I'm going to pretend that the only reason you've provided on why we shouldn't include this statement is because you personally disagree with it, and not because of all those things you've brought up on NPOV and RS standards!" But if I don't respond to this comment, then you'll respond with, "Aha, you didn't respond! That means that the statement is factual, and therefore, that it should be include!" Basically, by this logic, the fact that you can make a statement would be reason enough to include it, because anything that the dissentors say in response, including saying nothing at all, would be enough to justify it's inclusion. In short, no real standards exist anymore, period.

Sorry, but you guys are trying to set me up for a trap, and I'm not going to fall for it. All I can say is, again, non-notable, non-substantiated, and only tangentially relevant. We don't even have confirmation that this point was a major concern for the NRA, much less that it "should have been" a major concern for more. "Should have been" being extremely subjective in this case, because you're attempting a personal moralization on a film. -Schrodinger82 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I need to set you up for a trap when you already did it anyway? Just now, you tried to rebut Hardy's criticism again by saying that since the NRA had 11 days and the law only requires 10 days notice, Hardy's criticism is baseless. Your rebuttal has no place here. Ken Arromdee 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And the thing that I'm refuting, Hardy's criticisms, has no place here either. You have yet to provide ANYTHING to the crontrary. What's your point exactly? Wikipedia policy for verifiability states, "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it." Dubious reliability? Check. Relatively unimportant? Check. Hence, it fits the standards for removal. Why am I not allowed to point these things out? I'm not allowed to show that a source is dubious, even though wkipedia policy specifically cautions against dubious sources? Your entire point seems to be that any attempt to show why a source shouldn't be cited is inherently wrong, based on the fact that it attempts to show why a source shouldn't be cited. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If Hardy's opinion is baseless, his authority non-existence, and the entire matter is unimportant to the film, then why should we include it? The burden of proof is on you to show that it belongs here, it's not on me to show that it doesn't. Here's what else the guidelines say: "However, even those articles should not – on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's track record – repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by more credible sources." In this case, you're calling Michael Moore a blatant liar. For a claim that large, I would think that that would fall under the category of "needs more credible sources," which you obviously fail. Not only are your sources NOT credible, but you refuse to even TEST their credibility in anyway, because any attempt to test their credibility apparently falls under "bias" and should therefore be dismissed.

For instance, you claim that "If a well-known criticism of Moore is that he blames the NRA for not cancelling uncancellable events, that can go in the article." That's your statement. There's only three problems with that. 1) The criticism is not well known, and has yet to get any major media attention. 2) Moore never actually blames the NRA for that. 3) The event in question was never "uncancellable." I'd say that was all pretty impoortant, wouldn't you? Even if point #3 was iffy (Which it's not, I can independently verify that 11 > 10), the first two points are still pretty big.

You then add, "If you want to rebut the criticism, you can find a reasonably well-known source who makes the rebuttal, and put that in the article (though I suspect you may have a hard time finding a source which says that uncancellable events can be cancelled). But you *cannot* just make the rebuttal yourself." There's two problems with that. First, a rebuttal doesn't have to say that "uncancellable events can be cancelled," it simply has to say that the NRA event could have been cancelled. Second, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine/Archive_2, you yourself already stated, "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." The last time I checked, 11 > 10 would qualify as a factual statement, which points out a factual error (e.g., that the event was "uncancellable."). A lot more factual than what Hardy is trying to critique. Why in the world are your standards for criticizing Hardy so much higher than your standards for criticizing BFC? Why are you allowed to point out your opinion as fact, but I'm not allowed to point out fact as fact, because pointing out 11 > 10 now somehow constitutes personal opinion?

You'll notice how you still have yet to come up with a single justification for why Hardy can be included. All you can do is try to distract from the matter by accusing me of bias. It's amazing how you accuse me of bias on this matter, when really, the only reason you seem to find these criticisms notable is because they confirm your views. There is absolutley nothing in the actual guidelines and policies that support you on this matter. -Schrodinger82 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Following the law should always be a main concern of a person or group. Frankly this is all a waste of time neither one of us is going to convince the other to drop it. I simply reply because there is nothing better to do at work. You drop it until a meditor gets involved and I will also, until then we are wasting our breath.PPGMD 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, tangential. -Schrodinger82 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided to go out of my way and recap Wikipedia guidelines/policies on this:

WP:V:

1. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." In this case, the specific claims are 0 for 3.

2. "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it." Dubious? Check. Unimportant? Check.

3. "As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) However, even those articles should not – on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's track record – repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by more credible sources."

4. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field." Hmm... check. "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Are D&D well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field? Nope. Are either of them well-known professional journalist? Well, they might be well known among Anti-Moore circles, but not to the mainstream community. If you made a list of the 100 most well known journalists in the country, would Hardy and Kopel fall anywhere on it? I seriously doubt it.

5. The fact that some information is verifiable doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article. See what Wikipedia is not. The fact that information is true doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced from reliable sources if it is to have a place in Wikipedia (although, of course, if information is true, you should be able to find a ready reputable source for it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel:

1. "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." BTW, this is official Wikipedia policy. Accusing the Michael Moore (a person) of intentionally misleading audiences to believe X is defamatory. The fact that that these claims are dubious are potentially libelous.

WP:NPOV:

1. "This page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles."

2. "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. 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)." Can you find an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population that believes that Moore's editing is misleading? Are D&D recognized authorities on film editing? No. Hence, they do not meet the standard.

3. "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."

4. "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Again, every filmmaker edits. Why are we giving undue weight to these particular examples, in reference to claims that Moore never actually makes? THere's absolutely no reason for that.

5. "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."

6. 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. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

7. Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position. Remember how you kept trying to re-add the segment about how Kopel says that Moore makes it look like the bank is bypassing legal measures? If the Moore really makes it look like that, then why not let the facts speak for themselves? Why not present Moore's actual statements, and have the readers make up their own mind?

8. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. D&D are not subject matter experts in the field of film editings. You claim they're experts on Moore-bashing, but that's like saying the Joe Smith is an expert on John Doe being the worlds best baseball player, even though Joe is not an authority on baseball in general. That might be the most notable within their own subject matter, but then the subject-matter itself is non-notable.

WP:RS

1. What follows is a description of Wikipedia's best practices. Many articles may fall short of this standard until editors devote time and effort to fact-checking and reference-running. (See efforts to identify reliable sources.) In the meantime, readers can still benefit from your contributions, bearing in mind that unsourced edits, or edits relying on inappropriate sources, may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without sources[1].

2. It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. Hmm... looks pretty clear to me. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your sources meet the standards of Wikipedia. It's not on me to prove that they don't, although I will anyway.

3. Look out for false claims of authority. 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. Textbooks aimed at secondary-school students, however, do not try to be authoritative and are subject to political approval. Key phrase is "in the field they are discussing."

4. "Exceptional claims have a much higher burden of proof, and must be supported by exceptional evidence. Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim." ... "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." You keep claiming that BFC is outside the norm for documentaries. Where is your academic basis for this? What institutions back you up?

5. Exceptional claims should be suported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. In circumstances where exceptional claims are made respecting historical events or politically-charged issues, exceptional claims should be supported with as many credible and verifiable sources as possible: sources which are mainstream and peer-reviewed. Well, there goes your "it's a political movie, so all I need is a political commentator" argument. In the case of political commentators, the standard is higher, not less. When have D&D's opinions on the movie been peer reviewed?

6. Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative. For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field. In history, for example, the American Historical Review reviews around 1,000 books each year. The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history. Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources. Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article.

7. "Issues to look out for" ... "Do they have an agenda, conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. Sources like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints. Even then, use them sparingly and with caution."

8. Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know. Already done in the murder/homicide example.

9. What is an independent secondary source? Independent secondary sources: Have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes; Have not collaborated; May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them." Do D&D have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes?

10. Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Again, just because you get published doesn't make you reliable.

11. Partisan, religious and extremist websites The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of those organizations or individuals. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources.

12. Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalists, we are an encyclopedia. Claiming that Moore intentionally misleads audiences to certain conclusions is harmful to a living person. The existence of such claims might be verifiable, but that is not enough to meet Wikipedia standards.

13. 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.

WP:NOR

1. For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable", as it has a biased agenda to advance. In contrast, The New York Times is generally accepted as a trustworthy source: Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). D&D are very partisan, and while they may be published, that does not qualify them as "reputable."

2. Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it "shoots from the hip"? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable." We already have concrete examples that Hardy does an extremely poor job at fact checking, as shown in the mediation page, where he cites Australian homicide statistics in 1995 in order to dispute the numbers that Moore provided from a completely different organization in 2002. We also know that Hardy apparently hasn't corrected or updated his assertions since that time. Hence, he does not meet the standards for reputability, no matter how much you would like to believe that he does.

That, in a nutshell, are all the reasons why the specific claims don't belong here. I have yet to see a single citation from any of these articles showing the contrary. Hence, there is no real reason why the claims at discussion belong, whatsoever. -Schrodinger82 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly you write too much crap for me to go over on a point by point basis. First the the libel policy doesn't come into play because Wikipedia is not accusing him of doing that, it's the sources. And claims like that are not subject to libel because they are criticism.

Kopel and Hardy are well known for their Pro-Gun research they both have numerous books are articles on the subject. Thus it's only likely that they take on the anti-gun sections of BFC. What they write is easily verifiable, even if you find that you aren't able to correlate one claim there are numerous other claims that they make that you can't refute for example the editing of the Heston speeches, and claiming that the NRA rushed to Denver and Flint to hold rallies.

Kopel and Hardy are both examples of Pro-gun people that hold the belief that there is a group of people that believe that BFC is misleading, it's not something. A note would be that you left in left wing people that have claims against Moore's movie, Spinsanity doesn't meet any of your criteria, or for example American Prospect is simply the Left-Wing version of the National Review. You don't hold the same standards for Left Wing source.

Frankly you interpretation of the policies is wrong, you are using you opinion of the sources that applying policy using that opinion. Myself and now at least 3 others feel that the citations follow the policies and guidelines. PPGMD 01:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to address my points is not my problem. Sorry, but I'm not going to apologize for the fact that the rules are so heavily stacked against you. The libel issue is mentioned in the "Sources of dubious reliability" in WP:V, which means that it applies even when the claim has been attributed, even if Wikipedia themselves are not making the accusation. D&D have been shown to be of dubious reliability, and meet none of the standards for being reputable. D&D might be known for their pro-gun research and they might not be, but either way it's meaningless because they aren't addressing any specific claims. They're only addressing the things that Moore didn't mention in his film, and if we make a list of all the things that Moore didn't mention, then the page could go on for infinity. What they write might be verifiable, but it violates the point #4 in NPOV, which states that Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Verified or not, you have yet to give any valid reasons why we should give such undue weight to a cut that lasts for less than 30 seconds of the entire movie. What exactly makes this clip so significant to anyone other than David Hardy? Answer: It's not significant, it's not worth mentioning, and using it here is a violation of NPOV, since you're acting like this one particular example of editing is significant when only an insignificant minority of people believe that it is.

You state that I "can't refute" "that Moore was "claiming that the NRA rushed to Denver and Flint to hold rallies." Actually, yes, I can refute that. Mainly because Moore never actually says that. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of what you would like to believe is true. You say that it's irrefutable to say that Moore claimed that, so he must have, regardless of what he actually said. As for leaving in spinsanity, you're more than free to ask for their removal. The reason that I didn't was because a) their claims were not defametory, and b) their claims were not in reference to the film's editing, and c) their claim was in response to actual statements that Moore made, as opposed to things he "implied," thus being objectively relevant to the material. You honestly don't see the difference between criticizing that Moore said, and criticizing something that he didn't? Please.

"Frankly you interpretation of the policies is wrong, you are using you opinion of the sources that applying policy using that opinion. Myself and now at least 3 others feel that the citations follow the policies and guidelines." Wow, pot calling the kettle black there. So you're accusing me of applying my opinion to the sources wrongly. In order to support that accusation, you bring up the fact that you and three others have the opinion that I'm wrong. It's amazing how you guys can be so sure that I"m wrong without even having to consult the policies yourselves, or addressing the vast number of excerpts that I've included. Because obviously, their opinion that I'm wrong should be worth more than the actual passages. If you think I'm wrong, don't just give me your opinion. Cite the section that shows it. Give me one example where you try to justify your point with more than just your opinion. Go ahead. I'll wait. -Schrodinger82 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going down it point by point because frankly I don't have the time or the care to go down it point by point. If I attempt to address it point by point you are going to claim not good enough, or make some other claim that it's simply not worth my time to work with you. It's easier to seek a consensus among the other editors because it's highly unlikely that you are going to compromise or change your mind on this subject.

I have consulted two different completely independent thirds parties one about specfic citations and one about a general citations of political opinion, neither one of them agree with you, and they weren't handpicked either. PPGMD 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, so because you know you can't do a good enough job, you won't bother. Glad to see you're finally admitting it. Neither of your "two different completely independent thirds parties" have entered the discussion nor did they have a chance to respond to my comments, so I have absolutely nothing to verify there. Furthermore, your second party said nothing of the sort. In fact, considering how much you're distorting his statement just now, it makes me question how much you might also be distorting the other. If you really want me to believe that they disagree with me, then invite them to the talk pages and have them tell me so directly. However, I am not going to simply take your word on it in this matter.

From WP:CON]: Even if an editors contributions appear to be obviously biased to some, keep in mind that their edits may have been made in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. Editors must always assume good faith and remain civil. So far, the only justification that you and others have had for disagreeing with me is because you accuse me of bias. That does not assume good faith. Especially since I have, time and time again, cited passages from Wikipedia policies stating my case. Furthermore, WP:CON also states that, "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV)." Sorry, but you attempt to rely on consensus to justify violating the conditions of WP:CON. Particularily when that consensus is composed of four (wow, four!) people, one of whom admits never having seen the movie. If you want to appeal to consensus, then you need to a) stop proclaiming that I am acting solely based on a personal bias, and b) start being consistent with Wikipedia's other policies. You have failed to do so on both counts. -Schrodinger82 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that I can't do a good enough god, your shotgun method of dealing with stuff is tiring, you may want to dedicate hours of your life to a single article, but I am working on multiple articles. It's your opinion that we aren't working in accordance of the policy, we disagree, and believe that we are working well within the policy. Also seeing the movie or not is irrelevant, it does take watching a movie to see if a source is notable.

Also I don't expect the third parties to get involved in these type of disputes that why there are third parties.

Frankly any attempt to work with you is proving impossible no matter what others say about how it's written, and how it's meant to be applied, you choose to ignore it based on how you read it. We could have Jimbo Wales drop in and give his opinion on this subject and I think there is a good chance that you would argue policy with him. I am instead going to move forward and attempt to establish a consensus with the other editors of the page so we can move forward with very little edit warring. PPGMD 03:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that you are working well within wikipedia policy, then you would have no problem citing specific passages. Even one or two would be infinitely more than what you have provided so far, which is nothing. And no, you do not get to attempt to build consensus until you're willing to AGF. That is the bar none standard for it. When you make comments like "Frankly any attempt to work with you is proving impossible no matter what others say about how it's written, and how it's meant to be applied, you choose to ignore it based on how you read it. We could have Jimbo Wales drop in and give his opinion on this subject and I think there is a good chance that you would argue policy with him," you show a complete and utter failure at it. But hey, why pay attention to what the guideline actually says, when you can just ignore it and claim that it supports you? -Schrodinger82 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

AGF ended after about a full megabyte of discussion on about 5 different pages. I have attempted to work with you and it has proven immpossible. You are already quoted the policy, we can verify that Kopel and Hardy hold these viewpoints from their book, and columns in magizines and such. They are noteable pro-gun critics that have problems with the way Moore wrote the film, and they can be quoted in a NPOV fashion. The article already gives Undue Weight to his awards with no citations of the largest minority that has a problem with his film, pro-gun groups. Now it's in your opinion that Kopel and Hardy don't meet any of this, that is something we disagree on. PPGMD 03:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a full megabyte of discussion, and not one direct passage from Wikipedia supporting your case. Very sad, but I honestly don't see how that's my fault. If you want to remove the non-pro gun critics for the film for the sake of balance, please feel free to do so. -Schrodinger82 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that we are arguing policy we are arguing application and interpretation of the policy and guidelines, in particular you insistence that any critic of the movie coming from Pro-gun groups would have to be an expert in film editing. PPGMD 04:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro-gun experts should speak within their area of expertise. For instance, I don't mind the comments on the cartoon, since that deals with NRA history, something that pro-gun experts should know about. -Schrodinger82 06:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

You don't need to work discreetly. You can reach me on my talk page.

[edit] Mediator response

I think the page should be semi-protected. What do you think? Nathannoblet 06:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree the page hasn't gotten any notable amounts of anon vandelism. Right now it's fairly stable because those of us that disagree have given up adding content until we come up with a solution. PPGMD 14:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Superseded by RFAr. Closing. --Ideogram 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

• Questions from a neutral party for all concerned, and to spur discussion:

• Do we have to have criticism of the film included in the article at all?
• If so, can you have two seperate and balanced sections, one pro-, one con-?
• Are you willing to abide by the majority view as regards policy and editorial decision on Wikipedia?
• What does the majority view actually say? Can you have the other editors possibly give their opinions on the matter?
• Neutral Point of View is a guiding principle and Foundation Issue, not only a policy. Everything else on Wikipedia is second to having a Neutral Point of View. Are your edits contributing to this?

~Kylu (u|t) 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've looked into the matter a little (as someone popping over from the Wikipedia:Expert retention effort). It doesn't seem to me that the article needs to resolve the controversy. However, I have found plenty of evidence out there that other people in the real world consider it sufficient to (for example) bring in some of the participants into the TV/radio studio. Hardy and Kopel aren't just cranks with web pages, though there seems to be general agreement that Bushnell such a non-notability.

• The notion that BfC can only be criticized as a film is just bizarre. It's plainly a film as a medium for political commentary, and it clearly eligible to be criticized as such.

• From my not-having-seen-the-film perspective, part of the problem is the structure of the article. If the outline of the film and the criticism sections were separated, it would be far easier to make a balanced presentation. Right now it has a point-by-point structure which would be OK if one were writing a rebuttal/defense of the film, but which in this work is just unclear. I'd try to fix it if I had seen the film, but since I haven't I don't feel up to the task. Mangoe 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply! Now more questions... :D

• I wholly agree with the idea that the film outline and criticism sections should be seperated. I think, personally, I'd like to see the "pro-" and "con-" criticism sections seperated as well. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that we should not endorse any particular viewpoint, only explain (when needed) those viewpoints which exist. I'd tend to think this solution would do so. Please stick to short replies for clarity.
• While the film itself is a medium for political commentary (that much is not something I'd debate), there are two sides to the film which deserve seperate mention:
  1. Filmography and the technical, "viewed as a film" side, and,
  2. Political commentary and views on the film as such.

As an encyclopedia, I don't see it as or job (nor is it permissable with our neutral point of view policy to do so) to critique or review the film.

• Opinions? Comments? ~Kylu (u|t) 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Without wading through the reams of wikipolicy quoting and the like that User:Schrodinger82 has been dumping in the comments, it's a little hard for me to say where the "film editing" part comes from. But it seems likely that it comes from this statement from Hardy's website: [1]

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition. The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction. Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect. A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

I personally would understand this as a rhetorical flourish rather than an exercise in actual art criticism. I think it needs to be included in a discussion of the criticism, but in a "Hardy wrote" mode. It clearly isn't basis for the article to claim that BfC isn't a documentary, but I doubt that anyone has actually tried to edit the article that way. Mangoe 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"It clearly isn't basis for the article to claim that BfC isn't a documentary"? Are you kidding me? That's incredibly biased.

Your assertion here is utterly irrelevant. It is not biased at all for the article to state that Hardy, a recognized adversary to Moore, made this statement, because it is a simple matter of fact, and thus immune to POV criticism. It would be painfully tendentious, not to mention lame, for the article itself to claim that BfC is not a documentary, citing this statement as an authority. But that isn't the only way to use the quote, and excluding it is a tendentious exclusion to the apparent end of denying that there is any controversy. Mangoe 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's about as biased as you can get on this page. The Academy Awards agrees that it's a documentary. The documentary filmmakers within the academy were the ones who nomiated him. The International Documentary Association awarded "Best Documentary of All Time." The institutions that actually knows about documentary filmmaking agree that this movie not only qualifies as a documentary, but is an outstanding example of one. On the other hand, you have a far right pro-gun lawyer with no real authority in the film industry who happens to think otherwise. So let's just violate undue weight by giving his opinon more space than theirs. Right. If there was controversy within the Academy where they were actually considering revoking his award, then you would have something. Putting the claim in "Hardy wrote" mode doesn't help, because Hardy is not a recognized authority on documentary filmmaking. See #3, #4, and #5 on verifiability, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8 on NPOV, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, 10, #11, 12, and #13 on RS, and #1 and #2 on RS.

Making statements like "Bowling is fiction" is clearly defametory.

I don't agree that it's clear, and whether it is defamatory depends on a value judgement we shouldn't be making; but in any case, the opinion offered is again irrelevant. It's up to Moore to sue Hardy, and it's up to us to report that Hardy made the statement. Mangoe 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual's reputation or character. " That's the Wikipedia defamation. You claim that Moore's movies are fictional and he is undeserving of his awards, both of which are harmful to his reputation and character as a documentary filmmaker. And no, it's not up to "us" to report Hardy's comments (See citations of Wikipedia policy list above.). Wikipedia stance is very clear. Critical comments require higher standards than non-critical comments, in proportion to the claim. In this case, the claim is that the entire Academy Awards was wrong in their decision. Hardy doesn't even meet the normal standard of reliability, much less a heightened one. Quit saying that it's Wikipedia's job to report this or report that when you refuse to cite anything in Wikipedia policy to back you up. -Schrodinger82 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It accuses Moore of being a liar. Wikipedia has clear standards on defametory comments, especially regarding living persons. You need highly credible sources to make such statements, and no, saying "This guy was once quoted in WorldNetDaily, so that makes him credible," doesn't really cut it. If you want to make an accusation, then stick to the facts, and leave out the commentary. If you want to claim that "Statements are made which are false," then incldue the actual statement. The claim that "It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer" is highly subjective and doesn't really hold much water. For instance, in one example, Hardy criticizes Moore for his homicide statistics, because Moore bases them on the actual definition of the word homicide rather than the definition that most people would think of, which Hardy believes is misleading. In other words, Moore is misleading by being truthful. Great. The fact that Hardy confuses murder and homicide alone would qualify as "dubious reliability." And while he may be known in some circles, he is clearly not regarded as an expert nor an authority, does not meet any of the standards for reliability and reputability, and has no reason to have his views mentioned here. -Schrodinger82 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"can you have two seperate and balanced sections, one pro-, one con-?"

Frankly, many of the Hardy and Kopel criticisms are damning, and impossible to counter. And, as a result, nobody tries. You just aren't going to find a "pro" source which claims that a section noted by Hardy as inaccurate is in fact accurate. Any "pro" source who tried that would end up looking foolish. So as a result, "pro" sources only praise the movie in very general terms. A "pro" source could make nonspecific comments like "the movie is insightful" or "this movie shows the true nature of the gun culture in the US", but you're probably never going to find a "pro" source praising the movie for, say, historical accuracy in the NRA/KKK scene.

Ken, I find this incredibly amusing, because you're doing exactly what I accused you of earlier. When you make a criticism and someone counters it, with something as simple as "Moore never actually makes that claim" or "11 days is more than 10," then you accuse that person of being biased, and they should therefore be ignored. But if they don't try to counter it with something as simple as "Moore never actually makes that claim," then you conclude that these claims are "impossible to counter, and, as a result, nobody tries." People don't go on the national media attacking Hardy because no one in the National Media actually cares about who Hardy is. Hardy's comments are non-notable to begin with. Any pro-source would look foolish, not for trying to challenge Hardy, but for the fact that they bothered to address him in the first place. If someone wrote a book and tried to publish it attacking David Hardy, no one would buy it. If someone tried to go on the news doing a story that was an attack piece on David Hardy, no onewould watch it , because no one would know who they were referring to. What are Hardy's big credentials for being a public figure? A single segment from a local TV news station in Kentucky? WorldNetDaily? Wow! Someone needs to go on CNN, before he does anymore damage to Moore's reputation! Please. You're asking for notable counter of a non-notable critique. That is a highly irrational request. Just because someone is obscure, doesn't make them reputable. In fact, it's usually the complete opposite. Hardy does not deserve to be here, per the cited guidelines listed above. BTW, your point on the NRA/KKK scene is a strawman, since I don't see people arguing against that. However, if Hardy's criticisms on the subject are true, then it shouldn't be hard to find a more credible source on the matter than David Hardy. -Schrodinger82 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you can't have a "pro" and "con" section because you won't be able to find any "pro" sources on most of the subjects addressed by the criticism. If you can find some, sure, go ahead, but your section will probably consist of a lot of "this is just humor and isn't supposed to be accurate anyway". Ken Arromdee 21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My answers to ~Kylu (u|t):

• We should include criticisms, but those criticisms should come from experts speaking within teir own field, or refer to actual statements. For instance, the B-52 criticism is fair, because it refers to an actual statement that Moore makes, and can be compared to the actual source. The cartoon criticsm is fair, as long as we find a reliable source, because we can state what the cartoon depicts, and we can presumably find a source that knows about NRA history. Claims that Moore is misleading in his edits are not fair, because they do not refer to an actual statement that Moore makes, and because the people making those criticism have no expertise in that field. "Political commentary" criticisms should best be left to other pages that discuss the politics directly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions). For instance, Battlestar Galactica is a science fiction show, but it's also a political allegory. That doesn't mean that I want to see entries on the BSG page that say things like, "In a recent episode, BSG makes a stance that suggests that torture isn't a reliable source of information. However, many advocates from the Bush administration disagree with this assertion, stating that blah blah blah..." At most, you would link to the controversy directly, rather than rehashing it on the BSG page.
• If that's what it takes.
• I'm willing to abide by people who are actually willing to discuss the actual policy. The problem is, all PPGMD say is "We're consistent with the policy," without being able to cite a single line from it and explaining how. Further, consensus building is impossible at this point, becuase they cosnistently ignore my attempts to cite Wikipedia policy and accuse me of acting solely out of bias, thus violating AGF.
• The "majority" party seems to be failing at AGF, by constantly arguing that I am biased, therefore my opinion is invalid, regardless of what the policy actually says.
• I have cited exact passages from NPOV stating my case on this. Remember, up until recently, the criticism section took up 75% of the article. Considering the success of the film, I would qualify that as "undo weight." Currently, the criticism section accounts for around 50% o the article, which the critics seem to believe is not enough. Unless the critics can quantify that this was the majority reception of the movie, among people who've actually seen it (e.g., not Mangoe), then this would be a blatant violation of NPOV.
• I agree that the filmography and the political side should be kept separate. You wouldn't have cite Al Franken's views on a page about Bush's social security plan, and you shouldn't side David Hardy's views on Moore's artistic merits. And Al Franken is a lot more notable than David Hardy, both in general, and as a political commentator. Either way, "political commentary" should be left of the pages dealing specifically with controversial issues, because that could go on forever. That's what other pages are for. If Hardy and Kopel are really notable authorities on gun rights, then that's where they belong. -Schrodinger82 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"artistic merits" you got to be kidding me, chopping up a speech to make it mean something else is considered artistic now. When news shows do it it's considered bad taste, a mockery of news gathering, but when Moore does it on a movie that is billed as a documentary it's considered artistic merit. You got to be kidding me. PPGMD 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Stating that Moore made the speech "mean something else" is merely your subjective opinion. Just because you personally believe in something doesn't make it true. If your opinion were really notable, then it shouldn't be hard to find recognized figures from within the industry who agree with it. -Schrodinger82 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Again this is all quite irrelevant. The article need not-- ought not-- take a position in the dispute, but one would think that laying out the criticisms and their justification shold be sufficient for readers to make up their own minds. As far as the B-52 case is concerned, for example, there seems to be no dispute that Moore said what he said, that Kopel said what he said, and that the monument says what Kopel says it says. Therefore the article ought to lay these facts before the reader, who can judge for himself as to whether Moore's version is sufficiently a distortion or not.

We are not here to be investigative reports, except to determine that cited works do say what they are cited for. That's what people are paying Moore and Hardy and Kopel for. Mangoe 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm suddenly reminded of the ID advocates who insist that we should "teach the controversy." Laying out criticisms and their justification has to be consistent with the conditions regarding undue weight and libel. When you're making an attack, you have to be sure that your criticisms come from credible (e.g., reputable, reliable) sources. The B-52 example is fairly reputable. We can present a direct quote of what Moore says, and a direct quote of what the plaque says. The accusations that BFC is not a documentary are defametory and not credible, and hence, should be removed immeadiately. You claim that our sole purpose is to "determine that cited works do say what they are cited for." Not true. We also have to determine which sources are worth citing, and on which points. Again, see point #5 on verifiability. -Schrodinger82 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Defamation only applies on biographies, this isn't a biography thus it has no place here. It is easily verifiable that both Kopel and Hardy hold those opinions it's on their websites, and in their book/article. They are notable, Hardy being the most notable, in fact he is notable enough that Wikipedia has an article on him. I already gave an example (I believe it's above) of how the section can look, how they can be quoted, and cited in a way that is consistant with Wikipedia policy. PPGMD 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. "Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism,[2][3] and do not move it to the talk page. This also applies to material about living persons in other articles, as well as user and talk pages." As for your "It is easily verifiable" comment, see point #10. -Schrodinger82 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the keyword, Unsourced. The comments are easily sourced to the person saying it, Hardy and Kopel. PPGMD 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious sources aren't much better than no source at all. Again, see point #3. Also, see point #10. Just because a point is sourced doesn't make it notable. I keep pointing out the exact points in Wikipedia policy that back me up, and you keep ignoring them. Sourcing a libelous claim to a dubious source is still libel. -Schrodinger82 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not libel to report someone else's libellous statement. Indeed, you are putting us in the bizarre position of not being able to write about a genuinely libellous situation (and Hardy's remarks do not strike me as such as I said above, but that's beside the point) because we couldn't report what was said. For instance, one could argue, using your principles, that we could not report some of what is in Moore's movies because it has been proven untrue. You are blatantly misrepresenting the intent of that policy. By quoting Hardy's statement and plainly identifying it as such, we do not defame anyone; we simply report what has been said. Mangoe 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Point #3 disagrees with you. So does point #10. Again, actually read the policy before you dismiss it. Wikipedia entries have basic guidelines that the information provided, especially concerning criticim, is reputable and reliable. Hence, when Wikipedia presents a defametory comment, the implication is that the comment comes from a reputable source as well. In this case, it does not. For instance, suppose I made my own website, accusing David Hardy of being a child molestor. Would I be able to include such comments on the David Hardy entry, so long as I attributed them to myself? Wikipedia policy says no, regardless of whether or not the comment is sourced, simply because my accusation in this case would not be reputable. -Schrodinger82 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You flatter yourself in comparing yourself to either of these men. And it seems to me that you are have having to do a round robin of these various policy claims, because none of them support your position. And if we argue against one, you turn to another, and so forth. I do not see the need for further repetition. It is clear that there is a controversy; it is clear that Hardy and Kopel are notable participants in it; it is clear what they said; and it is clear that the article must thus relate their statments, whether contrary evidence to theri claims be presented or no. And it is clear that your wikilawyering represents a viewpoint which is not generally applicable, and therefore is tendentious. Mangoe 05:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim the policy doesn't support me. Prove it. Cite the line where I'm wrong in the cited passages. It's not really a "round robin" when I'm stating the facts, and all you're doing is replying with a basic, "nuh-uh!" The policy states, "As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) However, even those articles should not – on the grounds of needing to give examples of the source's track record – repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by more credible sources." If you really think I'm misinterpreting it, then explain how. But don't just keep falling back on this, "Well, I think you're wrong, and that's that!" response that you guys seem intent on using. And yes, I realize that I shouldn't compare myself to David Hardy. For one thing, I actually understand the difference between murder and homicide, and I know better than to use numbers from 1995 to discredit statistics presented in 2002. -Schrodinger82 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using existing policy to guide the creation of new policy

In Wikipedia:Copyrights there's statement that we should avoid linking to sites which contribute to copyright violations. Wikipedia policy is made as we go along, applying common sense to what we're already doing. Would our referring to Hardy and Kopel in the criticism section be a similar situation? I put foreward the theory that if Hardy and Kopel's criticism of Moore is the problem, and if Moore can possibly have an actionable objection to this criticism, perhaps it would be better for us to remove it and concentrate on less contentious sources? Any agreement to this theory? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to make anything up as you go along. Focusing on less contenious sources should already be the norm. The fact is, I have cited dozens of passages explaining why Hardy and Kopel don't deserve to be mentioned, except perhaps in passing. PPGMD, Ken, and Mangoe (Who hasn't even seen the movie and is relying entirley on what he heard from hardy) have yet to cite a single passage to the contrary. Not one. If Hardy and Kopel really did belong, then they should be able to say, "See? Accoridng to the reliable sources guidelines, sources who meet the following standard should be included, and Hardy/Kopel clearly meet this standard." They have yet to do that, because they can't. On the BFC talk page, Mangoe cited tendentious in an attempt to support him. This is what that page says:

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited critical material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. One defamation case could bankrupt the Foundation and see us shut down.

The fact is, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to include the information, and the information they want included is poorly cited, with dubious sources. They are disqualified by Wikipedia standards for reputability or reliability, and PPGMD/Ken/Mangoe have yet to present a standard that they do meet. Including their opinions is a violation of undue weight on two counts (sources + aspects), and since Wikipedia has higher standards for critical material, we have no reason to lower them here. Consensus building is impossible at this point because all three users have resorted to accusing me of bias, rather than making actual points. If anyone can come up with a single specific guideline or policy of Wikipedia that supports them on this side, I would like to hear it. Kylu, I haven't seen one yet. Have you? -Schrodinger82 05:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect your intent is to create a biased article, but my point is that your interpretation of these policies is nonsense. It has come to the point where there is no more evidence to present, and the evidence already presented is sufficient to decide the matter anyway. You've come up with a novel way to lawyer around the restrictions of disruptive editing by twisting other policies into a kind of censorship, but it's quite clear that those rules are meant to limit what you and I write, and not what the parties we write about say.

I've had some involvement in editing homophobia, and I have to say that if your twist on the rules were followed, that article could not even exist. It does exist, because the editors there have managed to accept that what is said on the other side needs to be related, even if the speakers are not the most notable sources.

To address the actual present question, however: this controversy is some years old; Moore has had plenty of time to sue. But again, I do not think he could sue Wikipedia for simply reporting what another said about him. It is not defamatory for us to report that Hardy said this or that Kopel said that, as long as we ensure that we are reporting that they said these things. On a few matters of fact we seem to be in the position of relying on their correct report (e.g. the B-52 inscription) but considering their status as public figures with published works, it is not unreasonable to assume that where they have erred, there is someone out there with a correction. The whole Hardy "not a documentary" thing is clearly an expression of opinion that we have no authority to endorse, but that we do have an obligation to report.

-- Mangoe 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mangoe. I think that dedicating 75% of the article to the non-reputable Anti-Moore crowd is a bit much, so obviously that constitutes an attempt to bias the article in Moore's favor. Yes, how dare I cite the actual policies to back up my case. It's almost as though I'm trying to follow the rules or something! Again, stop thinking that you can ignore the rules just because you they don't agree with you. The rules on this matter are very clear. If you disagree with them, you are free to either a) ask that they modify wikipedia policy to accomodate you, or b) show where in Wikipedia policies it shows that Hardy and Kopel meet current standards for reliability. But if you want me to ignore the rules for your benefit so that you can get away with using poorly sourced material, the answer is a firm no. And no, simply having "public figures with published works" doens't cut it. For instance, Jennifer Willbanks was supposed to have a book deal in the works a while back. Would that make her a notable authority on anyone other than Jennifer Willbanks? I seriously doubt it. -Schrodinger82 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's more from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines : "Reception: Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count)." Meaning that, like I said, if you want to cite opinions on the film, you stick to well known critics. Film criticism should be left to the critics. Once again, it could not be any clearer, if you actually bothered to read the policies. "Political commentators" should be left aside unless the movie becomes an actual political issue. e.g., some tangible controversy that goes beyond just talking heads who focus entirely on value judgements, and into actual policies. For instance, in the entry for Uncle Tom's Cabin, it quotes Lincoln for saying, "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!" That's notable because a) Lincoln is a well known figure, and b) Lincoln connects the book to an actual decision in policy (e.g., the civil war). Huckleberry Finn could have political commentators who could remark on the fact that there have been attempts to ban the book in the past, a decision in policy, thus making it a first amendment issue. But what is the direct policy decisions that you could attribute to Moore's film, or regarding Moore's film? The only policy decision I can think of was the K-Mart incident that takes place within the movie itself, where Moore got them to ban the sale of bullets. If Hardy and Kopel had evidence showing that K-Mart didn't ban bullets and that Moore's entire scene was hoaxed, then yes, that would be a great time for political commentary. But that's not what happened. Heck, can you even list any of the specific policies that commentator Moore is even advocating? I seriously doubt it. And if Moore isn't advocating for specific policies, then it's hard to make a political commentary on it.

A less extreme example can be scene on the Married..._with_Children page, where homemaker Terry Rakolta is regarded as a notable critic of Married With Children, even though she doesn't have any notable television experience. Not because she personally found the show offensive, and not because she launched a protest, but rather, because she actually came close to shutting the show down, thus going beyond just talking heads (e.g., convinced sponsors to back off, had one episode removed from syndication until 2002). If Terry had just ordered a boycott with an unknown number of participants and nothing happened, she would never haave made the headlines, and she would never have been reported here, since her homemaker status would make her non-notable person. Hardy and Kopel have attempted to do the same thing for BFC, by demanding that the award be revoked. The difference is, no one in power really cares about what they have to say, so there is no real "news" story here, and thus, nothing to cover. By this standard, you could also bring up controversies that resulted in tangible edits (e.g., the bank scene), although such controversies should stick to the facts of what was presented, (e.g., claiming that Moore makes it look like the bank bypasses standard legal measures, when he never actually says or implies this.). -Schrodinger82 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First the policy that you are citing has to do with the intro paragraph, not the content of the article as a whole, also it's written for more entertainment oriented movies, but for political pieces. BFC is an excellent example of how you don't have to say something to draw viewers to a conclusion through careful editing, if you ever read Hardy's site you will see that he quote reviewers (not average joes but professional film reviewers) that come to the conclusion that Moore is attempting to draw viewers to. You mention that you don't have a problem mentioning Hardy and Kopel in passing, my proposed edit does that, it reduces the Pro-gun section from it's previous 2-3 paragraphs to 2-3 select quotes of Kopel and Hardy's position, along with a mention of Kopel in the What a Wonderful world criticism section because he's the one that brings up those two points (It would basically add "Kopel argues..." and a Ref in that section otherwise that section in OR). It would basically say that they are critics of the film and this is what they think. PPGMD 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules? In any case the film policy page made no reference to documentaries, and I've already updated it to reflect what it should say: that as to matters of factual content, those in the field can and ought to cited as critics, and that omitting reference to a known controversy is a biased edit.

Your statement that there is no story to cover is just untrue, and the citations already given are sufficient evidence against you. Coverage was not as extensive as with Rakolta's situation, but it has been documented. It does not follow that critics need be successful in changing minds for their criticisms to be registered.

I do not think that the film critics themselves would endorse your position that documentary content can only be judged by film makers and critics (not that we haven't had citations from critics who assailed the coherence of Moore's argument anyway). I wouldn't accept their expertise to make such a claim anyway, any more than I would accept an English teacher's claim to sole jurisdiction over non-fiction books. But I see no evidence that they do make this claim. Indeed, it seems utterly commonsensical that anyone may judge a documentary as an argument, exactly as they may judge any other presentation. Everyone would agree to this about a book; there's nothing magical about film that gives it special immunity.

The issue about the bank gun giveaway seems unresolved; however, it would be dishonest to pretend that there is no dispute about the matter. I do not accept you as an authority to judge the matter one way or the other; that is to be left up to the reader. Right now, you have set yourself up as such a judge, and your attempt to exercise that improperly assumed authority is precisely what is creating the POV problem here, because you are trying to suppress the evidence. It is entirely possible that Kopel and Hardy are excessive and inaccurate in their criticisms, but nonetheless an honest presentation requires that their statements be presented. If Moore can be cited as rebutting them, then his rubuttal ought to appear too. But your attempt to pass judgement on the evidence is out of line. Mangoe 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the majority of filmmakers gave this film a positive review. Focusing entirely on the 4% that didn't is a violation of undue weight. I see no reason to have to mention Kopel in the "What a Wonderful world" segment, since the 9/11 commission should be able to speak for itself. Looking at the list of cited critics, let's see... one guy makes a comment on Heston's speech that can just be a artistic liscense of the reviewer, rather than a literal description. It's like a reviewer commenting "Angelina looks so hot she could melt butter." That reviewer comes from the "Lullaby for Columbine" project, who would already know what actually happened coming into it, and not a mainstream publication. Hard to mislead someone who already knows the timeline, wouldn't you say? One reviewer appears in "Willamette Freethinker" a publication of the "Corvallis Secular Society"). The what now? Another reviewer has a website on geocities. Another review isn't even from the review itself, it's from the user comments section of a review on www.blogcritics.org. A non-notable response to a non-notable publication. This is the best that Hardy could come up with? NONE of these reviewers appear on rottentomatoes.com, so how did Hardy find them? Probably by googling the phrases he was hoping to find, and using the best results he could get. The fact that Hardy had to go to this much trouble and only managed to provide such non-notable reviewers actually proves my case. The "deception" is non-notable, and doesn't deserve undue weight. You'll find more reviewers who can get the facts of say, X-Men wrong, and not due to Bryan Singer's intentional attempt to mislead.

Mangoe, you have yet to explain why IAR should be followed in this case, other than to serve your agenda against a movie that you've never seen. Further, since I can ignore all rules, then why shouldn't I simply ignore the rule about ignoring rules? Paradox. You claim that "the citations already given are sufficient evidence against you." False. BFC has had worldwide, international coverage. Placing a single news segment on local TV on equal or greater ground than worldwide coverage is a violation of undue weight. Especially when some of the international groups focus specifically on the subject of documentaries, where as the local news show does not. Let me put it this way: A whole lot more people know of the Daily Show than WAVE-TV. Would that justify including critics of gay marriage who were interviewed by the Daily Show in the gay marriage section? I don't think so, because even though they may have been on TV, that does not make them notable or reputable in themselves. Again, if you think that D&D's credentials are sufficient, then please list the specific citation showing why and where. You claim that you do not believe that "film critics themselves would endorse your position that documentary content can only be judged by film makers and critics." The problem is that you're not judging them on the content (e.g., specific claims on factual matters). You're judging them on the editing, and by whether or not it fits the standards of a documentary. You claim that I am "trying to suppress the evidence." There's a big difference between evidence and unsubstantiated opinion. Claiming that Moore makes it look like the bank bypasses legal measures, when more does nothing of that sorts, falls towards the latter. -Schrodinger82 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive, so this likely to be my last response here.

You said that "You're judging them on the editing, and by whether or not it fits the standards of a documentary." Here you are effectively repeating the same double-talk as Hardy, only in reverse. I personally am perfectly competent to identify BfC as a documentary; there is no need for expertise in so doing. Modulo Hardy's (in my opinion) posturing statement, the controversy is over BfC as it presents an argument. I have not said one word about how the movie is edited, as far as I recollect; your statement to the contrary is a falsehood. I have gone to some small trouble to check a few of the statements and their rebuttal, and it does seem quite clear that, as ordinary arguments, some of what Moore says is essentially untrue.

But you are trying to change the subject. D&D do not need credentials to be mentioned in the article; they merely need some prominence as critics of Moore. Kopel's appearance on an NPR segment is plenty prominence enough; Hardy's book is not as obscure as you want to paint it. Kopel can also be considered a spokesman for gun owners; that fact is well-documented. You are trying to remove any appearance that there is anything controversial about the movie, when even the New York Times reviewer called into question the coherence of Moore's argument.

I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. As far as I am concerned, the article should relate criticisms by "D&D" and for that matter by prominent movie critics (e.g. the NYT review I've mentioned a number of times), making it clear that these are views expressed by these people. It should not endorse these views, but it should relate them. Mangoe 20:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Modulo Hardy's (in my opinion) posturing statement, the controversy is over BfC as it presents an argument." Really? If there's an actual argument, then free to state Moore's exact words on what that argument is, then. Kind of hard since you never actually saw the movie, but give it a shot. You guys have yet to list a single thing that Moore is even advocating for, much less his argument. And again, the NYT is a minority opinion. -Schrodinger82 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impasse

This does not seem capable of resolution by one side convincing the other. In my opinion this is because of Schrodinger82 crankish views, but as I am effectively now a party to the dispute the bystanders can take that for whatever they feel it is worth. Mangoe 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am escalating this case to arbitration. Unlike this they will make a binding ruling. PPGMD 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would preferr it if this cabal case be closed properly first. It might be informal, but I think it's a good idea to keep discussion centered on.. uhm... at least not more than two places. Also please link to the Arbcomm case. I suspect that they'll deny hearing it, but maybe they'll hear it. --GunnarRene 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Arbcomm RFA is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bowling_for_Columbine PPGMD 13:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)