Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Bowling for Columbine

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

1 Evidence presented by Ken Arromdee
2 Evidence presented by Mangoe
3 Evidence presented by Schrodinger82

[edit] Evidence presented by Ken Arromdee

I think it's impossible to understand this without reading at least a good chunk of Schrodinger82's comments. The things he says are so thinly spread out among so much text that it's hard pointing to anything precise. I would suggest that if the talk page and its archives are too long to read--and they pretty much are, at least look at the mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05_Bowling_for_Columbine. It's a lot shorter than the whole talk page, and still gives a good idea of what's going on.

Creating this page is *very* exhausting. It took me over three hours just to get this far. Please tell me if I need more details or if I need to quote policies to prove that the user is acting inappropriately. Note that I'm not even the one who brought the arbitration case.

[edit] Schrodinger82's refusal to accept appropriate sources

The issue in contention involves a single very large set of deletions from the page [2] [3] [4] etc., and his bizarre defense of those deletion. Most of the published criticism of Moore's movie comes from David T. Hardy and Dave Kopel. Hardy has published a book and appeared in films criticizing Michael Moore; Kopel works at the Cato Institute and is published in National Review magazine (as well as Hardy). Schrodinger82's reasons for rejecting them as sources of published criticism of Moore's movie are all over the map, but at times he's stated or implied

that Hardy and Kopel shouldn't count as acceptable critics or cannot criticize the movie for misleading editing because they aren't film makers or editors or film critics, or alternately, that they aren't "experts"

[5] You are citing Hardy's comments on film editing as fact. Hardy is not an expert in the field of film editing. He does not have a post-graduate degree. He is not affiliated with an academic film institution. He has not written any textbooks on the subject. In short, he does not fit the pass the standard for verifiability"

[6] "But everything else boils down to "Moore edits his movies misleadingly," which is a subjective opinion on his editing skills, and which therefore requires some sort of expert. Particularily when we ALREADY have experts in the documentary film industry who have watched the movie and thought that it was fine."

that Hardy and Kopel aren't notable critics, despite being professionally published authors

[7] "They aren't just random guys with self-published websites. The same cannot be said of Hardy or Kopel."

[8] "D&D have been published. Great. In what field? Read by which academic circles? If it's anything other than film, than their comments on their BFC's artistic merits are worthless." (Here he mischaracterises criticism of facts and misleading juxtaposition as criticism of "artistic merits")

[9] "Sorry, but if all you needed to be listed as a reputbale source was to have a book published by a major press, then that's what the guidelines would say."

that because he personally thinks Hardy's and Kopel's criticisms are subjective, or not to the point, or because he personally can rebut them, these criticisms should not be included.

Examples: [10] "Most of the criticism on this page should be removed on the basis of a) non-experts talking outside their feild, b) criticism irrelevant to the actual content of the movie, c) criticism that are based on artistic decisions and "what I would do differently if I were him," which are completely subjective and don't belong here."

Many of his personal disagreements with Hardy's criticism involve Hardy supposedly confusing murder and homicide [11]

It is sometimes unclear exactly what Schrodinger82 is saying. There seems to be no reason for him to continually point to the "errors" in the criticism except to say that they should be omitted because he personally can rebut them, yet he's also denied that. Elsewhere he's said that he tries to rebut the criticism because he's proving the criticism to be irrelevant ([12] last chunk). His line of reasoning seems to be "Hardy/Kopel criticizes Moore for implying something. I personally think Moore is not implying that. So Moore's being criticized for something he didn't do--the criticism is irrelevant". I don't believe this is a good reason to leave criticism out, because the Wikipedia editor's conclusion that the criticism is irrelevant is based on his conclusion that the critic is wrong.

In truth, I can't coherently summarize his exact reasons and this is the best I can figure out.

that the need to verify sources means we must verify that criticism made by critics is factually accurate before including it in an article

Examples: [13] "this entire section needs to be reduced by 80-90% down to what can be independently verified." (in a context meaning that the truth of the critics' criticism can be independently verified)

[14] "Provide actual statistics of the number of people who left the movie believing in X, when X was untrue." (in a context where a criticism of the movie is that it misleads the viewer)

[15] "If you think Moore is misleading, then present facts showing so."

that, on spurious grounds, Hardy's criticism is libellous and must therefore be excluded:

Examples: [16] "Stating "makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer" is a defamatory opinion." In the same quote, he argues that criticizing Moore for lying in the movie is an attack on a living person and therefore should not be included.

that critics of the movie are such a minority that their views should not be included:

Examples: [17] "According to rottentomatoes.com, this movie has a 96% positive review. That puts the critics in the minority. They might be a very vocal minority, but they're still a minority, with no real authority or credentials on the subject. Hence, as long as the criticism section meets at least 4% of the article content, then it meets the NPOV standard." (Confusing "most film critics" with "most criticism").

[edit] Schrodinger82's wikilawyering

[18] "Since we cannot determine that BFC is objectively misleading, then it's a matter of opinion. Politics aside, please list the type of sources that we should include, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please cite exact passages showing that whatever sources you wish to include are acceptable. If you can't do this, than I am going to assume that the sources you wish to include do not meet Wikipedia standards...."

He's also made a lot of references to the exact wording of Wikipedia guidelines and policies in often irrelevant ways

[19] quoting NPOV guidelines about authorities, but which doesn't say that Hardy and Kopel aren't authorities. He also makes tons of references to WP:RS, apparently unaware that the guidelines are controversial and that they are not, in practice, interpreted to ban all websites. I've also pointed out that even the current guidelines have an exception for a professional journalist producing self-published material. [20]

[21] quoting a large section of guideline/policy text with very weak arguments as to the sections' relevancy

[edit] Responses/Counter-Evidence

I'm not going to go through everything Schrodinger82 says point by point--I think it's ludicrous to suggest I was defaming living persons, for instance, or to deny that we see Moore advocating political beliefs in the movie--but there are some things I have to respond to.

The bit about Wikilawyering is, as far as I'm concerned, mainly related to two points. First, his use of huge amounts of text. Really huge. Second, his insistence that everything follow a literal interpretation of the rules without regard to common sense. The rules don't say that you need to be a film critic to be quoted criticising a film, but it wouldn't matter if they did--if they did, we should ignore the rules, because the encyclopedia is better off without them.

Next, the fact-checking problem. He insists that if he can (in his mind) disprove what a source is saying, that makes the source unreliable. Suffice it to say that that viewpoint is far from accepted. For one thing, most people who take a side on an issue think the opposing side is wrong; his "rule" would let anyone remove anything from a source they disagree with. (Incidentally, the murder/homicide issue can, in fact, be defended. Moore uses the homicide figure in the context of there being a problem with gun deaths, so it seems fair to compare it to a figure that includes only murders, not justifiable homicides. But it really isn't up to us to defend it.)

Any comments on the falsifiability of the passages in question was started off by, "All of this is completely tangential."

But he often treats them as non-tangential. The whole "Hardy uses murder instead of homicide, therefore he is not a reliable source" idea, for instance, isn't tangential.

The only reason I did was because of Ken and others, who tried to argue on factual merit over reputability,

It's not about "reputability", but undue weight. He claimed the article violated undue weight because it had more criticism than support. I pointed out that that's because there is more criticism than support (or more precisely, there's a lot of general support, but little support of Moore on specific points), and that in turn is because nobody will support Moore on obvious factual errors. If he really thinks there is support of Moore that isn't just "this is a powerful, hard-hitting movie" with no details, he should add it himself. It's not like I took any out; it just wasn't there. Ken Arromdee 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Mangoe

I must begin by thanking Ken Arromdee for digging through all the various arguments, a task which I simply haven't had time to do in such detail.

My involvement started with this talk comment: [22]. Looking into the matter a bit further, I came upon all of Schrodinger82's endless disquisitions about the sourcing of Moore's critics. As I stated in the original request, my participation stems from being part of the Wikipedia:Expert retention effort.

This edit of mine [23] epitomizes my position on the sourcing (and by extension, the allowable content) of the article:

"The answer, as anyone can Google, is that lots and lots of people find Michael Moore controversial as a political and social commentator who uses the medium of documentary films. Other people who are also such commentators are clearly peers who may be cited as passing judgement on this aspect of Moore's work. It is crankish to pretend that he isn't making such commentary. Therefore I hold that anyone within the politico-social commentary arena has standing to be quoted in responding to him, if they have made such comments."

I confess that I haven't had the patience to wade through the torrents of policy/guideline citations, never mind checking that they are being cited accurately. But I also think it is quite beside the point. Michael Moore is, through the medium of documentary film, a political commentator, and as such is subject in the real world to the same sorts of criticism that any other such commentator is subject to.

I emphasize again that I have not seen the film. I still think the description of the film's narrative is poorly written, but I am not personally in a position to criticize its accuracy. My interest is solely in the depiction of whatever controversy there is.

In what follows I will follow the points I listed in the request.

[edit] That only film makers and critics may cited as critics of a documentary

This is addressed in Ken Arromdee's first point above, referencing this edit: [24]. I would in addition call attention to this sentence:

"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."

I contrast this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines:

"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[.]"

This guideline didn't mention fact-checking of documentaries, so I inserted a subsection in that guideline to that effect. Now, it may be that nobody reads that guideline, but the fact remains that except for the correction of a typo nobody has made any changes to what was added. And it is just common sense: a documentary is presenting itself as a piece of research on a subject, and therefore may be criticized in the ordinary way by essentially anyone. However, as we are documenting a controversy, we have agreed to limit ourselves to notable criticism, which is to say, critics whom those in the field (or the public in general) might have some awareness of. That is why we have generally agreed that the Bushnell who is mentioned in the discussion can be excluded as "just a guy with a webpage"; Hardy and Kopel, however, have been established as known figures in the arena of political commentary.

[edit] That David T. Hardy and Dave Kopel are not sufficiently notable to merit mention as critics

Again, Ken Arromdee has pretty much covered the reality of their notability. I initially went at this via Dave Kopel and almost immediately washed up at the national Review Online article. National Review is unquestionably notable, and therefore I would state that Kopel is therefore notable as someone published on its site; I also found references on a TV news segment and in a commentary program on WBUR, a nationally known public radio station I also found a WorldNetDaily reference to the dispute. Yet Schrodinger82 felt it necessary to ridicule these:

"Wow, so Hardy was once mentioned on a local TV station?" (the cite was in fact for Kopel)
"Wait, you're actually citing WorldNetDaily as an "authoritative source"?" (I simply mentioned it as evidence of awareness of the controversy)

I personally have not spent much time tracing Hardy, but I agree with Ken Arromdee that publication by HarperCollins is sufficient evidence of notability.

[edit] That majority acclaim for the documentary negates adverse reviews, no matter how prominent the reviewer

Nobody is really disputing that the documentary was the subject of awards. However, as I said, it was easy to find prominent reviewers (e.g. from the New York Times) expressing reservations about the argument made by the film. Against this, Schrodinger82 referred several times to RottenTomatoes, e.g, "BFC has a 96% rating on Rottentomatoes, meaning that 96% of professional film critics enjoy this movie." [25]. This assessment is controversial; the "freshness" rating is debatable. For example, one can see that that the review from Rob Blackwelder of SPLICEDWIRE is rated as "fresh" despite the cited statement from the review: "...but pardon me if I shoot the messenger (ooh, the horrible pun!) for his propagandist approach to the subject that comes close to crippling his credibility." [26] That is far from a ringing endorsement, and it is far from the only doubt expressed in the cited comments, never mind reading the reviews themselves. A less computational reading of the site discloses many such reservations.

But nonetheless, Schrodinger82 has passages like this: "On Rottentomatoes, Scott [the NYT reviewer] still gives this movie a fresh rating, so I think that focusing on the bad comments goes against undue weight." [27] This is a profound misrepresentation of the review, which in fact is shot full of concerns over Moore's representation of the facts. Also, Scott does not assign the "freshness" rating; the RottenTomatoes website does. If one looks at the website more carefully, one sees many reviews where the critic found the movie worth watching but did not agree that it put forth its point well.

At the moment, the article reflects this reasonably well, mostly because nobody can argue that these critics can't be cited at all. However, it presents a rosy picture of the movie's factual contents, because of the appeal to this misleading indicator.

[edit] That the statements of Hardy in particular are defamatory and that therefore we cannot recount them

This focuses on a statement by David T. Hardy to the effect that BFC is not a documentary, because documentaries are supposed to be non-fiction, and yet BFC (he claims) is full of fictions. We all agree that this is a bit of tendentious political posturing on his part and need not be taken seriously as an expert opinion to be expressed as a position OF the article (that is, the article cannot say that BfC is not truly a documentary, citing this statement). There's also a wild claim that Ken Arromdee's statement in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine that "Frankly, many of the Hardy and Kopel criticisms are damning, and impossible to counter" is defamatory (see this edit on the talk page [28]). This is completely off-the-wall, as Ken is plainly expressing his assessment of the situation on a talk-ish page. I personally wouldn't take so aggressive a position, but in the two cases I personally checked it seems clear that Moore's representations are either in error (e.g. the title bowling incident, for which citations have been found that it did not take place) or are flagrant misrepresentations of the truth (e.g. the B-52 memorial). The bank/rifle claims seem to me unclear, and the NRA convention cancellation assertions tend (I think) to run somewhat against Moore, though not absolutely so).

In any case, Hardy's outburst of rhetorical excess does not invalidate his other statements, any more than Moore's own outbursts (that B-52 again) necessarily invalidate his. In theory I think we could quote his statement as a matter of fact, without endorsing the claim. The article does and always will continue to say that the film is a documentary, so I don't think there is any real risk of such a quotation being misinterpreted by accident.

[edit] That since he can argue against the criticism, it is less worthy of inclusion

I have tried to limit my participation in the discussion of the content of the criticism, because I feel that much of it I cannot assess without seeing the actual film. I note, however, that there has been almost no criticism of the accuracy of the recounting of the film, though there has been much concern expressed over its structure and completeness. Therefore I'm not utterly adverse to taking these accounts at face value on specific details.

As I mentioned above, on one point I personally fact-checked, it appears that Kopel has Moore dead-to-rights in a misrepresentation. Kopel's recounting of the actual inscription on the B-52 memorial (which I also found on a different site, though I cannot vouch for their independence) is to my mind credible, and is totally at variance with Moore's statement (as related in the article and elsewhere). But in large part, this is beside the point. The controversy is there whether it is well-grounded or not. If we do our jobs properly, we can report the claims so that the reader can understand the controversy and at the same time see whether it was well-grounded (on both sides). What we are getting instead is that Schrodinger82 is removing any criticism which he feels is not well-grounded. And since he seems to feel that any criticism by Hardy and Kopel is not well-grounded, by his peculiar standards, we are left with a few weaselly sentences which barely admit to the controversy that surrounds Moore. Ken Arromdee has cited this accurately, in my opinion.

[edit] The wikilawyering

Frankly, I haven't bothered to read all the policy dicussion. The point that Moore is a political commentator and can be treated as such in Wikipedia is so obvious that trying to cite policy/guidelines against it is the sort of situation that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is intended to cover-- if indeed Schrodinger82 is citing policy correctly. In terms of making the discussion page an unreadable mess, however, the endless quoting and requoting is a complete triumph. He is simply drowning the discussion in words in a kind of "proof by exhaustion". Likewise, his response in the call for arbitration is anything but concise. Surely it is sufficient to refer to the policies by reference, or at worst short quotations; but we are simply drowning in a sea of unnecessary verbiage. I share Ken Arromdee's frustration at trying to pick substantive pieces of the discussion out. Mangoe 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Schrodinger82

Sorry I didn't post here sooner, I didn't realize that this was still going on, and I never got a message telling me that I would literally be on trial for a specific accusation over something that I never actually stated, and therefore, would never have a chance to defend myself against until the was already made. Excuse the length, but since the arbitrators are aparently deciding whether or not to ban me for a year on comments I never made, apparently it's necessary, since it's going to be much harder to prove a negative than the reverse. If there was a specific claim for me to refute and an established burden of evidence for me to refute it, I would try that instead.

[edit] Kopel is not Relevant

Wikipedia is clear that expert opinions should be from discussing within their own field. Ken's accusation that "Schrodinger82's refusal to accept appropriate sources" assumes that the sources in question are appropriate. Kopel comes from the Cato Institute and National Review, both partisan sources, and do not have any expertise on the their field of question. Their role as "political commentators" is dubious, because we don't even really see any specific examples of specific political beliefs that Moore actually advocates in his movie. In fact, one of the main criticisms that Moore recieves from professional critics is that the movie is vague about the actual message. [29]

For Kopel, the specific statements that I removed was that "Critics of Moore such as 'National Review's Dave Kopel claim it is deceptive to call this film purely a "documentary; because Moore never claims that it is and because Kopel doesn't have the film background to make that assessment. I also removed "Kopel argues that this sequence may lead one to believe is that it is possible to obtain a free gun immediately upon signing an application, without going through the usual legal process of obtaining a firearm.", because it includes an unquantifiable weasel statement, because it's a minority opinion, and because it fails to list any specific details of how Moore misleads people into believing this.

[edit] Hardy is Not A Reputable Source

Hardy isn't reputable source. He isn't an expert. If CNN or FOX News was doing a segment on gun control, for instance, it is doubtful that David Hardy would be anywhere on their list of experts to consult. Moreover, Hardy's abilities at fact checking range somewhere between dubious and poor. For instance, PPGMD has defends Hardy's credibility, claiming that "if you ever read Hardy's site you will see that he quote reviewers (not average joes but professional film reviewers) I decided to verify this on my own. Apparently, the "professional film reviewers" that Hardy cites to bolster his claims comes from a political commentator from "Corvallis Secular Society" [30], a socialist advocacy site on geocities [31], and a user comment at blogcritics.com [32].

Wikipedia is clear on this, sources of dubious reliability should not be included, particularily when making a potentially defametory statement (And Ken himself admits they are. [33]. The burden of proof is on Hardy's defenders, and at no point do they meet it.

[edit] Standards on Defamations on Living Persons Still Apply

Wikipedia standards are high. When making defaming comments on living persons, the standards of reputability are higher than normal. This not only applies to Moore specifically, it also applies to "any material related to living persons". Ken has already acknowledged that these comments are defamatory, by stating that, ""Frankly, many of the Hardy and Kopel criticisms are damning, and impossible to counter." However, he has yet to explain how Hardy and Kopel even meet the normal standards of reputability, much less the heightened standards of reputability that the defamation on living persons requires.

Claims regarding specific statements which Moore made are fair, because they can be factually verified by watching the film. OTOH, statements like "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." are not specific and are not verifiable. Rather than attack a specific statement, this statement attacks Moore's credibility a professional filmmaker, and therefore, his character.

[edit] Established Precedence for Political Commentary on Political Documentaries

Ken has asserted that "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.". Unfortunately, that's NOT enough. The title of "political commentator" is incredibly vague and nebulous. For instance, look at the figures listed in the Political response to "An Inconvenient Truth." and Stolen Honor. All notable figures with actual influence. Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry doesn't even have a criticism section at all. In short, the argument that "We should include all political commentators, regardless of their credentials," just doesn't hold up.

[edit] Film Criticism should be Left to Film Critics

My stance on this is simple. If you're going to criticize Moore for a factual statement, then you should cite the state, as well as a reputable source who cites the contrary. In the past, I have stated that, "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"

However, if you're going to criticize Moore for general comments such as editing, then you're going to need to cite a reputable source e.g., someone whos qualified to analyze it. Not some user comment from blogcritics.com. Some comments, such as "The film is controversial, and some of its critics have gone so far to call for a revocation of the Academy Award because they do not consider Bowling for Columbine a legitimate documentary" present the opinion in a film contexts, about an action within the film industry. The phrase "some of its critics" is not only a weasel phrase, but the context also forces the reader to assume that the critics referred to are critics of film, within the film industry.

[edit] On "Wikilawyering"

I find this claim akin to charging someone with murder, and accusing him of defending himself. The proposed proposals have so far dictated that "Only a referenced claim from reputable outside sources shall be a cause for inclusion." and that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Ken, please show me where you explain how Kopel and Hardy meet this standard. It is a very, very simple request, and you've had nearly two months to fulfil it. Had you done so earlier, there would be no need for arbitration in the first place.

[edit] Claim that "Schrodinger82 fundamentally misinterprets NPOV" is entirely unfounded based on hearsay

The claim is that "He has argued against the inclusion of significant points of view because he feels he can falsify them, or that they are misinformed." This is blatantly false. This was never my argument. In fact, I would like anyone to cite a single example where I argue this. None of the citations provided even come close to showing that I am arguing for against their inclusion because they can be falsified. I was very clear on this matter when I stated that, . ""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."

My real argument is three-fold:

1) That the claims in question are subjective and matters of opinion. Why is this important? Because Ken has argued inclusion on the basis of "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. My point is that the statements in this article do not fit this description. This is what prompted later my response cited by the jury,"Let the facts speak for themselves." Keyword, "facts." If you think Moore is misleading, then present facts showing so. Even after I made the this statement, however, PPGMD continued to assert that these criticisms were matters of opinion by claiming that "I readded the NRA rally content, they are all well sourced, and are blatent examples of the attempt to mislead viewers in the movie. None of the comments are making opinions of the movie." How is the world is arguing that these were "blatent examples of the attempt to mislead viewers" not qualify as "making opinions of the movie"? In fact, even now, Ken continues to assert that the claims have factual basis, by claiming that "Here he mischaracterises criticism of facts", and not "criticisms of opinion." I do not see how it "fundamentally misinterprets NPOV" to assert that the statements of facts should practice fact-checking, and statements of opinion should meet the standards for opinion.

2) Since the criticism in question is a statement of opinion, not fact, then it should meet the NPOV, V, and RS standards of opinion. Meaning that they come from recognized authorities, speaking from within their field.

3) The burden of proof is on those who wish to include a source, not on the others who would prefer to delete it. Fred Bauder and Dmcdevit·t are correct in saying that the falsifiability, on its own, does not merit exclusion. However, what neither of you do is present a single reason on why these passages meet the standards for RS in regards to opinion. Both of you claim to support the idea that "Only a referenced claim from reputable outside sources shall be a cause for inclusion." and that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Yet neither of you have explained why the sources at debate meet this standard, or why a deletion would be uncalled for, except for a deletion based on reasons that I never called for in the first place.

[edit] Statements of Falsifiability Were Treated As Tangential to Main Argument

Any comments on the falsifiability of the passages in question was started off by, "All of this is completely tangential." [34] And later when I added, "Again, tangential." How can you claim that I am basing my arguments on falsifiability, when I say, right from the bat, that they are tangential? I also stated, on that same page, "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." And asked, "(Sigh) Why are you trying to turn this into a political discussion? Sheesh."

In otherwords, the falsifiability of the claims was something that I never even wanted to get into. The only reason I did was because of Ken and others, who tried to argue on factual merit over reputability, and who later claimed that "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. That displays far more bias than I ever have. Ken seems to be advocating a system where any attempt to show why a non-reputable source is non-reputable, even after being challenged specifically to do so [35] [36] [37] [38], somehow allows them to bypass the standards of reputability. It's a basic red herring.

Ken's claims on #8 that my statement on independent verification was "in a context meaning that the truth of the critics' criticism can be independently verified" is a blatant lie. What I meant by "Independently verified" was later clarified as sources which have "separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes," per wikipedia standards. Key issue: Fact checking. Not "truth." Question: If Wikipedia standards call for good fact checking among sources, then how exactly does one bring this up in discussion? Apparently, any attempt to call a source's fact checking into question is now grounds for banning.

[edit] Criticism Should be Based on Actual Statements

Essentially, you are criticizing me for an argument that I never actually made. Which, I suppose is the exact same thing that Ken does when he he attempts to justify his inclusions because "one criticism is that Moore blames the NRA for not cancelling uncancellable events. Which would be a valid thing to critique, except for the fact that Moore does not, in fact, state this. Personally, I'm of the belief that we should criticize people for their actual statements. You accuse me of basing my exclusions on the arguments falsifiability. How exactly am I supposed to present evidence to the contrary here, since it's logically impossible to prove the negative? The closest I ever came to doing this was pointing out that Hardy cites for homicide [39], when the actual graphic that he's scanned in cited for murder. However, since Ken himself has argued that "There is no need for an "expert" when the criticism is of a basic factual error or of a misleading statement," I fail to see how this was out of line. This is not a case of "controversial topics or topics of which he holds strong points of view," as the arbitrators claim. It's a statement of fact regarding verifiable legal statistics. There is no controversy involved. Murder and Homicide are simply not interchangeable, especially when it comes to statistics.

[edit] Evidence Used Against Me Is Incredibly Sketchy

I tried looking at the cited "examples" of why I fundamentally misunderstand NPOV. [40] What do you have? One statement advocating that we let the facts speak for themselves that quoted NPOV [41], one statement re-asserting the proposed principles by pointing out that the sources are non-experts speaking outside of their field, one statement that re-asserted Wikipedia policy [42], and one statement that a criticism is an opinion, not objective. Forgive me if I'm having trouble seeing which comment was out of line, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding. For instance, let's look at the last comment. Are the arbitrators implying that the editing is objectively misleading, and therefore not an opinion? I'm confused here.

Since the accusation against me is entirely unfounded and are based on statements that were tangential to my main argument, and specifically presented and qualified as being tangential in advanced, I request that you reconsdier your decision and base it on the actual statements, rather than on the hearsay from the other side on what they were "supposed" to have meant. -Schrodinger82 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)