Jump to content

Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Concern over original research

My concern relates to original research: the editors that have created this article are reporting directly about a primary source (the documentary). As such, the choice of quotes and commentary is original research of the editors of the article. For this article to be compliant with WP content policies, the article needs to report just basic information about what the documentary is itself, and leave it at that. If there are reports by reliable sources that describe this documentary or the controversy surrounding it, these can be used in the article, if properly attributed. For more details see WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism site, or an advocay site. It is an encyclopedia that reports what secondary, reliable sources have said about a subject. It is not the role of editors to describe primary sources, in particular when the subject is controversial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There were some instances of editors reporting their opinions about the movie, but that was not the biggest problem about this article. (That kind of original research is easily removed, and you'll notice that editors participating on both sidesof the above debate also have been removing that kind of original research.) So your concern in that regard is allready taken care of. The problem was that non-original controversy and criticism was included from third party sources that did not meet Wikipedia's demand for verifiability. The current dispute is about the verifiability, notability and relevancy of non-original research, and we'd like to hear your opinion on that issue. In your view, are the only persons that are allowed to call a movie "deceptive" other documentary film makers and entertainment journalists, or are the opinions of political journalists and authors published by reputable publishers also relevant, as you understand Wikipedia's content policies? --GunnarRene 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
To me, there do not appear to be any such policies. And indications in other policies contradict the idea, for instance the notion that according to WP:V a self-published document by a professional journalist would be an acceptable source. If the status of being a professional journalist is enough to sidestep this restriction, I'm sure it also covers their professionally-published opinions on what is, in essence, somebody else's journalism. Indeed, I'd say WP:NPOV almost requires their input to be shown: it is a significant POV; the fact that these journalists are popular suggests a significant number of people agree with them. Looking back at this article's history, I can see that a lot of good information, established by reference to what appear to be good sources (to my eyes, although note I am British and therefore not thoroughly familiar with the biases of the people involved), seems to have been deleted. And that's a shame. JulesH 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me do an exercise in active listening. By "To me, there do not appear to be any such policies." you don't mean that "Wikipedia has no content policies" but you meant that "there are no policies that would support the view that only entertainment journalists get to comment on a movie's truthfulness and potential deceptiveness"? --GunnarRene 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Jules, it is not enough to be a professional journalist, you also have to be well known. Even then, you still have to exercise caution, meaning that simply being a prefessional journalist in itself does not constitute a "free pass" or "sidestep" to overcoming Wikipedia standards. For instance, Tom Brokaw would be a well known journalist. Walter Cronkite would be a well known journalist. Edward R. Murrow would be a well known journalist. Bob Woodward would be a well known journal. Even Maureen Dowd and Judith Miller might qualify as well known journalists. Dave Kopel, however, is not in that league. He is not a hoursehold name, he is not well recognized in the field. Is the man even a reporter who has to do his own investigations, or is he simply an op-ed guy? I checked his bio on Wikipedia, and it specifies no awards, no notable accomplishments, nothing that would ever warrant being on the national news.
Even if you didn't consider that, however, I should point out that most professional film critics are also professional journalist. And unlike Kopel, they meet the WikiProjects style guidelines, stating 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. Now, if Dave Kopel is a professional journalist who hates the movie and Roger Ebert is a professional journalist who likes the movie, then why are we quoting Kopel but not Ebert? Are you telling me that it's because Kopel is more well known than Ebert? Is it because because Kopel's knowledge is more relevant to the field? Is it because Kopel's view is more in line with the majority among professional journalists? No, no, and no. Vastly on all three. Gunnar states that Kopel is a "professional opinion journalist," so you can't even cite him on "factual representation," since that's not what he's known for. He's known for his opinions, just like film critics are known for their opinions, and the vast majority of film critics support this film. NPOV is clear that while you should represent opinions fairly, you should not give undue weight to minority views. BFC has a 96% rating on Rottentomatoes, meaning that 96% of professional film critics enjoy this movie. It would be a clear violation of NPOV to give the majority of the article to the 4% that disagrees. It would especially be a a violation to give that majority to an opinion writer who isn't even involved in the film industry. Has a lot of information been deleted? Sure, because it didn't meet the basic standards. If you would still like to see the information, then you are more than free to check out the external links. -Schrodinger82 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there are ongoing disputes about the article and an ArbCom case being presented. My concern does not relate to the specifics of the current dispute, but to the problem I see with the article as it stands now: most of the article is a description of the documentary. Question is who's description? Unless the description of this documentary is sourced from reliable, secondary published sources, that content is original research. The "Film content" section is most, if not all, original research. That section needs to be paired down substantially. The analysis of the documentary section, should describe the significant/competing viewpoints published in reputable sources, without being tempted to assert any specific viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the section Bowling_for_Columbine#What_a_Wonderful_World, is an example of what WP:NOR warns us about (my highlight): Articles may not contain [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position'.. The argumentation (i.e. the use of "however", "critics say", "Large factions critical of American Foreign policy", etc.) all points out to original research, maybe well meaning, but OR nontheless. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You are correct on that, the person making the claim was removed by the Schrodinger (I think, not sure might have been done by DJ_Clayworth, or Banno), claiming that the who (I think it was Kopel) was not notable. PPGMD 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that those sentences are unsupported. I've added some tags. if no support is forthcoming I think removal is in order. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Film pages have their own guidelines, and can include plot descriptions (e.g., content.). Look up the pages for any major movie for an example. Occasionally, this is done even for episodes of TV show. In a documentary, you would basically outline the major points. This is covered under the NPOV section of Wikipedia dealing with facts. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. No one seriously disputes the plot outline as it is. The only tricky thing is the balancing act of which details to include and which details to leave out, but the best rule of thumb is that the level of detail is consistent. It should be noted that the synopsis for the pilot episode of "Heroes" is still much longer than the entire plot summary for BFC, and no one disputes that either.
BTW, on that note, I should point out that there is a difference between facts and opinion. That the film grossed X dollars and got a Y rating on rottentomatoes is a fact. That it received a 13 minute standing ovation is a fact. That fact that Moore walks out of the bank with a rifle is a fact. OTOH, the idea that Moore makes it look like the bank is doing something illegal is merely an opinion. Right now, the criticisms have maybe 50% of the article, but they also have 100% of the opinions. We have cited absolutely no one who praises the film, even though they consistute the majority view among industry insiders and professional film critics. How in the world is having 100% of the views opinions unbalanced against the anti-Moore crowd? -Schrodinger82 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I am unconcerned that editors take it upon themselves to recount the plots of movies, or in this case transcribe part of it. It is one of the rare cases where a secondary source is less desirable, because in any case consideration of that secondary source must inevitably be based on having actually seen the movie. If we cannot trust editors to recount the movie, we cannot trust them to relate another's account. Mangoe 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Major disagreement here, Mangoe. Think of the reader: he/she does not give a hoot for what you and other respected editors think of the movie or if they have watched it or not. Readers expect we give them sources that they can feel comfortable with as it pertains to reliability. They can only trust what we tell them we found, so as editors we provide the reader with sources which they can verify if in doubt. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You've expanded my point well beyond what I said. I spoke only of the plot summary, not "what editors think of the movie". Anything beyond the plot summary is (in essence) a news piece documenting the world's reaction to the movie, and clearly this all has to be conventionally sourced. Within Wikipedia, however, we are in the curious situation that (presuming that the movie has been widely seen) plot summaries are peer-reviewed. I do not think we get better reviewing by relying on a third party to review a secondary source, precisely because our own review is going to rely on our own memory of the movie.
In any case this is a red herring. There is no controversy over the depiction of this movie's content, though there has been objection that the summary and the evaluation are too commixed. Mangoe 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As for a comment somewhere above that there are special guidelines fo films, note that there is only some suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but that is not an official guideline although it provides some good info). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy"?

The critics defend their stance because they feel we should represent the controversy. My question is this: What controversy? The dictionary defines controversy as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion" and "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." Can anyone name any specific acts of controversy (e.g., prolonged debate and discussions of actual consequence) that have occured as a result of this movie? For instance, if we were writing about the Intelligent Design controversy, that would be notable because there have been actual court cases on whether or not intelligent design belongs in schools, with the future curriculum of public classrooms at stake (e.g., policy decision of actual consequence). There have also been surveys done showing that a identifiable and quantifiable population believes in it. Hence, we can report it, even if the main proponents have yet to write peer reviewed and are not recognized authorities on the subject.

For instance, IMO, An Inconvenient Truth generated far more controversy than BFC did. Furthermore, given the fact that Gore was nearly president and makes frequent references to how he attempted to address global warming while in office and what we need to do in the future, it is also far more political than BFC. There are lobbyists and scientists out there, a few of them peer reviewed, who are paid good money to debunk Gore's claims. Yet, look at the criticisms section of that page. Very, very short, and very, very concise. It's not because there aren't websites out there from published writers nitpicking Gore's arguments, it's because those nitpicks aren't notable. They do mention that Gore has critics, but the article keeps these criticisms in context of their views, and no one speaks outside of their field. Further, each critic posted is in some way notable in their field. In the "Political response" section, you see statements from George Bush, the DCI Group, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley. These are important figures in the field of politics. David Hardy and Dave Kopel are not. The fact is, there is no "real" controversy for BFC. There are no court cases, no public debates, nothing. Not even a call to boycott. All we have is a is an incredibly successful movie on one side, and a small handful of detractors with no real authority or influence on the other. As far as I can tell, the only thing that Hardy really seems to be advocating for is for people to buy his book and listen to his views, and Wikipedia is not a website for advertisements. Yet there is absolutely nothing of note he hopes to accomplish from there. -Schrodinger82 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting summation of the problem. All that those who disagree with you need do, in order to demonstrate the existence of a controversy, is to provide links to notable critics. But it is more fun, and easier, to whinge than to do proper research. Banno 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's like Ed Helms on the Daily Show, discussing gay marriage. "Yeah! Why take the time to do the research, when saying it is so much faster?" -Schrodinger82 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Notwithstanding that this version is much better than previous ones, I am still concerned that several sections of the article are in violation of WP:NOR. For example, the section "What a Wonderful World" contains synthesis of published arguments. For the article not to violate WP:NOR material sourced to a reliable publication needs to be found that present the contradictions described in these sections. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before that criticism came from a source that was removed by a previous user under WP:RS, until we get a ruling on how WP:RS applies it's unlikely that anyone would be able to cite the source. PPGMD 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to take as hard a stance against this one since it can be factually verified. -Schrodinger82 21:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Schrodinger: I just wanted to say "good improvement" on the critics section. DJ Clayworth 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been taken to arbitration, which means that continuing to edit the article is a really bad idea. Ken Arromdee 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean mediation? In which case, continued editing is not a problem. Banno 07:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean what I say. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bowling_for_Columbine. Three arbitrators have accepted it so far (And no, I was not the person who took it there.) Ken Arromdee 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm nonplussed. What a waste of arbitration's time. Banno 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even sure of what they're accusing me of exactly. I get that they don't appreciate my actions, but I have yet to see anything to show why they are out of line. -Schrodinger82 00:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should look at the five points raised by User:Ken Arromdee and myself over in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine. Mangoe 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
And not one of those is in any way against Wikipedia guidelines/policies, except for Ken's, which isn't even true. -Schrodinger82 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the Role of Municipal Governance

I've removed this piece to talk:

The American Prospect published a piece by Garance Franke-Ruta criticizing the movie for ignoring the role that municipal governance plays in crime in America, and ignoring African-American urban victims of crime to focus on the unusual events of Columbine. "A decline in murders in New York City alone—from 1,927 in 1993 to 643 in 2001 — had, for example, a considerable impact on the declining national rate. Not a lot of those killers or victims were the sort of sports-hunters or militiamen Moore goes out of his way to interview and make fun of."[1]

It simply does not do justice to the comments by Garance (whoever he/she is). The cited article is more about black urban violence than it is about municipal governance. But Moore does interview several black folk in the course of the film; so perhaps again this is not a good piece of criticism to choose for the Wiki article... Banno 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are missing the point, Wikipedia is about Verifiabillity. We can verify that she said these comments. She's a borderline notable jouralist. PPGMD 00:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So the comments were easy to find; but that Moore ignored the role of municipal governance is only a very small part of the overall criticism she presents. Why choose one aspect, and present it with such a feeble backing? Banno 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure it may only be a small part of her comments, but we also have the Undue weight concern, you were so worried about the Kopel and Hardy comments being too big, this is the right size for each critic IMO. If you want to expand it go ahead, but the removal for this reason has no place and I am going to add this section back also. PPGMD 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
So there is really not much point in attempting to move this article along. Criticism is to be rejected, revision reverted. Then the article is doomed to remain in the start classification. Banno 05:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But the really silly thing is that the re-introduction of the piece completely misses the criticism that is actually offered by Garance - that Moore Focuses on "uneducated rednecks" and "big corporations" when the main problem is Black and urban. The Garance article talks about municipal governance only incidentally; yet that is what is focused on, presumably to support the heading... Really silly. Banno 08:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Taliban funding

Cut from the article:

Critics point [who?] to a statement in this sequence saying that the US gave $245 million to "Taliban-ruled Afghanistan" (see above). Although literally correct in the sense that the US did give the aid, its placement in a list of evil acts by the US and its careful wording suggest that the US gave the aid to the Taliban, when in fact this was humanitarian aid that was sent through the UN and nongovernmental organizations, and was intended to bypass the Taliban.[2]

Not only are the critics not named, but the link provided accounts for only a small portion of the funds provided to Afghanistan. That is, the second sentence presents an unreferenced POV - that the wording gives a particular impression; and the link provided is insufficient to support the conclusion reached. Banno 21:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gun ownership

From the page:

Moore argues that high gun ownership is not responsible for violence in America, and instead argues that there must be something about the American psyche and the media that makes the nation uniquely prone to high rates of murder and shootings. In support of his claims, Moore argues that Canadian gun ownership levels are as high as the U.S. Ben Fritz in Spinsanity said in this respect that "Moore ignores the fact that Canada has significantly fewer handguns and a much stricter gun licensing system."[3]

Yes, Fritz does make that assertion. But he does not support it with any citations; can someone locate a primary source that can verify this? Why is Fritz a notable commentator? Banno 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We aren't here to verify that the facts are true. Simply that they said them. Spinsanity and Fritz are notable, and have a long history. Long enough that they can be considered a reliable source. I readded the section. PPGMD 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Then why doesn't Fritz deserve his own Wiki article? I wouldn't know him from a bar of soap. But you miss the point entirely. Consider two articles. The first shows that Ben Fritz claims Canadians have fewer handguns; the other points to official statistics showing that Canadians have fewer handguns. Which presents the better criticism of Moore's claim? Banno 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Except that linking to the stats directly is Original Research. Wikipedia makes no claims, it simply cites knowledge that others have found or interpreted. As far as a Wikipedia article, not every columnist, journalist, or researcher needs their own articles. That doesn't mean that they aren't citeable or a Reliable Source. PPGMD 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"linking to the stats directly is Original Research" - what an extraordinary claim! Either there are more handguns per capita in the US or in Canada; why can't the Wiki say which is true? A link and a bit of re-wording is all that is needed. But even taking your statement as true, can't you find anyone else who actually makes use of the statistics? If you are content with such a poor criticism, then let it be. But it again shows how poor the research is on this article. Banno 23:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's true, linking to the stats and claiming that he is wrong violates WP:V and WP:OR. Spinsanity was the precursor to sites like Factcheck, they don't hold a bias and research the facts behind political rhetoric. Check the site out, they have articles on most major figures on the political scene. Spinsanity easily researches the threshold for WP:RS. PPGMD 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So, as I said, you find someone who says Moore is wrong, and who cites the statistics. Or you say "Fritz claims such-and-such. Statistics show such-and-such" with appropriate links. Banno 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't have a problem with it, but there are others that might. Many take a more strict view then I do on how WP:OR is applied. It may get deleted later by someone how has a stricter view then I do because we are only supposed to link to Secondary sources when their is interpretation involved. PPGMD 23:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's leave that. Banno

In any case, there are other problems with the paragraph. If the topic is Gun Ownership, then there should be more about Moore's own comments, as well as discussion from other commentators - there must be something out there that is better than a parenthetic comment by a web hack. A better approach might be to delete this section, and instead create a section on the whole Fritz article, setting his criticisms out one by one. Banno 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"web hack" must you and Schrodinger attack anyone that doesn't say that Moore's movie is the best movie ever made. Ben Fritz is a respected journalist (Spinsanity is only a side project for him), Spinsanity was very well regarded until they stopped updating it in 2005, and not only that the editors of Spin Sanity including Fritz are progressive democrats. PPGMD 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is not evident in the article. As I said, he does not have a Wiki page; there is no Wiki page for Spinsanity; there is no mention of his background, no explanation of the justification for citing him as the critic of choice in this context. Sure, he might be a prominent journalist - but the article doesn't tell me this, or provide a way for me to find out. He appears to be a web hack. I also think you might better assume good will on my part; my point is only that the criticism presented in the article are rather poor. I would like to see a better critique of the film. Banno 04:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Not every article is a me me me article about the author. Nor does every source have to have a Wikipedia article, personally I think that at the very least Spinsanity needs it's own article on Wikipedia. Now if you want to know about Ben Fritz the easiest way to is visit the site and click the about link. It's not an in depth bio but it provides you the basics that you need to know about him and the other contributors to the site. I am sorry AGF doesn't stops when you start insult sources, perhaps you need to choose you words a bit wisely. PPGMD 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The question remains, in a section about gun ownership, why use Fritz? It would be better to replace this section with a section on the criticisms in the Fritz article. Banno 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Because at the time it was added it was likely the only Internet available Reliable Source on the subject. As with the above section, if you want to expand it, and rename it, go ahead. But based on your past actions when a section gets removed by you, you make no attempts of making the fixes and reading the information. PPGMD 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll put it on my to-do list. The idea of putting things on the talk page was to draw attention to their inadequacy in the hope that someone will improve them. But your idea of leaving junk on the main article might work just as well. Banno 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

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

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

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

Pro-Gun Group Opinions Part Deux

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

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

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

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

Charlton Heston

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

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


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

Perceived ambush

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

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

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


Moore was operating with one camerman. The cameraman videos Moore shouting a question as Heston is walking down the stairs. He also captures Heston turning around as the question is shouted at him. How was the cameraman beside Moore as the question was asked but also facing the camera down at Heston as he was going down the stairs at the same time without moving the camera? 86.45.58.243 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dick Clark

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


I applaud the question above. Mention of the issue are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Clark under the heading: "Other media appearances." That entry led me to this "Columbine" Wiki entry. I arrive and gasp in extreme despair seeing nary a mention of the issue. Sniff. Sob. But I do applaud all (one human unit?) who created the Columbine entry. In my ongoing research about class war within the USA this entry provides one more piece of support, one of many thousands, that verify a belief I arrived at in the early 1980s. Thanks to all who have made the MANY so very helpful Wiki entries!!!!!Obbop (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bowling alone

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

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

Special Criticisms: It's A Wonderful World

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

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

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

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

Good points, but you hit on one of my pet peeves in using "comprised" as if it means "composed".Heqwm 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We do not know that Robin Cook was speculating. He was, during his career, the British Foreign Secretary. He naturally spoke to, and was friendly with, many of his counterparts. He was a member of the No. 10 cabinet during Sept. 2001. He was one of the few qualified people to read all of the available intelligence on Iraqi WMD. (He resigned days before the war, saying the Intel was very flimsy). It could be that his statement on bin Laden is based on underlying intelligence that has not yet been brought out, or, yes, he could be speculating. (Though I'd be very surprised if a man of his stature would try to pass idle speculation off as fact.) Whatever the case, his statement is notable and worthy of inclusion. smb 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
as I understand it both Osama and the CIA deny that funding and training was ever given to Bin Laden. Obviously due to the covert nature, we can't be sure either way, but the mutual denial is something. Of course, one must wonder how anti soviet tactics, were used in the 9/11 attacks. bottomline, saying the CIA funded Bin Laden is speculation 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Too much criticism

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

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

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

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

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

I fail to see the problem with that.

first of all it is an honesty thing, also, banks are not places we usually see guns. this is typically cited as a criticism of the film, therefore it belongs in the article. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I, too have the feeling that there is a lot of criticism in this article compared to theversion of other countries (Germany for instance). In the German article there is also a section about the production and launch of the movie, saying that Moore was only able to produce the film with the support of a Canadian production firm and a German film fund, no American film company wanted to participate in a film about this topic. Only after the success of the film in Cannes, MGM bought the rights for distribution in the USA. I am also missing the information, that the film is on rank 3 of the most successful documentary movies of all times and that it was launched on october 11th 2002 in only eight (!) movie theatres.DaveRocka (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the Irrelevance!

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

Gun control

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

Presumably, it wasn't loaded. Maikel (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Gun safety classes tells us "to treat all guns as is they are loaded!" so still it is unsafe. You presume its unloaded but you never know!Dockofusa (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
While in the movie he states he is a "lifetime member" of the NRA, that does not mean he was a member for life, but payed $750 for permanent membership, as opposed to the $25/year 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Americans = Cowboys

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

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

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

Please provide references and/or evidence of your claims, thank you.--71.139.35.114 (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

the population of the US is about equal to that of the whole EU, plus the EU have stricter gun laws. Hence higher rates of knife crime. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The murder rates is indicated in murders per 100.000, so the total population of the countries in question is irrelevant.DaveRocka (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What a Wonderful World criticism

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

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

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

U.S. didn't "install" the Shah of Iran. He was in power since 1941.--Auspx (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think saying the US overthrew Mosaddeq and installed the Shah the most precise way to put it, but it is the way it is most commonly put. the definition of coup has varying connotations, and parliamentary monarchies have a complicated system of rule that makes the situation less clear, but I don't think this article is the place to go into details 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun ownership

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

I just think it's ironic that states and municipalities with more gun control typically have higher crime rates. In Switzerland, people are legally required to own guns, yet they have the lowest crime rate in Europe. Ironically, the Swiss government pays more attention to the sale of Ammunition than Firearms. It reminds me of Chris Rock's stand-up act from Bigger And Blacker.

Gun ownership and sales have recently been strongly curtailed in Switzerland (8-20-2009)We'll see if violent crime decreases, now...or Not?70.171.235.197 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, since BFC, the UK has strongly curtailed firearms, making semi-automatic rifles and shotguns nearly impossible for the general populous to own. Meanwhile, violent crime has increased 300% in Scotland, alone, since these new laws....70.171.235.197 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

“Gun control? We need bullet control!" "I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there wouldn't be any more innocent bystanders.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what had happened to this section. To me, it was the most legitimate criticism of Moore's arguments in the film, that he did not make a distinction between different kinds of guns or the environments in which they are owned, and he should. As I understand the argument, it runs like this: The vast majority of guns available in Canada are hunting rifles owned by people in rural areas, whereas the vast majority of gun deaths in America come from handguns in inner cities. Handguns are far more difficult to obtain in Canada than in America, and even the sale of hunting rifles is far more regulated, yet none of this is taken into account. Of course, I can see that this argument needs a source to be taken seriously, but it's a shame that it is gone entirely now... --Susurrus (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While many Swiss have an automatic rifle at home as part of their military service, the munitions are registered and sealed. So you can't pop off a single shot, or even just load the gun without firing it, without kicking off a public inquiry. And also that privilege is currently under review because it is seen as outdated, as the threat of an unexpected invasion nowadays is esoteric at best.
If you compare the geostrategic positions of Switherland and the USA, this should provide ample food for thought for the NRA, methinks. Maikel (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Swiss militia membeers are given a service pack of ammo for emergency call up that is kept sealed. They are also supplied surplus ammo and encouraged to buy their own ammo for target practice. The idea that the only ammo allowed to Swiss militia members is the service pack is a very old anti-gun propaganda meme dating back to Carl Bakal in the 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.92.77 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Moore's handling of the rifle

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

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

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

Actually, it is very notable. Handling guns in a given location is irrelevant. The measure of safety comes from the person's (read Michael Moore, the person holding the firearm) adherance to the basic principles of firearms safety. In this case Michael Moore caused the unsafe situation through his own lack of adherance to one of the primary tenets: "Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire." Personal responsibility is key, you can not blame a location for someone's (again, read Michael Moore) lack of responsibility, but you most certainly can blame the person. ~ Yaiv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaivenov (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Just include a citation and it wont be reverted. 92.0.138.3 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If it was Michael Moore's intent to make the teller feel insecure -- by bringing the rifle to his shoulder and pointing the muzzle as though he wished to fire it, before cracking a joke: "Is [it] not dangerous handing out guns in a bank?" -- then the criticism is a pointless one indeed. It's a bit like criticising a stuntman for endangering the lives of those around him. Dynablaster (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section leaves out a lot of actual criticism.

Why doesn't the Criticism section cite David Hardy's article? He has researched and pointed out 10 serious errors/distortions in Bowling for Columbine. For an award-winning documentary that's pretty inexcusable. From Hardy's site:

Incidentally, Moore has issued a webpage responding to criticism. In so doing, he actually admits that much of the above criticism is accurate. He did splice the Willie Horton ad, and Heston's "cold dead hands" was never spoken at Denver, and his statistics do stem from those of the Center for Disease Control, which include self-defense and police shootings of perps. As far as the rest of the criticisms above -- strange, but Moore doesn't have an answer.

Why isn't this information in the article?--Auspx (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this information WAS in the article last time I checked - as noted a few sections up, the criticism section appears to have been gutted several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.177.138 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request

There's a missing period where I've put ** below. I couldn't make the edit myself because the page is locked. Thanks! Geekdiva (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He says that fear leads Americans to arm themselves, to gun making-companies' advantage** Moore suggests sarcastically that bowling could have been just as responsible for the attacks on the school as Marilyn Manson or even Bill Clinton, who launched bombing attacks on several countries around that time.[4]

Fixed. {{editprotected}} may be used to attract attention to non-controversial edits to locked articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the role of municipal governance

I find that section not pertinent as a criticism of the movie. I've read it a couple of times but still don't understand how this constitutes valid criticism of the movie. Maikel (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Movie sequence about guns

In the sequence about guns, KKK, the NRA, slavery, ect why is not in the article?? Dockofusa (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The historic revisionism in Bowling for Columbine creates the impression that there is a connection between guns, KKK, NRA and slavery.

The NRA's first presidents included Union Generals Ambrose Burnside, Ulysses S. Grant and Philip H. Sheridan none of whom were Klansmen and all of whom fought to end slavery. In the 1960s, the NRA was criticised by "TRB" for supplying Civilian Marksmanship Program firearms to black civil rights groups for self defense and Charlton Heston marched with MLK when it was neither trendy nor chic. Don B. Kates, a civil rights attorney often quoted by NRA, wrote about his experience in the 1960s civil rights turmoil: "As a civil rights worker in a Southern state during the early 1960s, I found that the possession of firearms for self-defense was almost universally endorsed by the black community, for it could not depend on police protection from the KKK." --Don B. Kates Jr. on pages 186-187, Restricting Handguns: the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, North River Press, 1979. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking of other issues

The disputes on this article appear to generally tend to flare up when people add text rebutting claims made in the film or rebutting said rebuttals. Generally speaking, it is best practice to provide an in-text link to the article which discusses an issue in-depth, and restrict the text here to the effects of the film itself. Can we try to argue about what sources say about the film instead of arguing whether the film is right or wrong? I would prefer not to lock this article from editing again, but currently there is far too little attempt to attain consensus here for contentious edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As a sign of good faith here; I've moved the entire Switzerland portion to the statistics section under critisisms. Hopefully this will bring this to conclusion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"The disputes on this article appear to generally tend to flare up when people add text rebutting claims made in the film or rebutting said rebuttals."
The dispute revolves around user Williamsburgland's determination to add sources that nowhere mention Bowling For Columbine nor Michael Moore by name, including an old Usenet posting dated 1998 and a WSJ article dated 1999. Please examine his edits carefully. The only source that postdates Moore's film also happens to be self-published, which precludes its inclusion. I have explained this to William on two other separate occasions, and pointed out the relevant guideline which one may find helpful, but still he insists on adding dubious sources to the article. Dynablaster (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bowling for Columbine. Please raise additional issues there that I may have missed. Please also allow and encourage outside input, as the major participants here are already at an impasse. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already chosen to invoke a 'pick your battles' stance on this; but I do want to point out that I did not add the statistics section in critisisms, I merely added the critisism to the article under the main statistics section. During both 'edit wars' Dynablaster made no attempt to engage in open discussion, but instead continued to revert until I brought the issue to aministrator attention, both this time and last. Only now is he being in any way civil (note that he tagged the statistics section and added his own uncited material after the administrator made the call). Please examine his edits carefully as well...the user's POV stances have been called into question in the past, and he has been accused of sock puppetry. I have no desire to deal with his childish attitude any longer. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
''Dynablaster made no attempt to engage in open discussion, but instead continued to revert until I brought the issue to aministrator attention, both this time and last. Only now is he being in any way civil"
Really? Then how do you explain the polite notes I left on your talk page during the month of October? [15] (see 'Self-published material') Dynablaster (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You politely said that it was your way or the highway...you declined to discuss either position and instead continued warring without real justification or elaborating. Even my request to move this to the talk page was ignored. When the above admin suggested the same, and I suggested a compromise by moving my edit to the statistics section under criticisms you tagged it, added your own edit (again, breaking your own rule) and POOF, it was removed a couple days later. Again, let me reiterate, I was trying to improve an article that is lacking in the many, many critiques that were made of the subject matter that have been made and are of note. Your edit behavior and edit history tells me you care little about what is of note and more about the subject matter and views it espouses. This isn't worth my time...I just regret that folks like you are able to sneak their personal/political opinions into Wikipedia. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually going to wrap up here by going out on a limb and noting that I did lose my temper the first time we interacted with my third comment to you. I still maintain that you didn't do much to open dialouge or come to compromise. Regardless of your personal opinion, remember that the film in question makes some pretty strong statements and that the article should describe, but not represent those statements, and if it must, it should also notes that the film maker(s) may have made some ommissions at the very least, and that this has been noted by independent sources. I'm done...best of luck to you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"You politely said that it was your way or the highway..."
No, I was merely following the rules. I didn't make them up. They exist for a reason. Dynablaster (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

South Park

I just watched the film and I would swear that it's Trey Parker and not Matt Stone that Moore interviews. PurpleChez 2/9/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.254.115 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

what makes criticism notable

I see a lot of people saying that certain criticisms are invalid, or not that big of a deal. that is irrelevant. what makes a criticism important and belong in the article, is its use by critics. If the critic is important, if all the critics point it out, these types of things matter, not if you don't agree that it is a criticism. For example; the portrayal of the gun from the bank is pointed out by most critics, and Ebert is a leading movie critic, so whatever he says about a movie is important. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what makes sentences readable? Capitalization and proper use of punctuation. You might want to go learn about those things. Knowing how to actually use English the right way kinda helps when you want people to take you seriously Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate of fear and negative comments

"Moore attempts to contrast this with the attitude prevailing in Canada, where (he states) gun ownership is at similar levels to the U.S." As well as sounding like at opinion, the general tone of this line seems hostile. Might not this line be changed to read: "Michael Moore contrasts this with the attitude prevailing in Canada - where gun ownership is at similar levels to the U.S."?

92.16.147.133 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gun ownership in Canada is not at similar levels to the U.S., which is probably why the previous editor added the '(he states)' part since the statement as written was not factually correct. In the film, Moore's point wasn't with respect to all of Canada, merely specific areas where the local gun ownership levels are similar (or higher) than U.S. averages. I've edited the line to reflect this.

67.70.59.184 (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bowling for Columbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowling for Columbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bowling for Columbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bowling for Columbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Garance Franke-Ruta, Moore's the Pity, The American Prospect, November 22, 2002
  2. ^ Labott, Elise (2001). "U.S. gives $43 million to Afghanistan". CNN.
  3. ^ Ben Fritz (Nov ember 19, 2002). "Viewer Beware". Spinsanity. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine/Archive_4&oldid=1135972742"