Case Opened on 17:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 05:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Initiated by PPGMD at 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is pirmarily about the application and meaning of Wikipedia policies as applied to political critics on the Bowling for Columbine page.

Bowling for Columbine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PPGMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Schrodinger82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ken Arromdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine Mediation Cabal Case Mediation Cabal Case

Statement by {PPGMD}

This started recently when Schrodinger82 used

WP:RS

as a reason for removing much of the criticism of the film Bowling for Columbine. When attempting to argue in favor of the inclusion including citing policies that are much more relavent, he engages in Wikilawyering finding little technicallities that support his position rather then following the spirit.

He argues with WP:RS that they are self published/personal websites, we offer to switch them to their books or articles they wrote in National Magizine; he argues that they aren't notable, we argue that they are showing google searches, New York Times Best Seller list, et al; he argues that they aren't experts in film editing, we argue that such expertise is not needed as it's a political movie. It goes back and forth like that.

Here are some of the policies based on who he uses them:

WP:RS

- A guideline written mostly for citing factual information, no nessarily written for citing political opinions, but the spirit is that you should cite sources that have a reputation of being good. He argues that via the expert clause the critics must be experts in films of some sort.

WP:V

- He interpets this as to mean that we must be able to verify that what they are saying is true, not that they said it like the policy says.

WP:NPOV

- The user claims on a technicality that since the critics are not experts in film editing, or in any other film making aspect that their viewpoint is not one that matters for this article. We feel that this neglects that fact that the movie makes a political point and this viewpoint is held by a significant minority, thus criticism transcends film making as they aren't trying to argue that Moore used the wrong angle, film stock, or any other particulars to a film maker.

Those are the relavent policies, the user also cities other policies which are out of place in this dispute. Attempts in outside opinions simply end up with Schrodinger saying that they are wrong and citing policies.

I have attempted to propose a compromise as I agree with some of his points, for example I felt that the criticism section was too long and was giving Undue weight to the Pro-gun critics, and I suggested a much shorter version of the section that simply cites Hardy and Kopel as critics and follows all the Wikipedia policies. Schrodinger82 rejected this compromise.

Ultimately I would like to get a ruling on the policies and how they apply in particular to the criticism of Hardy and Kopel. Links:

Response to JzG: Yes it is for the most part a content issue, but it's one that is unlikely to get resolved via any method available to us. The discussion with the user goes round and round. If Wikilawyer is an offense then I support it's actionable, but I don't see anything that shows it's an actionable offense, just seen as a bad idea. Evidence that we have attempted to solve the content issue can be seen above in the Mediation Cabal case, and in the talk page, there are extensive discussions, none going anywhere.

Statement by Mangoe

I came into this as an observer from the Wikipedia:Expert retention effort and its child guideline, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Except for a minor formatting fix and the removal of a dubious categorization, I have not edited the article. I am largely interested in this out of a concern over the principles that Schrodinger82 is trying to establish.

He is pushing four points:

That only film makers and critics may cited as critics of a
documentary. I do not accept this theory, and I do not believe that the public in general accepts it. In general the factual content is fair game for anyone who cares to do the necessary fact-checking, but it is especially appropriate for those familiar with the field to do so. And in the case of political and social commentary in a documentary, it is reasonable for writers from the major political and social commentary media (in this case, National Review
') to respond.

That David T. Hardy and Dave Kopel are not sufficiently notable to merit mention as critics. Those who follow the wikilinks will find articles on both men in Wikipedia, and both are there cited as Moore antagonists. In any case citations in the general media can be found where they are taken as noted opponents to Moore, and these citations have been supplied.

That majority acclaim for the documentary negates adverse reviews, no matter how prominent the reviewer. I found it trivial to find negative reviews, includng that in the
New York Times
. It seems to me that the picture of near universal acclaim is exaggerated.

That the statements of Hardy in particular are defamatory and that therefore we cannot recount them. It is clear to me that we can repeat them as long as we make it clear that it is Hardy speaking, and not Wikipedia. (It also seems to me that the claim is exaggerated.)

All of this is part of a strategy to essentially deny that there was any substantial criticism of the film. It is a profound misrepresentation of the reality that Moore is a figure of deepest political controversy. There have been some attempts to rectify prior issues with the article (particularly its structural flaws) but Schrodinger82 is burying the talk page in wikilawyering to prevent efforts from advancing. I am particularly concerned to see that the principles by which he opposes edits do not get taken as precedents for policies or guidelines. I confess that I have already edited

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to reflect some of the points I have made here; there have been no subsequent changes to the guideline, however, and I think that most people would accept the additions I have made. Mangoe 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to add that I concur with the fifth point raised by Ken Arromdee. Mangoe 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ken Arromdee

I think that most if not all of Schrodinger82's removals were inappropriate.

It's hard to fully analyze his reasons for removing everything he removed, because of the huge quantity of text he's written and quoted. But his main reasons--as far as I can tell--seem unjustified. I think Mangoe has summarized them pretty well, though inevitably a few points weren't covered. It seems to me that Schrodinger82 doesn't want to see Moore criticized and is grasping at straws trying to find rules to justify removing the criticism.

However, I'd add a fifth point to Mangoe's four. Schroedinger82 is also pushing the idea:

That since he can argue against the criticism, it is less worthy of inclusion. Much of what he has written on the talk page consists of attempts to state where, in his opinion, the criticisms are flawed. Apparently, he thinks that if he can successfully argue that a source's criticism is flawed, the source itself must be a dubious source, and therefore is prohibited under Wikipedia:Verifiability. I feel this is inappropriate; you can't call a source dubious because it gives the wrong answer to a question that is the very reason you're consulting the source. Moreover, we're actually using Hardy and Kopel as a source for "prominent commentators make this criticism", not "these criticisms are correct", so giving bad criticism doesn't make them into bad sources anyway.

As for compromises, I feel that the suggested compromise by PPGMD at Compromise Version Proposed is terrible. It's nearly identical to the version with all the content deleted, with just a brief mention of Hardy and Kopel added. It leaves out many of the controversies and gives the reader few details about what people criticize the movie for. It isn't really a compromise at all.

And I don't believe that the original version violates Undue Weight. The original article had lots of criticism and not much support because much of the criticism is so on-point that it's very hard to dispute. In other words, the article is mostly criticism because the substantive source material is mostly criticism. While there are certainly lots of sources that praise the movie, most of them praise the movie in a general way and don't try to say, for instance, that Moore's association of the NRA with the KKK was factually accurate--because any source who tried claiming that would look very foolish.

I would accept a compromise that removed the Bushnell material (at least until Bushnell is professionally published or quoted in professional publications), though most of it is also said by Hardy or Kopel and should be sourced to them if possible instead. I also wouldn't mind if a "support" section was added to oppose the "criticism"--at least, if anyone *could* find sources supporting Moore on some of the points for which he has been criticized. For instance, JzG has said that the movie doesn't need to be accurate because it's satire. If a commentator could be found who defended the movie on the grounds that it's satire and doesn't need to be accurate, this could go in a "support" section.

Ken Arromdee 04:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Schrodinger82

The question is whether or not including the cited sources meet current Wikipedia guidelines. I have repeated cited dozens of relevant passages from Wikipedia showing that they do not, and repeatedly asked them to cite their own passages showing that they do. They have yet to do so. The only passages that have been cited have been grossly cited out of context (e.g., citing a passage saying that that pop-culture articles don't need peer review, while ignoring the fact that it also says that standards for RS still apply. Citing a passage saying that we can cite professional journalists, while ignoring the fact that it specifies only "well known" journalists, and that caution must be exercised even then.). Currently, the criticisms section makes up for roughly 50% of the article, but 100% of the opinion. The plot outline is neutral. We have a length criticism section, but no prasie section, despite the fact that an outstanding 96% of professional film critics have given this movie a positive review. This, despite the fact that Hardy and Kopel do not meet the standards as professional film critics or as regarded as subject matter experts on the factual statements, despite the fact that they are vastly in the minority in terms of their opinion, and despite the fact that they aren't commenting on statements of facts in the first place. Most of the removed criticism is in reference to arguments that Moore never actually makes. For instance, Ken comments that " If a well-known criticism of Moore is that he blames the NRA for not cancelling uncancellable events, that can go in the article." The problem is, Moore never actually blames the NRA for this in the movie, so why should we include a criticism of something that he never actually did? I think that's a pretty impoirtant point, don't you?

The main problem is that the parties involved have never established a clear standard within Wikipedia standards that Hardy and Kopel have met, that haven't already been met by those in the majority. For instance, Kopel is a professional opinion journalist? The same goes for professional movie critics. Hardy has published a book? Many film experts and critics have published as well, many of them in an academic context. Academy Awards are nominated by your peers within your own category, meaning people who have produced entire films. At what point do you say, "Yes, not only do the critics deserve 100% of the viewpoints like they have now, but they also deserve to have their section twice as long? as it is currently?" The fact is, Wikipedia standards are very clear. When you post potentially defaming comments on a living person, the standards are higher, rather than less. Stating that "Moore claims that the B-52 plaque" says the following is a comment on the movie, and can be factually verified. Stating that "Moore's movies are fictional and uses misleading edits" is a comment on Moore's character, reputation, and integrity as a film maker, and is a subjective comment. Again, WP:V standards are clear on this matter, otherwise, you would see people posting whatever rumors they can from the National Enquirer, because "Well, we're not saying that Sharon Stone had a threesome with aliens, it's the national enquirer saying that!" The exception is when these accusations becomes a news story in itself with actual consequences. For instance, if the Academy Awards was reconsidering it's decision because of Hardy, that would be worth reporting. But right now, all we have is "some guy on the internet believes." In that case, NPOV guidelines further add that you don't give undue weight to minority opinions.

PPGMD attempts to bypass current standards on RS, by arguing that Hardy backs up up his points and is a reputable source. For instance, he claims that "if you ever read Hardy's site you will see that he quote reviewers (not average joes but professional film reviewers) that come to the conclusion that Moore is attempting to draw viewers to." So I decided to humor PPGMD and check for myself. The number of "professional film reviewers" cited? Zero. Hardy's sources include a user review on popcornmonsters.com, a socialist website on geocities, and a user comment on blogcritics.org . All of this points to dubious reliability with poor research skills. The fact that PPGMD could walk away from this believing that Hardy cited "not average joes but professional film reviewers" shows a severe lack of scrutiny, that needs to be reinstated. Further, the fact that David Hardy would cite reviews to prove his point shows that he himself believes that they are the best judge of deception, so why can't we consult the professionals directly, and leave Hardy out of this? PPGMD claim that RS doesn't cover political opinions, therefore, we don't need to follow any rules regarding them. In response, I should point out that:

RS does mention partisan sources, so yes, I think that it does apply.
While I don't think you have to be an expert on documentaries to dispute the factual content of the film (Provided that you're an expert on the factual content), I do think you would need to be an expert on documentaries to make a claim that "this film doesn't qualify as a documentary." Particularily when the documentary filmmaking community strongly disagrees. If Hardy and Kopel's assessment is valid and deserves to be noted, then it shouldn't be hard to find a recognized authority in the industry who agrees with it. I don't think that we would ever cite Morgan Spurlock as an expert when it came to defining US Policy, and I don't think that we should cite Hardy as an expert when it comes to defining documentaries.
While the movie may have political views, that does not warrant a response in itself. You would not, for instance, see Alberto Gonzales's views on torture listed on the page for "Critical Mass" episode of "Stargate Atlantis," even though that episode seems to express the political view that torture is wrong. Most books and movie are to some extent political. Allowing political commentary on their pages sets a dangerous precedent.
If such commentary is important, then it why not leave that to pages that discuss the controversy directly, rather than on the page for BFC? WP:NPOV has clear guidelines for this, labeled "Making necessary assumptions."
Where exactly is the extent of BFC's political commentary to begin with? Can anyone list any specific policies that Moore is advocating for? If we can't even determine what Moore is advocating, then why do we need any political commentators in the first place?
What makes Kopel and Hardy recognized autorities on those policies to begin with? For instance, if Congress was debating a new law based on the above policies, would any of the major news stations stations invite Kopel and Hardy to share their expert opinion on the subject?
PPGMD and other have claimed that we need to report the controversy, but have yet to establish what the threshhold for controversy actually is. Simply saying "Moore made a film, some people didn't like it" is not a controversy in itself. I mean, you might as well introduce sections to the "Casablanca" section, stating that some people think that the film is overrated.
Has BFC ever gone beyond just expressing political views, and being the center of a political issue? For instance, "Huckleberry Finn" has been at the center of debates on censorship. This has been highly contested within the context of school libraries. Hence, you could bring in commentators who agree with or against it's banning. Uncle Tom's Cabin has been credited by Abe Lincoln for causing the civil war. Can the same be said for BFC?

As for the complaints of user misconduct, so far, PPGMD and others have yet to cite a single policy/guideline that I'm violating. In fact, Mangoe's main complaint is that I have "come up with a novel way to lawyer around the restrictions of disruptive editing by twisting other policies," in other words, the fact that I am following the policies in a way he doesn't like. Their main acccusation isn't that I am violating policy, but that I am biased, because I think that giving 75% of the article to a non-notable, non-expert minority viewpoint is too much. This failure to AGF makes any attempt to make create consensus impossible. I should also point out that Mangoe has admitted to not even having watched the film and has relied entirely on Anti-Moore sites for his viewpoints, so the accusations of bias are highly ironic. His comment that we should include the NYT review violates the standards of "undue weight," unless he's saying that the NYT is notable enough so that we should include what it says in every film article on Wikipedia, period. The fact that he would go so far as to rewrite the WikiProjects Style Guidelines just to suit his own ends, with no attempt at discussion or consensus on their talk page, with no real film background or major participation within the WikiProjects Film commnity, and again without even having seen the film in question, is greatly disturbing. But even by your new standards, your arguments still don't apply, because because you're not referring to direct statements of fact from the movie.

Ken, I would like you to cite anywhere that I have pushed this idea that "'since he can argue against the criticism, it is less worthy of inclusion". Find a direct quote. You can't, because I haven't. My point all along has been that Hardy and Kopel have are dubious, non-authorative sources that don't meet the standards for reliability and reputability, and in Hardy's case, doesn't do basic fact checking. Thus, they do not meet the basic standards for inclusions. Does that mean that I can argue against the specific points as a result of that? Well, sure. It's pretty easy to come up with arguments against dubious, non-authorative sources that don't meet the standards for reliability and reputability, and don't do basic fact checking. But I have never once stated that we should remove them as sources because I could argue against them. Further, if Wikipedia states that we shouldn't include sources of dubious fact checking, and I show examples where their fact checking is dubious, then it's a completely valid point. The other thing is this. PPGMD was the first to bring up the point. My response was, "All of this is completely tangential, but..." Key phrase their is "tangential." Do you know what a tangent is? Geometrically, it's about as far away from the core as you can get. My argument was not contingent on this point, despite the fact that you claim that it is

But further, now you're contradicting yourself. If I do argue against your points, then you claim that that should somehow invalidate my stance that they don't meet Wikipedia standards, even though I already said that my entire argument was merely tangential to the discussion, except to prove that Hardy performs dubious fact checking. But if I don't argue against your points, then you'll claim that "many of the Hardy and Kopel criticisms are damning, and impossible to counter. And, as a result, nobody tries." So how am I supposed to respond? Note that nowhere in your argument do you state how Hardy's claims meets Wikipeida guidelines, and why he shuld be included in the first place. Your NRA/KKK argument is a strawman, because I have never disputed the inclusions of that. The fact is, you can't demand a "pro" source rebutal to something that was never news in the first place, and Hardy/Kopel were never "news," and therefore never warranted a "pro" response in the first place. You're never going to see Newsweek run an expose and point-by-point rebutal against someone who's biggest claim to fame was a single segment on "WAVE TV," because no one would know who Hardy was, and fewer will have read his site. You're not going to find anyone writing a book disputing Hardy, because most people don't care. But it's not hard to find people who are to David Hardy what David Hardy is to Michael Moore. So if we can include people far less notable than Michael Moore in response to Moore, then why can't we include people less notable than David Hardy in response to Hardy? Just because a comment goes uncontested on the Internet by the mainstream press doesn't magically make it true, and doesn't magically make it notable. I should also point out that Moore has placed a short response on his page, which Hardy has yet to counter. By your own standards, that's must be because Hardy knows that Moore is right. And if Hardy knows that Moore is right, then why is Hardy notable? Think about it. BTW, by defending the claims based on the fact that they "are damning, and impossible to counter", you are pretty much admitting that these claims are defametory, and presented as true. Good job.

One more note: "Controversy" is defined as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Controversy has to involve some sort of prolonged debate or dispute, presumably among people who would have something specific to debate over (e.g., a specific policy or decision.) Hence, "one side X, the other side doesn't care, except in passing" does not constitute an real controversy. Similarily, if the controversy is limitted to internet blogs and web pages, then it doesn't really qualify as a public controversy, and therefore isn't very notable. We have no evidence that the Academy Awards even considered revoking Moore's award on the basis that it didn't fit the standards of a documentary, much less that there was a "prolonged dispute over it." No prolonged, public dispute means no controversy, and no controversy means nothing to represent. -Schrodinger82 09:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

I'm unclear what's supposed to happen here. The original version was grossly unbalanced in favour of criticism, the vast majority of which completely missed the point (hello, this is satire! it's not supposed to be a balanced and scholarly treatment, or 100% factually accurate in every tiny detail). The current version is better. I don't see the problem. Oh, and it's a content dispute. Where's the evidence of user conduct issues to arbitrate? Guy 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Jossi

I came across this only today. 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. 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 • @ 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept. There seem to be sufficient allegations of user misconduct here to see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Per Matthew. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable and mandates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. No perspective is to be presented as truth, and all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and does not need to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article. Only a referenced claim from reputable outside sources shall be a cause for inclusion.