Talk:Bowling for Columbine

/Archive 1 - someone should go through this and include relevant information in the article

The POV is not at all neutral. In the part that mentions the coup d'état in Chile, it is disputed whether or not Allende was assasinated. Many say it was suicide. Also it is confirmed by the current Chilean government (which is socialist) that 3,500 died not 5,000. Please let's not let wikipedia become another bias platform for personal political agendas.

By the way, the section in the Bowling... page labeled "criticism" is nothing more than a defense of Moore attempting to ridicule and mis-direct the legitimate complaints about the film. The whole page is overtly POV in support of Moore. There are no realistic criticisms on the page, just defences of Moore and attempts to cover up his deceptions. --Libdemplus--

Bowling for Columbine can properly be compared to a much older, but equally fraudulent film called "Birth of a Nation". I highly reccommend any "fan" of "Bowling..." to get a copy of "Birth..." and watch it carefully, then re-evaluate their views about both "Bowling..." and Moore. The authors of each would recognise each other as birds of a feather. --Libdemplus--

I've seen both films. They're both propaganda. Documentary film can be propaganda, as is evident with Triumph of the Will. All you've done is convince me that you really shouldn't be making arguments about documentary film. Koyaanis Qatsi

I never claimed a documentary film could not also be a propaganda film. What I said was that Bowling... was NOT in any sense a documentary film, but it was clearly a propaganda film. And Propaganda need not be negative, nor mis-leading by the way. Moore's film was both, but no documentary. --Libdemplus--

See the comment below. It's apparent you know little about the history of documentary film, in spite of the fact that I agree with you that Moore's film is often misleading, and Moore himself deceptive. Koyaanis Qatsi 01:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For example, Moore conducted an interview at a Lockheed-Martin plant near Columbine, and inquired whether the production of nuclear missiles at that plant might contribute to destructive attitudes in Columbine's children. In actuality, that plant does not produce nuclear missiles at all, but rockets used for launching satellites. Indeed, the plant was also used to take former nuclear missiles out of service, converting decommissioned Titan missiles into satellite launch vehicles.

That's not true. Moore never makes this statement. It could be criticized that he has not in fact pointed out the specific factory in question does not produce nuclear missiles -- but he never actually claimed that this particular factory produced them in the film. That's why the PR man he interviewed did not refute the statement; he did not make it. "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, gee, dad goes off to the factory every day - he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction." That's the only statement Moore makes. He does not refer to the specific factory in question. --Eloquence 04:19 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Which is simply Moore's style of systematic and effective deception. I have spoken to a couple dozen gun-uneducated people who saw "Bowling..." and they all came away with almost exactly the same beliefs about what Moore was saying. They ALL thought that specific plant made "weapons of mass destruction" and that Moore was on to something of a reasonable explaination for the mass killings at Columbine. If their dads made "weapons of mass destruction" for a living, what could be wrong with mass murder? Moore's whole argument was making a paralel between the Columbine killers actions and the "role-model" of their parents and others who worked at the ->nearby<- "weapons of mass destruction" plant. His intentions were clear, he wants people to excuse the Columbine killers actions because they were just copying what "dad" does, making "weapons of mass destruction" for a living. The CONTEXT of the discussion was about that specific plant and those specific killers. To refute Moore's overt intentions by splitting symantic hairs is simply dishonest denial. --Libdemplus--

Actually, no, Moore's intention was not to say that the fathers of the Columbine kids were making weapons, it was that many of the fathers of "our kids", as he explicitly says, were working for weapons makers. Lockheed Martin is the world's largest weapons maker and this is the fact that Moore's critics conveniently ignore. The factory in Littleton was explored as representative for Lockheed Martin's weapons production, even if that particular factory is no longer involved in weapons making (it certainly was during the Cold War).—Eloquence

Actually, Moore's intention was to trick the ignorant and lazy public who saw his film into believing many false things, and that's exactly what he managed to do. Few people who saw the film will ever bother to do even a little factual research to learn how badly they were decived by Moore's film. Again, the people who I know who are gun-uneducated and uneducated about Moore actually believed, 100% of them, that the parts of the NRA conventions were actually filmed at the Colorado convention. Moore tricked people into believing that the NRA rushed to the locations of media-popular killings and set up defiant pro-gun rallies. Moore tricked people into believing that selected bits of lines Moore edited together from various speeches given years apart and a thousand miles apart were actually given at the same time and in the same sequence Moore shows in his film. I can't recall anyone who saw the film who spotted the mis-leading editing that invented speeches that were never given and at times and places that never happened as he showed. Moore tricked people into believing that the NRA rushed to the site of the 6-year-old killer's crime to put up a pro-gun rally. In fact, no such thing happened, the event Moore steals from was simply a "get out the vote" rally with many celebrities that took place about 9 months later and in a different city. That same day Moore himself was at another political rally not far away. Moore lies by clever editing to trick the ignorant and lazy public into believing many false things. This is by deliberate design and effort on Moore's part. --Libdemplus--

Idiotic distinction. He interviews people at a Lockheed Martin plant which doesn't make missiles, and then asks whether these kids are saying, "gee, dad...builds missiles", but he isn't trying to suggest that people are making missiles at THAT plant? Nobody in Columbine makes missiles at ANY plant, because there aren't any plants making WMDs near Columbine. --Len

Please, it is not easy to have a discussion without turning it into a flamewar when one side uses phrases like "idiotic". The truth is that the claim repeated by many critics -- that Moore openly lied in the movie -- is wrong. Perhaps he believed the factory to produce missiles, and perhaps the company representative should have pointed out that it does not. However, since his statement was reasonably generic, it was, at most, misleading. In particular, he uses the phrase "our kids", not "your kids". Why do you think he does that?--Eloquence 21:48 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Then please don't distort facts. Evan McCollum (the Lockheed Martin employee he interviewed) did indeed dispute Moore's statement. He said, "The word 'missiles' implies a weapon. Although other units of Lockheed Martin Corporation elsewhere in the country produce weapons ... we make no weapons at the Littleton-area facility Moore visited." He also said, "I provided specific information to Moore about the space launch vehicles we build to launch spacecraft for NASA, NOAA, the Dept. of Defense and commercial customers, including DirecTV and EchoStar." You are engaging in the same misleading behavior as Moore when you blather about McCollum "not disputing" Moore's statement. --Len

McCollum did not respond in this fashion in the interview, where he replied: "I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles are designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us." In the interview, McCollum did not understand Moore as implying that he was talking about the specific factory near Columbine. Obviously it was beneficial for him and Lockheed-Martin to jump on the bandwagon of criticism later, but if he really thought Moore's statement was misleading, he should have said so during the interview. --Eloquence 01:02 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Geee, maybe if Moore didn't systematically manipulate and cleverly edit the many interviews for his film and had just honestly provided us with the raw footage or at least the factual full transcripts on his website, including the lies Moore told various people he was about to interview regarding the purpose of the interview, then maybe we would know what the people he talked to really did say and in what order and in answer to what question Moore actually asked them at the time. However, as has been pointed out by many critics of Moore's and by the people he tricked into talking with him on camera, (most had never heard of him nor did they know anything about his history of deceptive film making) Moore has not provided factual un-edited footage or full transcripts of any of the interviews in the film. Let alone what he told them the film was about to get their cooperation. What Moore spliced together for his film was clever propaganda, but not remotly a "documentary".

--Libdemplus--

All documentary film deceives, period, as any documentary film-maker will tell you--from Moore to Kopple to Maysles to Morris to Pennebaker. It's in the nature of editing, e.g. eliminating some things, keeping others, and juxtaposing footage that wasn't recorded back to back. It's quite unaviodable, even when your intentions are good. Better would be to discuss specific deceptions and leave off with the broad, ahistorical, and generally ill-informed opinions about what is and what is not documentary (a subject even documentary film-makers do not agree on). Koyaanis Qatsi 00:56, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Again with the symantical splitting of hairs! A legitimate ->documentary<- need not be 100% raw-footage to faithfully convey the true nature of the items being documented and to factually educate the public, however, Moore's film intentionally bears no resemblance to the true nature of reality in large portions of his film and worse yet, his editing was NOT for the purpose of clarity, or probative value or time restrictions, no, his edits are overtly to a design. His design is to mis-inform and mis-lead the public and to make people more ignorant not more educated. I will say this however, one tiny portion of Moore's film (and his theory) regarding the irresponsible behavior of the mass media, is indeed not only true, but something worthy of a true documentary. The sad part is that while Moore did have a valid point about how the media exploitation and generation of fear through massive over-reporting of violent crimes, especially gun-crimes, and massive mis-reporting of dangers of all sorts in our society needs to be explored and exposed to the public, this one valid point was swamped-out by Moore's own fear, hate and deceptions. --Libdemplus--

Sorry, but I can't find any facts in your rhetoric. Please come back if you have any about how he "cleverly edited" and "tricked people" into being interviewed by the virtually unknown director of the highest grossing non-music documentary of the time, Roger & Me.—Eloquence 02:21, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

Then you are either being intentionally dishonest or in deep denial about what Moore does. The links on the Bowling... page have some of the detailed explainations of how Moore decieved the public by editing together lines from different speeches out of context to invent speeches that never happened. Not to mention fooling the public into thinking that these non-existant speeches took place at times and in places that they did not. Newspaper and TV reviews of the film provide a great example of how Moore effectively decieved even professional journalists into thinking many utterly false things, exactly as Moore wanted. And most don't bother with how Moore lies by ommission. Like how Moore ignores the FACT that the NRA was founded by anti-slavery advocates (abolitionists) and how the NRA members risked their lives going into the south to teach blacks firearms skills for self-defense. Moore never mentions how thw NRA ended up on the "enemies list" of the KKK as a result of NRA activities helping blacks protect themselves. No, Moore just tricked the public into thinking the NRA was just the KKK re-labeled. Many of the people Moore USED in his propaganda film have come forwards, after they saw the film, or their part in it at least, and complained how Moore lied to them about the film's purpose and about how their part in it would be portrayed. Moore also clearly did NOT even bother to be truthful in the portions of various interviews he conducted as far as what he really asked people and their actual answers. Libdemplus

The criticism concerning the speeches is silly, as I've pointed out in my rebuttal here. I'm not very familiar with the history of the NRA, so if you can point me to any unbiased background material on that subject, I'd be interested.—Eloquence 00:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for revealing your POV! I'm SO glad I stopped worrying about this article! Before, I didn't even realize that it was being bulldogged by a partisan determined to protect it from all comers. What more can be said? You're determined to lie, and protect your lie, and anyone who doesn't want an edit war will just have to tolerate that. --Len

Please show where or when I lied or engaged in an edit war on this article to protect my "POV", or stop defaming me.—Eloquence 14:14, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

"Moore did not lie." --Eloquence. Given that reasonable viewers who don't already know better consistently draw the same wrong inferences from Moore's "documentary", one of two things must be true: either people are getting the message Moore intended, or they're getting a message Moore didn't intend. IF the latter, then Moore is an incompetent film-maker. If the former, then Moore is a liar. Your defense of Moore is that his statement, understood in light of the actual facts, is not actually false--IOW, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. IF that's your definition of "honesty", then it happens to coincide with my definition of "dishonesty". If you feel that's an indictment of your character, then I can't help it. I certainly consider it thus. --Len.

Which "wrong inferences" are you referring to? The only one I can think of is that several viewers got the impression Charlton Heston held a rally in Flint 48 hours after the Rolland case. This is indeed due to a bit of incompetent editing during that specific sequence. Moore never makes this statement nor does the way the sequence is set up support the interpretation that he intentionally deceives (see my article). I therefore consider it much more an indictment of someone's character to accuse Moore of deliberately lying and deceiving, a very severe accusation, without being able to back it up.—Eloquence 04:27, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, It would be rather simple for myself or anyone to use your own statements spliced together to make it seem you said just about anything about anything, even in direct opposition to your true beliefs on any given subject. Any rational person can easily understand how taking small sections of speeches from different years and places and events and splicing them together to invent a speech that was never given can be used, as Moore has, to trick the public into believing pretty much anything. Your continual denial of this fact simply proves how dishonest you are being in your advocacy for Moore. Your side-stepping of the fact that Moore achieved exactly the effect he wanted, which was to fool the ignorant lazy public into believing falsehoods, again proves your dishonesty. Libdemplus

Eloquence, as for the well-documented history of the NRA as a Civil Rights group, I suggest you also look up the history of Charlton Heston and his works in the 60's Civil Rights movement, including marching along side of Martin Luther King. You might also be educated by looking up the list of early NRA presidents, including former President Grant, the 9th NRA president. Grant was the USA president who enacted the federal laws that declared the KKK to be an illegal terrorist group. The NRA was founded by anti-slavery activists who risked their lives to free the slaves and to protect the liberties of the former slaves after the Civil War. Not that I think you will bother to seek the truth, but you can begin with the NRA website to get a thumb-nail sketch of NRA history. Don't just look to HCI and other gun ban groups or the TV news media for the facts, you wont find any there, nor will you find any from Moore. The truth is that the NRA is the nations oldest Civil Rights group. This is a fact ignored by the media. Libdemplus

Arguing with you is rather tiresome since what you produce is mostly empty rhetoric without facts. I presume you need this kind of rhetoric to validate your own righteousness, but it is completely worthless from a logical standpoint. It is possible to splice fragments of speeches to alter their meaning, but Moore never did so. I am familiar with Heston's involvement in the civil rights movement, and Moore never claimed that the modern day NRA, or Heston himself, had any ties to racism. I was referring to the NRA's alleged activities against white-only gun laws, and I would prefer a non "gun rights" source on the matter as it should be obvious that the organization has an interest to present itself in the best possible light.—Eloquence 19:49, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

You systematically ignore facts, just like Moore does. You provide no facts, onlyhair-splittting symantics excuses for Moore's deceptions. The Hardy paper is a good example of facts that you have chosen to ignore. Your so-called "rebuttle" side-steps the actual points of Moore's deceptions and the effect on the ignorant viewers. As I said, the reviewers of the film universlly fell victim to Moore's deceoptions and wrote may falsehoods in their reviews of the film. Just as Moore intended. You ignore and/or excuse Moore's intentions and effects. You also ignored the fact that had the firearms-related scenes actually occured as Moore claimed then Moore and several others would be guilty of violating several serious Federal and state felony laws. For example, Moore could not have legally obtained a gun from that bank, regardless of where he actually picked it up, because he is a legal resident of New York. The bank spokeserson has complained about being lied to by Moore and that the scene was staged and even partly scripted by Moore and did NOT fairly refelect the practices of the bank. According to items I have read from Canada, Moore also could not legally have purchased ammo in Canada. The store spokesperson said that no transaction actually took place, nor would they have agreed to the staged scene if they had known how it was to be used. You consistantly ignore and/or excuse Moore's lies and distortions.Libdemplus

As for NRA history, as I said, start with the details available at the NRA website and you will get the relevant names and events to search on for further searches. As long as you insist on getting all your firearms info or NRA info from gun ban groups or the biased TV news media, then why not just admit you don't care about the truth? The TV news were the ones who spread the lies about the Glock handgun which were invented by the Washington Post. Gun ban groups routinely invent wild fabrications which the TV news are all only too happy to spread around with no effort to verify anything. Either admit your intentional bias or do the research and learn something factual for a change! It's risky though, learning facts endagers dogmas. Libdemplus

More rhetoric, and no sources. Where is the evidence that Moore's purchase would have violated firearms laws? Moore says that he is still in possession of the gun. The bank employee never said that the scene was "staged" (whatever that means), this quote is from a WSJ editorial. There are serious contradictions in the various accounts of the purchase which I have detailed here. As for the Canadian purchase, who said that a transaction did not take place? That information is not from Hardy's analysis. Canadian officials merely complained that Moore did not make it clear that he had to show an ID upon purchase. What are these "various items" you speak of? Because you're too lazy to do your homework, you only come up with rhetoric and ask me to back up your claims. Sorry, that's not how it works. This talk page is about improving the article. If you have any improvments you want to make, you'll need more than just "I read somewhere that .." type claims.—Eloquence 21:46, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

Again: documentary film-makers do not agree on a definition for documentary film. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the film seems deceptive, but so are Grey Gardens, On the Ropes, American Dream, The Panama Deception, and every other documentary film ever made. What's the point in arguing that this one is not a documentary? What makes you so much more qualified than a film-maker like Barbara Kopple, Albert Maysles, or D.A. Pennebaker, who've spent decades making documentaries, or Erik Barnouw, who (unlike this random pundit with an axe to grind) has studied the genre and written canonical books about the subject? Koyaanis Qatsi 01:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Qatsi, the failure of "film-makers" (whom have an inherant and obvious conflict of interest in making any agreements on definitions) to come to any sort of agreement on any catagory of films has NOTHING to do with the issue. First, the Academy Awards has a documented definition of what is required of a "documentary film" and by any reasonable read of that definition, Bowling... utterly fails to fit that catagory because of it's inherant and systematic deceptions. Second, the commonplace public understanding of the term "documentary" is far more relevant than what some self-important film-makers can or can't agree on. Ask typical memebers of the public what they expect of a film when they hear it's a "documentary". By the general expectations of the public for a "documentary", Bowling... fails utterly. The problem is that the public is genrally too ignorant and lazy to learn how badly they have been fooled by Moore's tactics. The worst thing is that the news media is so heavily biased that they wont help inform the public about the deceptions in the film. When it comes to anything related to firearms, the news media only supports the gun ban agenda and is perfectly happy to propagate any lies in that effort. Which is why the news media wont expose Moore for the liar he is. Libdemplus

Ok, if those "experts" have written about the intentional decpetions in Moore's film, ALL of them, and they openly ADMIT that the film was intentionally mis-leading for the purposes of propaganda and mis-informing the public anbd they still wish to catagorise such a film as a "documentary", then fine, let them state that they know what Moore did and they accept that sort of thing as legitimate and I will then have to find a new word for a truthful educational faithful documentary. Since "documentary" seems to include outright fabrications and scripted scenes and things that never happened. I guess I had higher standards for the term. --Libdemplus--

With respect to both of you, I think this discussion is missing Moore's point, which is that the world's superpower -- a country that spends a good deal of its resources making weapons to use against others, and a good deal of time making war against others, also has a very high level of internal violence. That is the point.

If that's Moore's point, then he obviously is no student of history. The UK, aka British Empire, spent most of it's existance, untill rather recently, roaming around the world raining death and destruction on native people's with all the modern weapons it had available, and yet, back at home it was still fairly peaceful and safe from crime. Oh, and that's always been true even when the subjects of the crown were still allowed to own firearms for self-defense and other proper purposes. Violent crimes in the UK only have become a serious problem since the subject of the crown have been ordered to give up their lawfully owned firearms. Self-defense, by any means, even resistance of any sort to any violent attack, has become a highly discouraged concept in the UK in recent years by systematic efforts of their rulers. No scientifically valid comparisons can ever be made between different places on a subject as complex as violent crime. Only long-term trends within a given place can be evaluated to gain some insight. --Libdemplus--

He is not arguing that the Columbine shootings occurred "because" there is a Lockheed-Martin plant nearby. He is arguing that the Columbine shootings are one more example of violence in America. And he is arguing that there is some relationship between how violent Americans are as individuals with how violent we are as a country. That we are a violent country (I mean, we have a state that is committed to violence) is evidenced by the sequence in the film about US military intervention abroad, and by coverage of the "industrial-military" complex ... exemplified by Lockheed-Martin.

Film works through juxtaposition through editing. That Moore uses this technique to communicate his point is unsurprising and unremarkable. Slrubenstein

And dishonest. It isn't necessary to lie in order to make one's point. Specifically, in doing so he loses any claim to have written a "documentary". --Len.

And, in Grey Gardens, universally considered a documentary by both documentary makers and film critics, the "pink room" argument which appears near the very end of the film is one of the very first things the Maysles shot. They put it at the end to heighten emotional effect, and viewers watching this observational, cinema verite piece will universally think that it happened at the end of the Maysles' stay, because that's where it appears in the film. Distortion is inherent in documentary just as much as it is in photography itself, and if you think that in viewing anything you are viewing the "absolute truth" then you are setting yourself up for serious and protracted disappointment. Koyaanis Qatsi

Moore did not lie. --Eloquence 01:02 23 May 2003 (UTC)

If that's your idea of honesty, it speaks volumes about your character. McCollum disputed Moore's version of the interview. You're conclusion, "...which is why McCollum didn't balk", is idiotic. Moore edited the film. --Len.

I am getting tired of your personal attacks, which you have been making since your first comment in this discussion. I note from your talk page that I am not the first person to complain about this behavior. Our policy states: "No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period. No calling people trolls, no calling people Stupid White Men, no accusations of any kind relating to the character of another person, nor their race, creed, sex, national origin, etc. The only thing that matters is the articles, not the people who write them." You have called my arguments "idiotic" and have defamed my character. Please keep in mind that violations of Wikiquette are a bannable offense on Wikipedia.

On topic: Where did Moore edit the film to mislead his viewers? McCollum's clarifications were made after the film, in the interview he directly responded to Moore's question saying that he did not see a connection because the missiles were used against aggressors. This very response implies that McCollum understood Moore exactly in the way I interpreted his statement. --Eloquence 14:10 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Viewers watch the movie and conclude that nuclear missiles are made at the LMAO plant near Columbine. This must come as a total surprise to Moore. Your reply: "Well, that's their fault. Moore certainly never meant them to draw this conclusion." Fine; include fiction in the Wikipedia if it pleases you. I wash my hands of this article. --Len.

I'm not one for "death of the author" arguments (personally I think they overstate the case quite a bit), but it's worth keeping in mind that unless there's a narrator, you can't really what a film-maker intended the audience to come away with. It's quite possible to put two pieces of footage together intending to transition from point A to point B, but cause the audience to think there's an additional relationship or even a completely different one--e.g. that it's a chronological progression, or causation, or an explanation of a previous action. Unless you're spelling out what you want the audience to think, the audience can think nearly anything. I'm not excusing Moore--maybe he did intend to deceive the audience--but you really can't know. Koyaanis Qatsi 01:01, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The point you are missing is, of course, that Lockheed Martin is the nation's largest military contractor. Since Moore never claims that the particular factory in question produces WMD, his implied argument stands unanswered: It is bizarre for a society to openly embrace the production of destructive weapons, but on the other hand see no connection of this to everyday violence -- children learn by imitating adults. Yes, Moore makes this point through slight exaggeration by moving with the camera through the LM plant -- but he makes no incorrect statement. It is typical for his critics to jump on what is at most a slightly misleading implication, but in doing so, they themselves have, unlike Moore, made many incorrect claims, as you did above. --Eloquence 16:29 23 May 2003 (UTC)

A word of advice: Eloquence writes above Please keep in mind that violations of Wikiquette are a bannable offense on Wikipedia. - Although "wikiquette" is merely a set of guidelines, there are some good tips there. One of particular interest in this case is "Try to say something positive for each complaint you make." In other words, instead of saying "your logic is idiotic", one should say "you properly used the rules of capitalization, and your logic is idiotic". -BuddhaInside

Kmart segment

In the summer of 2003 Mark Taylor, survivor of the Columbine High School massacre told the "Canyon Courier" [1]"I am completely against against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide. "He completely used us to make a buck."
Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Michigan. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.
Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.
"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."
Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets, and the film burned bridges between him and the National Rifle Association, whose philosophies he supports.

This lacks a direct citation (the link points to the main page of the newspaper), and it also lokos like a copy & paste job (note the botched quote in the first para). I'm perfectly willing to move this back once we have a real citation and an original summary. (Note that anyone who believes that Taylor wasn't paid to say this is a complete fool, especially given the NRA reference in the last para, which seems to come straight from the pen of a PR writer.) —Eloquence 00:49, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

It's from an interview in the Canyon Courier in June 2003, widely reported on in a number of (mostly pro-gun) sources, including the NRA-owned America's First Freedom, among others. It's not currently available on the internet, but if you'd like to check the Canyon Courier's archives feel free. I don't appreciate your selective censorship of articles based on false pretences of "no citation", when you've presented no evidence that these quotes are fabricated. There is no doubt this interview appeared, and it's widely reported on. It was even on the news last summer here. Again, feel free to pay for a Courier subscription or find a library with their archives if you wish to verify; the intarweb does not contain all knowledge. --Delirium 09:04, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Evidence that the quote was fabricated"? You can't prove a negative. It is the duty of those who claim that a person said something to back that claim up with citations when asked to do so.—Eloquence

As for being paid to say that, I'd say anyone who believe Moore isn't saying what he's saying to make a buck is complete fool. He's a stereotypical demagogue: the Rush Limbaugh of the left (perhaps even worse). I'm sickened such a personality is "on my side". --Delirium 09:20, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Bullets segments

Something I've seen mentioned on and off, but haven't heard a good defense of from Moore or his supporters: what's with the contradictory bullets segments? Moore easily buys bullets at a Wal-Mart in Canada, and comments on how this is fine and Canada still has low gun crime. Then he not too long afterwards stages the whole Kmart scene in which he pressures Kmart to take the bullets off its shelves. Why did he do this, after having just concluded that easy access to bullets is not part of the problem? The cynical answer is that the Columbine-kids scene made for some nice "please think of the children!" demagoguery, but perhaps there's another reason? --Delirium 09:22, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Moore's message is that a fear-prone culture should not have easy access to guns and ammunition. He has two main messages: 1) America is a culture of fear, 2) In a culture of fear, easy access to guns is a bad thing. Moore is a strong advocate of gun control in the US.—Eloquence 09:28, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

On the numbered list: which ones do we claim are known to be false? All of them look pretty plausible to me. For my part here are the ones which are uncontrovertibly true. 4,6,8,10,13.

DJ Clayworth 20:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VerilyVerily's edit was not in compliance with our NPOV guidelines. I have therefore reverted it.—Eloquence

Thanks. I should probably not make comments on controversial articles without looking at the history a little more. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Number 16 is very misleading. The $245 million was used to pay for aid (food, medicine, etc.) which was distributed through the UN and other aid organizations to the people of Afghanistan. Moore's list is supposed to be about BAD foreign policy decisions, so this item shouldn't even be listed. But, he throws in the word Taliban and leaves out the details and the obvious conclusion people will make is that the US gave money to the Taliban. --Werbwerb 10:18, March 12, 2004 (UTC)

Removed

Anon user 4.159... removed this below section. I agree it needs trimming - the essence is that Moore's signature feature is his attempts to get interviews and recourse, which are turned down. For some this tends to imply guilt on the part of the targets, while others may understand the tendency to flee from prying documentarians... Stevertigo 01:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are three parts in the movie when Michael Moore goes up to a person to take an interview but they walk away. The first person was a cop in Los Angeles (who when asked about the pollution didn't say anything), the second was Dick Clark (who was in a car leaving when Michael Moore came up to him and asked him about welfare problems. Dick Clark told others to shut the door and then the car drove away.) The third person was Charlton Heston, the head of the NRA, who let Michael Moore take an interview with him because Michael Moore at first sounded like an NRA fan (he told Heston that he was a life member, which is true), but when the interview started and Moore started asking about Columbine-related events, Heston got up and walked away.

"Almost all" documentary scenes staged?

I removed the following line from the article.

However this is hardly new; almost all 'spontaneous' scenes from documentaries are staged.

This claim is unbelievable. Are even many scenes in documentaries staged? A good many consist largely of file footage, commentary, and interviews. And how many claim to be spontaneous but aren't? Only a severely watered-down version of this would be credible. VV[[]] 06:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gross

Looking through IMDB, I've attempted to verify the information about gross, particularly the assertion that BfC was the highest-grossing documentary until Fahrenheit 9/11 came along. Here's the results:

Business Data for Bowling for Columbine - Shows a budget of $4M, and a gross of "$21,244,913 (USA) (11 May 2003)".

Business Data for Everest - No budget listed, but a gross of "$76,447,420 (USA) (30 July 2000)".

Business Data for Jackass - Shows a budget of $5M, and a gross of "$64,267,897 (USA) (12 January 2003)".

Unless I'm missing something here, it would appear that BfC does not in fact hold this distinction of highest-grossing documentary. I'm removing this content: "Until it was eclipsed by Moore's own Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, Bowling for Columbine was the highest grossing non-music documentary feature of all time."

This change can be reverted if someone finds a mistake. 192.52.57.34

The New York Times ran an article on July 5 about the growing commercial impact of documentaries. (All you can still get for free is the first 50 words: "The record-breaking success of Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' may mark a turning point in the acceptance of documentaries by audiences as mass entertainment and by movie distributors as potential profit ... This anti-Bush documentary is merely the latest and most successful of many feature-length documentaries that have hit it big.") The article had a pre-Fahrenheit 9/11 chart that listed Bowling for Columbine at the top. The Times heading used the word "feature" -- Everest was only 44 minutes long, so it wasn't a feature-length film. As for Jackass, I don't think it was even mentioned in the article. You're correct that IMDb classifies it as a documentary. The Times evidently didn't, and I wouldn't either. Just because it's not fiction doesn't make it a documentary. A documentary can present its subject from a definite point of view, like Moore's films and like Triumph of the Will, but it must at least have a subject. Finally, the sentence that was in the article also specified "non-music" because Woodstock, for example, grossed more. The sentence was modified through edits by several people, and I think it should be restored. JamesMLane 00:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the other "records" should at least be mentioned, to put Bowling for Columbine's accomplishment in perspective. It seems to be by a rather narrow definition that BfC was the highest-grossing documentary. Fahrenheit 9/11 will probably break all the records anyway, so there's no loss of prestige in telling the truth here. I'm not sure how one classifies a documentary officially, but these other films are classified as "documentary" in IMDB, and there is no "feature-length" caveat in the article as it stands now. 192.52.57.34 20:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I inserted an appropriately qualified statement a couple weeks ago, but someone else took it out. The current version gives BfC #1 status in certain countries, which might be true. Perhaps the polite and civilized British are less fond of Jackass than we vulgar Americans are. As for a narrow definition, I think it's legitimate to compare BfC with other "serious" documentaries. Jackass is solely entertainment, not information, and although a movie like Woodstock is factual, people don't go see it to be enlightened. I don't know the story on Everest -- it has a high gross but it was only 44 minutes long, so was it perhaps shown in conjunction with another movie? If so, that would complicate the calculation. I'm just left with a strong feeling that Bowling for Columbine did better than any previous film of its type. We ought to find a way to convey that fact. JamesMLane 20:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda

Buster has categorized 'Bowling' as propaganda in a minor edit, with no discussion. This is a pejorative label that needs to be justified and discussed. In particular, it needs to be justified that 'Bowling' has some defining propaganda attributes that garden-variety persuasive films do not. Otherwise, we're going to end up categorizing just about every editorial writer or piece as propaganda. Reverting categorization until a consensus is reached that 'Bowling' is indeed propaganda.Wolfman 22:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there a policy as to where the burden of proof is for a categorization? Should we be including all films which are considered propaganda by many (my choice)? Should we only include films which are indisputably propaganda? Should we just throw out any notion of NPOV and vote on each issue? Or perhaps we should just remove categories for which there is no objective criteria for inclusion (probably my first choice)? anthony (see warning) 22:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not possible to have a Category:Propaganda that is not POV. That category should be reserved for articles that have propaganda as their subject, not for categorising particular works. Banno 23:02, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a very distracting and relatively useless category, at least as applied to recent works. I can see how some would categorize Moore's works as propaganda, but the same is true for virtually any political writer/artist. Why get into wars over whether Safire, Krugman, Limbaugh, Kristof, Coulter,.... ad nauseum are propaganda? My view is the category should just be dropped because it is difficult to objectively and neutrally distinguish propaganda from other forms of persuasive speech.Wolfman 23:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It not just difficult, it is impossible. Propaganda is not something that is observable in a work, but part of one’s reaction to that work. Banno 23:49, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think the category should be retained but severely limited. I've posted a specific suggestion on Category talk:Propaganda, which seems to be the logical place to have this discussion. JamesMLane 00:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's impossible to distinguish propaganda from other forms of persuasive speech because persuasive speech is by definition propaganda. The problem is there is a connotation (not necessarily pejorative) which goes beyond the dictionary definition, and whether or not that connotation fits a particular subject is not readily agreed upon. I like the idea of solving the problem with a specific definition, if one can be agreed upon, but I don't think the definition you give is objective enough. anthony (see warning) 14:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda is persuasive speach; by that definition, nearly all movies, books, and broadcast material could be considered propaganda. As such, propaganda is overly broad, and should not be a category. In the pejorative form, propaganda does not merely persuade, but contains no non-persuasive content, and is aimed at a specific group by a specific group. As such, it is quite POV, and should not be a category. Now, if you want to talk about What is propaganda? or techniques of propaganda I can definately see that going in a category. --ssd 21:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That definition is pretty much the only dictionary definition you're going to see: "Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda." I wouldn't say that fits nearly all or even most movies, books, or broadcast material though. As for the connotations, I don't think it's about containing no non-persuasive content. It's really about whether or not the material is presented in a way which is equal to both sides or if it's presented in a way to try to convince people of a particular viewpoint. I don't think that's necessarily pejorative. As for whether or not it's POV, we agree it is. We also agree that it shouldn't be a category. anthony (see warning) 00:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Staging of 'spontaneous' scenes

I removed the following passage because it's vague and unspecific, and I don't think it should be in the article without some kind of evidence, or links to websites that make such a claim.

In addition some have claimed that scenes that appear spontaneous in the documentary are in fact carefully staged. The same was said about his earlier documentary, Roger & Me.

The Singing Badger 14:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Confused

What does this line mean?...

"While few argue that the gunshot homicide rate is higher in the US than in other countries,"

Does it mean few argue for Moore's views, or does it mean few argue against them? It seems ambiguous to me, though there is a definate leaning towards the interpretation that it is dificult to agree with Moore. I don't know if this is what the author of this sentence was getting at, because then it shouldn't have started with "while." GWC Autumn 59 2004 18.05 EST

"Charlton Heston, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and was allegedly interviewed under false pretenses;" - what false pretenses? How can you be interviewed under false pretenses? I'm confused on this issue, could someone clear it up?

Okay, here's a thing I remember about this film: it draws up the idea of a mysterious black male being the suspect for many crimes and then suggests that this archetype is just a scapegoat of "the culture of fear". Correct me if I'm wrong on this. The problem I have with this, and I don't see it in file though I haven't read all the discussion, is that blacks represent 50% of gun crimes whilst are only 13% of the US population. These statistics are from memory but I can find the newspaper article that stated them. If you factor that in then the US isn't doing nearly so badly in gun crime. This is apparently what Heston is referring to when he makes some comment about cultures or diversity what-have-you during the interview. Moore uses his typical interview style of asking leading questions and jumping people's answers. It makes for entertainment but you'll notice he only does it with the people he's already not on the side of.

I'm not a member of the NRA, I'm British and believe in gun control. However, I'm also concerned that statistics such as these often get suppressed by governments (the EU for example) when they present upsetting conclusions. We have a developing gun-culture on this side of the Atlantic and it is predominantly associated with young urban black males. Whatever one can argue of the background causes (e.g. deprivation, alienation), the demographics are neatly avoided in this film. I don't see how a problem can be solved when one refuses to acknowledge it. --82.38.227.149 18:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone actually added NRA related comments in what I wrote earlier (edited them out now) but I guess it shows how far some people will go to cloud the issues --82.38.224.70 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph in pro-gun criticism

I removed the paragraph in the pro-gun criticism section about the cartoon. This cartoon is obviously meant as satire and not to be taken seriously. Therefore it can contain some factual inaccuracies, such as a white family shooting each other when a firecracker goes off. This cartoon is not meant to be taken as fact, it is pointed satire and exaggeration. Can't some people take a joke?