Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 1

Summary of Issues with Moore's Statistical Methods

We'll never get anywhere bandying POV around; it's arguable whether we'll get anywhere anyhow. But there are legitimate criticisms of Moore's statistical method, which probably thought to be mentioned in the context of this article. These errors do not prove that his conclusions are false; discussing the truth or falsehood of his conclusions is completely outside the scope of this article. The problems with his analysis include:

1. Moore use raw number of deaths. This automatically exaggerates the death rate in populous countries.
2. Moore used only gun-related deaths. This ignores homicides committed with other weapons, and exaggerates countries where a greater proportion of homicides are committed using firearms.
3. Moore used only gun-related deaths. This ignores aggravated assault, robbery, rape and other crimes, which can also be considered "violent". If one country has more homicide, and another has more rape and assault, it is a difficult philosophical question which country is "more violent".
4. Moore considered only "Western" nations. The nations chosen are those generally considered "advanced" nations, though no definite criterion is offered. For example, Brazil is in the western hemisphere, but was not included. Russia was not included, though it is an industrialized nation (but not "western"). The problem with this is that Moore was preselecting his sample, but did not offer any argument why that sample was chosen appropriately.

The last point is subtle, because people automatically assume that the US can fairly be compared with Japan and England, but cannot fairly be compared with Brazil or Mexico. For example, some have argued that "poor" nations are automaticlaly more violent, and therefore should be excluded--but this cannot be assumed; it must be proven. Otherwise, the danger is very real that nations are being selected partly on the level of violence they experience. This issue must be resolved before any statistical analysis of a partial list of nations can be meaningful.

Okay, I agree that trading insults gets us nowhere. So here is an attempt at expressing where I disagree with what you are saying, without getting personal. The basic problem, as I see it, is that this is a critique of a phantom. Moore was not, as I have tried to point out, offering a statistical "argument" regarding gun deaths to "prove" anything. You are assuming something that, in my view, is not the case. The film is an artistic exploration into the "why"s of violence in the United States. The film is NOT some sort of extended proof that the US is more violent than the rest of the world, it offers no argument to support such a contention, because that is not its purpose. To focus on what was about 1 minute out of the entire movie and give it exaggerated focus and importance is to miss the point entirely. The movie is not about those statistics that you are concerned with. It is about the human side of violence and it asks why this happens. It doesn't even try to offer any definitive answers to the questions it asks. soulpatch

Put thus, you could be right. I do think it's appropriate to point out within this article that critics question whether the United States is in fact the "most violent nation" in the first place, and possibly a remark that the death-counts he presents in the movie do not, by themselves, prove that it is (together with suitable NPOV verbiage, etc.).

Beyond that, it happens to be true that his presentation of those counts was intended to convey to the readers what a violent place the US is; it would be of some worth to point out the issues raised above in some suitable context. What context? I dunno: deceptiveness of statistics? Problems in experimental design? Where? I don't know offhand of other places where similar misleading statistics are mentioned in the Wikipedia, but they are probably all over the place...so perhaps a common article, linked from several such places? Help me out here. --Len.

Why not start a new article? You feel strongly about this, and probably have a lot of value to contribute to such an article. I think that some of your critique of the statistics that were presented in the movie raise valid issues. Maybe you could do a search first to see if any existing article covers the topic. While I don't like the idea of overemphasizing the statistical aspect of this movie, I don't object to bringing it up in the article either, but a more detailed discussion surely belongs somewhere. In any case, you have expertise to bring to the subject of statistics, so why not go for it in a new article? soulpatch

Oh, thanks a LOT--put it on ME to find a home for this. :-)

Pax, and really, just a quick search on "statistics" or something would probably tell you if there already is such an article. If not, just start your own! The worst that can happen is that someone notices an article that covers the topic and then they will merge your article with that one. It's a collaborative project, after all! soulpatch

Worse, the problem cannot be resolved simply by considering all nations. Some nations are in a state of civil war. Do war casualties count as crimes? Presumably not, if one is interested in crime; quite possibly, if one is interested in all forms of violence. Other nations are troubled with terrorism--should deaths by terrorism be included? They are generally not in Israel, but they generally are in Northern Ireland. It is certainly arguable whether they count as crime, though they obviously do count as violence.

The issue of possible deterrence effects of firearms ownership are completely outside the scope of this discussion.

---

Had Moore corrected for population, though, his statistical argument would still represent a flawed analysis. It is also necessary to account for the larger number of guns, and/or gun owners, in the various countries. The statistic which would provide for the most meaningful comparison is homicides by firearm per 100,000 guns per 100,000 people.

This is a ludicrous argument. It is an impossible comparison to make, because there probably fewer than 10,000 legally held guns in the UK. Mintguy 12:48 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mintguy.

Statistics based on population, without any accounting for relative availability of guns, are essentially meaningless. To your couter-assertion, that the comparison would be impossible if we tried to account for gun availability, the answer is "Tough cookies". If it is impossible to estimate the availability of guns (both legal and illegal), then NO meaningful comparison is possible between the US and the UK. Substituting a meaningless statistic, for a potentially meaningful one for which information is not available, is cargo-cult science. (I used numbers, just like a real scientist--so why don't the meaningful conclusions start coming?) --Len.

The assertion is that you are dramatically more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than anywhere else, and this is clearly the case however you present it. Mintguy 23:31 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

Possibly so--but it would be WILDLY false to say "you are dramatically more likely to be murdered in the United States than anywhere else". Are you somehow suggesting that it's more pleasant to be killed with a machete than with a gun? The relevance to this article: Moore in fact begs the question whether the US is a more violent place.

I removed the following statement because it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie.

"Moore also did not address the claim that countries with stricter gun control might experience fewer "gun deaths", but more violent crime overall. Some researchers claim that violent crime in the UK is now higher than in the United States, and that a person is more likely to be assaulted or robbed in London, England than in New York, New York. Opponents of gun control argue that higher overall death rates, by weapons other than guns, result because guns are also less likely to be used defensively in countries where they are banned. Moore made no attempt to address or refute such claims."

Whoever wrote this must not have bothered to see the film, since Moore specifically stated that the amount of guns in a country does not have anything to do with gun deaths. In fact, he not only stated it, it was actually the key point behind the questions that he asked throughout the movie. I also corrected another statement in this article that seemed to suggest that Moore thought that countries with gun control necessarily have fewer murders. --soulpatch

Moore characterized the relative violence of various countries by comparing gun-related statistics only. In other words, if next year England had ZERO gun homicides, but 33% of the population died by bludgeoning, then according to Moore the US would be the more violent country. --Len.

Regardless, the fact is that Moore specifically did not say that the amount of guns in a country have anything to do with its murder rate, nor did it claim that gun control would make a country less violent. The paragraph I excised suggested otherwise. soulpatch

But he did ask "Why is America more violent than other countries?" This begs the question WHETHER America is more violent than other countries. He then equates "gun violence" with "violence", and uses some invalid statistics to "substantiate his claim".

I'm not going to argue with you over whether the US's abnormally high murder rate doesn't make it a more violent country. My concern is over the inaccurate statements that were made in this article about what Moore said in the movie. soulpatch

"Abnormally high murder rate"? That is itself highly questionable. But you seem opposed to any discussion of the statistical issues which illuminate whether or not it is legitimate to refer to "the abnormally high murder rate" in the first place. --Len.

No, what I object to is an attempt at turning this article into a discussion of issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the movie that it purportedly discusses. If you think the murder rate in the United States is not higher than it is in other countries, you are welcome to your opinion, bizarre thought it might be. That is neither here nor there. The problem I have is with attributing claims to Michael Moore that he never made, not to mention missing the forest for the trees. Moore never claimed that gun ownership was correlated with the murder rate in the United States. Trying to turn this article into polemic against claims that Moore never made is both POV and, to say the least, silly and illogical. soulpatch

You are again equating "murder rate" with "gun murder rate". This puts you in the ridiculous position of suggesting that Rwanda is a safer place than the US. But that's beside the point: the point is that you have completely misunderstood the nature of the statistical statement here. Moore claims that the US is more violent than other countries, and pretends to substantiate it--by COUNTING "gun deaths", but IGNORING levels of gun ownership! When one recalls that the US has >100,000,000 gun owners, while Britain has <10,000 gun owners, one observes that "more violent" is a highly debatable characterization. I'm afraid there is no room for debate on the point that his statistical "analysis" is deeply flawed. You have rejected my observations (which could use some cleanup, I'd admit) because you are convinced they are POV special-pleading. But that conviction proceeds from the fact that your own POV is so entrenched, that you can't seem to recognize a valid criticism of his method when presented with it.

Put differently, what are your credentials for pronouncing my criticism of his statistical method incorrect? I am not a statistician--I am only a PhD mathematician with enough knowledge of statistics to spot the very elementary flaw in his reasoning. --Len.

I am still curious if you actually saw the movie. Thusfar you haven't said if you did or not. The problem, which I keep repeating over and over again, but which thusfar you haven't addressed, is that all of this is irrelevant to the points that Moore was making in the movie. You are worrying about the forest when you shoulud be looking at the trees. Moore was not comparing the United States to Rwanda, but to other advanced industrialized nations. And, this is important: he was not arguing that the presence of guns correlate to murder rates. On the contrary, he was arguing the exact opposite! So you are focusing on a straw man. If you think that the murder rate in the United States is not higher than it is in the other industrialized countries like Japan, Canada, and the UK, then it is really hard to take you too seriously, but at the very least you should make some attempt to address what the thrust of Moore's film was about rather than arguing against things he never said. soulpatch

---

Some have criticized Moore for staging scenes to score rhetorical points. In one scene Moore opened an account at a bank, and walked out the door with a pistol in his hand. Guns were given as an incentive to new depositors. However, the bank has stated that it does not keep or directly give out handguns to new depositors; instead it gives the depositor a voucher, which may be redeemed at designated gun stores, upon successful completion of the mandatory FBI background check and after any applicable waiting periods.

Removed. This cannot be included without at least providing, in the body of the article, the name of the bank, a link to the bank's website, and a credible reference for this information on how the bank operates. Also, is the possibility that the bank did operate as depicted in the Moore film while Moore was filming? --Ryguasu

Now you're being ridiculous. It is just plain illegal to hand out guns over a bank counter, for one thing. There is no possibility that it operated that way. You are violating the recommended practice for Wikipedia of not reducing the information content of an article; it is legitimate to ask for further details, or to supply them yourself, but it is not legitimate to delete the paragraph. Your POV is showing. --Len.

I saw Moore address this point on a talk show. He said the bank did a five-minuted "background check" then handed him a voucher. -- Zoe

Zoe, that may be true--but it is worth observing that any "background check" performed by the bank is most likely an attempt to avoid bad publicity like "Bank Gives Gun Voucher to Serial Killer". Another background check must by law be performed by the gun store redeeming the voucher, and that is the one that counts for legal purposes. And Moore did not film himself walking out of the bank with a voucher; he filmed himself walking out of the bank with a pistol. --Len.

Removed the following paragraph:

Had Moore corrected for population, though, his statistical argument would still represent a flawed analysis: it fails to take into account the number of guns present in the society. It is also necessary to account for the relative number of guns, and/or gun owners, in the various countries. For example, consider two hypothetical towns, each with a population of 100,000. Suppose further that in a given year, one town experiences 100 firearm-related deaths, and the other experiences 20. By Moore's reasoning, the first town would appear to be "5 times more violent" than the second town. But suppose further that the first town had 10,000 gun owners, and the second town had 100 gun owners. It turns out that a gun is actually 20 times more likely to be involved in a lethal incident in the second town. Calculating gun deaths per population, without any accounting at all for relative availability of firearms, produces essentially meaningless statistics.

Once again, the above paragraph clearly shows that the person who wrote it didn't bother to see the movie or paid no attention to what Moore was saying in the movie. soulpatch

Clarify. Moore argued that the US has more "violence", specifically more "gun violence", using invalid statistical method. Your POV is showing. --Len.

You seem to be so focused on using this article as a forum for your own anti-gun-control views that you don't seem to know that Moore was not arguing that the number of guns in a country correlate to the number of gun deaths in that same country. Do you or do you not understand that Moore was not arguing this point? Did you see the movie? soulpatch

---

It seems people are getting a bit too ambitious about the scope of this article. Might it not make more sense to move the the bulk of the discussion of violence to another article, say to gun politics? --Ryguasu

No objection here. --Len.

---

Here are the Michael Moore figures and the CIA stats, if you want to try to work them into the aritcle.

Michael Moore's stats: 
Germany, 381 gun murders. 
France, 255 gun murders. 
Canada, 165 gun murders. 
UK, 68 gun murders. 
Australia, 65 gun murders. 
Japan, 39 gun murders. 
U.S., 11,127 gun murders. 

CIA World Factbook 2002 population stats:

Germany, 83,251,851 
France, 59,765,983 
Canada, 31,902,268 
U.K., 59,778,002 
Australia, 19,546,792 
Japan, 126,974,628 
U.S., 280,562,489 

Mintguy 23:25 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

---

Currently, this article contains one paragraph that summarizes the movie, and two paragraphs that contain a pro-gun critique of a minor point within the the movie that is irrelevant to the essence of the film. This article is not NPOV, and needs some major revision. soulpatch

Soulpatch: do you know what NPOV means? The flaws in his statistical "analysis" are (1) relevant, (2) neither "pro-gun" nor "anti-gun", and (3) as stated, were NPOV. Your insertion badly violated NPOV because you (1) introduced a new argument foreign to Moore's own, and (2) made unsupported assertions of fact concerning murder rates in various countries. I intended to allow your highly POV pleading, but discuss the subject on talk...but you went from bad to worse, deleted the purely theoretical discussion of his statistical methods, and then worked your unsupported "facts" deeper into the article. If you can't tell NPOV from blatant pleading on the gun issue, then prepare for an edit war. --Len.

In case you aren't perfectly clear on this, Soulpatch, let me reiterate:

1. The flaws in his statistical method are on subject.
2. Pointing out that those flaws have been observed is NPOV.
3. In my discussion of his statistical errors, I made no claims whether a proper method would have supported or overturned his position.
4. In other words, I pointed out the flaws in his "statistics", but did not offer an alternative conclusions.

You, on the other hand:

1. dismissed several of the observed flaws in his method,
2. yet claimed that the observations had no merit.
3. Further, you offered completely unsubstantiated "facts" to back up your assertion. (Hint: If aggravated assault is included, your "facts" are blatantly false. If homicides only are considered, then your characterization of US homicide rates as "much higher" is also false.)
4. In addition, you offered the blatantly POV conclusion that Moore's conclusion is obviously true, even if the reasoning he offered was deeply flawed.

In sum, my observations were (1) correct, (2) relevant, (3) NPOV, and (4) DID NOT advance either a pro- or anti-gun position. Your reply was out-and-out POV pleading. So I repeat: learn what NPOV means, or prepare for an edit war. --Len

First of all, it is hard to take you even remotely seriously when you deny that the US has a higher homicide rate than the other industrialized nations of the world.

Fine--provide the statistics. You've said that a number of times now, without offering the proof. What's wrong with you? --Len.

I see that someone has already provided statistics, but I will give you a little homework assignment. Go into Google and look up the number of homicides in Los Angeles in 2001, and then go look up the number of homicides in all of Canada in 2001. Now tell us which had more homicides--the city of Los Angeles, or Canada. For extra credit, tell us the respective populations of Cananda and Los Angeles. Then, after you have done that, tell us which country has the greater homicide rate.soulpatch

Soulpatch: Learn to read. (1) I have never denied that homicide rates are higher in the United States; I have only observed that Moore's analysis was not valid. See my other comments on this page. (Hint: "history" is your friend.) Your patronizing attitude doesn't affect me in the least, by the way--though it speaks volumes about your ability to discuss this objectively. --Len.

That's funny, because it was you who said "provide the statistics", when I pointed out that the United States had a higher homicide rate.

[Of course I said "provide the statistics", you goober! Is this the book of Soulpatch's unsupported statements, or is it intended to be an encyclopedia containing actual facts?]

So you asked me to provide statistics to prove something that you already knew to be the case? Is the intended to be the book of Len's pointless rhetorical questions, or are we actually going to work to build an actual encyclopedia.? soulpatch

[Of course! What in blazes is wrong with you? The point is not what somebody knows, thinks, believes, etc; the point is to put accurate, substantiated information into the Wikipedia. What part of this is news to you? Note that you have not shown any comprehension of the fact that "highest homicide rate in the industrialized world" DOES NOT EQUAL "most violent nation in the world", and arguably does not equal "most violent nation in the industrialized world". You are letting your POV make you extremely S L O P P Y! You seem not to realize that things need to be substantiated, and that specific information is better than vague generalizations.]

Bullshit. It is not necessary for participants here to provide statistics to support every single statement that is ever made here. That is just utter nonsense. If you wish to challenge or if you question a claim that is made, then go ahead and ask for the statistics. To request support or proof for something you know to be the case simply bogs down the talk page into pointlessness. But surely you know this. I don't see you going through every single article questioning every single fact that is ever posted, and to question facts that you know to be the case shows a lack of interest in seriously participating in this project. soulpatch

[I also notice that you haven't touched the question: Why are we justified in considering only the "industrialized world"? I don't blame you! In your shoes, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole: there ISN'T any justification which isn't racist. --Len]

Actually, I did address your ridiculous question with a rhetorical question of my own. If you don't understand the sociological value in comparing similar cultures with shared economies, cultural histories, or other similarities, then I am certainly not the one to educate you. Your definition of racism is so bizarre as to be laughable. Somehow it is racist to put the United States and Japan in the same category? Go back and learn the meaning of racism. You are simply resorting to meaningless trolls that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is this movie. So, when do you plan on seeing it? soulpatch

It is you who claimed that it was "questionable" that the United States has a much higher murder rate. But whatever. At least now you concede that the US is a more violent society. That's some progress. soulpatch

["More violent society"? I've been wasting my breath, obviously, since you AGAIN take "higher homicide rate" and conclude "more violent society"! You are making two mistakes: first, you are ignoring all forms of violence other than homicide; second, you are making the purely arbitrary (and racist) distinction between the "industrialized world" and the rest of the world--"savages" or whatever it is you think they are. --Len]

^ Terrible trolling statement Mintguy 17:09 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

^ Pure ad hominem. The decision to include only the "industrialized world" is arbitrary, and never defended. If we include all nations, then the US does not have the highest homicide rate, and in general the statistics don't nearly support Moore as well as they appear to. But why do we restrict our attention to the "industrialized world"? Answer: the unspoken assumption that while third-world nations have more violence, this is somehow to be expected; that "industrialized" nations can be expected to uphold a higher standard of conduct. In short, that the rest of the world is inferior to the "industrialized world". To see that I am correct, and not trolling, simply attempt to formulate a justification for comparing the US with Japan and the UK, but not Mexico, Brazil or Rwanda. PLEASE! I urge you to make the attempt, and consider the implications of what you discover in doing so. --Len

You've quite simply gone off the deep end. Mintguy is right. You are just trolling now, fishing for whatever personal attacks you think you can come up with. (If you don't understand that there are factors like--oh, gee, I don't know, maybe poverty and stages of economic development and cultural factors that influence what happens in a society, then you have much to learn about sociology. But really, what does this have to do with this movie that you haven't seen but feel qualified to comment on anyway?) Here's my suggestions: if you want to seriously discuss this movie, why not go to the nearest theatre that is showing it, then come back and participate in the article in a serious and constructive way. soulpatch

Whoops--I didn't notice this before. If you think "oh, gee, POVERTY" explains a difference in levels of violence, then of course you realize that this must be proven, and does not go without saying. Don't you? Don't you? Sigh. Well, fear not: it appears that you're quite safe from logic and reality, since your unsubstantiated assumptions are apparently protected, onion like, by layers and layers of unsubstantiated assumptions. --Len

And your comments have to do with "Bowling for Columbine" exactly how? So tell us--when do you plan on seeing the movie? User:soulpatch

Note: I let you put me in a false position. I never denied that the US has a higher homicide rate than other industrialized nations. I have pointed out flaws in his analysis, without asserting that a valid analysis would overturn his premise. And I never asserted it for a very simple reason!

Nor have I made any observation of the bigotry implicit in his decision to consider only industrialized nations--what makes Rwandans so beneath comparison? Is he calling them "savages"? "Monkeys"? Why does it go without saying that they should be more violent than "civilized" persons, and hence ought to be excluded from his consideration? (What a fascinating echo of British colonialist mercantilism!) There are many interesting questions, all quite beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that I have made no attempt to advance a "pro-gun" agenda in the context of this article. I am in fact a Bible believer and a conscientious objector. My interest is that facts be truthful, arguments rational, and writing NPOV. --Len

Second, since you have not denied not seeing the movie, you are not even qualified to discuss the film. Perhaps there are other feature length documentaries that you haven't seen that you would also like to work on in this encyclopedia?

Special pleading. The statistical argument in the article can be evaluated by anybody who knows what they're talking about.

There is no "statistical argument" in the movie. This is an example of what happens when a person who is ignorant of a movie tries to comment on it, and it further illustrates that you are unqualified to participate in this article. The film is not concerned with making an extended proof of the higher homicide rate in the United States; it is an extended inquiry into why the violence exists. If you had seen the movie that you somehow feel that you are an expert on despite not having seen it, then you would know this. Perhaps while you are at it, you can participate in the article on "chutzpuh", since the claim that you can write about a movie you don't know anything about is truly a fine example of this. soulpatch

Third, I simply reduced your long tirade about a minor and insignificant aspect of the major thrust of his film from two thirds of the article to a single sentence. This is an attempt at restoring balance to the article. If you don't understand why a one paragraph summary of the film, followed by a two-paragraph tirade that complains about a nit that is not germane to the thrust of the film, is not NPOV, then it is you, not me, who has a lot to learn about NPOV. soulpatch

The relative length of the summary and the discussion has nothing to do with NPOV. You apparently do have a problem here.

Soulpatch, while I sympathize with your arguments -- many attacks against the film are clearly unfounded -- it is not correct for us to ignore the controversy or to merely link to it. Instead of deleting the pertinent information, the right course of action is to

• provide attribution to arguments against the film, or ask for it where it is not available
• summarize Moore's counter-arguments.

This could be done in a separate controversy article.

Then start a well-writen one; I'll contribute.

Len, threatening to start an edit war is hardly helpful. Let's try to build a balanced article together.--Eloquence

I'm willing. Stop making up statistics (without even giving numbers--even made up ones), and stop treating a scientific assessment of his method as POV, and we'll be off to a start.

Now go do the same thing in the George W. Bush article.

I haven't seen it. If it says he has a low IQ, in the absence of an IQ test (and given that GWB graduated school, while Al Gore dropped out), then I wouldn't be the least surprised. Some people apparently can't tell facts from opinion, let alone distinguish NPOV from POV statements OF those opinions. --Len.

Len. Here are some authenticated stats for you. From a report by Professor Martin Killias of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland in the early 1990s (Killias, 1993)

Table A.2: Rates of homicide, suicide and gun ownership in 18 countries

	Rate per Million				% Households With Guns
	Homicide		Suicide
	Overall	With Gun	Overall	With Gun
USA	75.9	44.6	124.0	72.8	48.0
Norway	12.1	3.6	142.7	38.7	32.0
Canada	26.0	8.4	139.4	44.4	29.1
Switzerland	11.7	4.6	244.5	57.4	27.2
Finland	29.6	7.4	253.5	54.3	23.2
France	12.5	5.5	223.0	49.3	22.6
New Zealand	20.2	4.7	137.7	24.1	22.3
Australia	19.5	6.6	115.8	43.2	19.4
Belgium	18.5	8.7	231.5	24.5	16.6
Italy	17.4	13.1	78.1	10.9	16.0
Sweden	13.3	2.0	182.4	21.2	15.1
Spain	13.7	3.8	64.5	4.5	13.1
W. Germany	12.1	2.0	203.7	13.8	8.9
N. Ireland	43.3	21.3	82.7	11.8	8.4
CSSR	13.5	2.6	117.8	9.5	5.2
Scotland	16.3	1.1	105.1	6.9	4.7
England & Wales	6.7	0.8	86.1	3.8	4.7
Netherlands	11.8	2.7	117.2	2.8	1.9

1. The Swiss gun ownership figure excluding military guns is 12.2%
2. From Killias (1993).

---

Taken from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap41.htm a UK Parliamentary report into gun control following the Dunblane massacre. Mintguy

What is interesting to note is that the overall Homicide rate for the USA is nearly double that of Northern Ireland and this was at the height of the "The Troubles". Mintguy

The only problem with the above numbers is that they are more than 15 years old. Killias used statistics from the mid-late 1980s. The rate of homicide in the US has been falling steadily since the early 1990s, and rates in countries like England has been rising. In 1999, for example, the number of homicides per million in population was about 63, about 20% less than circa 1985. Current statistics will still show the US with higher homicide rates than Japan, England, etc.--though much less dramatic than the numbers offered by Moore--but the most current information should be used. The rate in England for 1999/2000 per million in population is 13.8; For Canada it was 18; France and Australia have similar rates. (Each country will have to be looked up individually, since comparison tables do not appear to be extant. I'm out of time.) --Len.

Actually, the homicide rate in the US has been rising in the last few years again. The UN democragphic data that has been published over the years has consistently shown the US homicide rates to fluctuate between about 7.5 and 10 per 100,000, in comparison with about 1.0-2.0 for most industrialized democracies. Finland is typically the highest in western Europe, with something like 3. The US consistently has the highest homicide rates throughout the western world.soulpatch

Tangential note: in Canada, 2/3 of homicides were committed by people with prior criminal records. Moore didn't even consider looking at the justice system for correlations with crime rates--but such observations are outside the scope of the article: there are infinitely many things Moore didn't consider; the subject is his affirmative arguments. --Len.

Then again, none of that is relevant, since a dead person is a dead person regardless of whether the person who did the killing has a criminal record. Maybe if you bothered to see the movie that you claim to be an expert on, you might have a better understanding of what these supposed "arguments" are. soulpatch

---

see GunOwnership.png based on the table above - the US still stands out very clearly, without having to do a Xi squared test or any other form of statistical analysis. OK - it doesn't say anything about causes - the UK has had Hungerford and Dunblane, and Australia has also had similar incidents, but the fact is that most people in these countries are not particularly worried about being shot at, because it's quite hard with the lack of guns. Thank goodness! David Martland 12:24 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Neutrality

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

I actually see this article as having a conservative bias to a certain degree. The "criticisms" are very one-sided, quote the US government as an unbiased source, and the External Links is simply absurd with only Moore's webpage as one of support. --AWF

Kmart segment

In the summer of 2003 Mark Taylor (Columbine), 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)

Moore and the other teenager have openly criticized the boy. He showed up at K-Mart with the others and removed all bullets from the store, yet didn't get the point? I think he knew what he was doing, was ostracized for it, and then copped out of responsibility. Regardless, if you're going to include such opposite claims, proof is required (despite Delirium's paranoia that demand of proof or evidence is a liberal conspiracy - I guess science really can't be trusted [rolleyes]). The same will apply for the Moore quote if I can find it. --AWF

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?

A viewer would see the cartoon as satire, but would also assume that it is meant to satirize some real event and would be led to a false conclusion about what this event was. Ken Arromdee 8 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

you really think people are that stupid?, to not recognize satire from truth?... hmm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.186 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If he won't answer that, I will. Yes, I think Moore's target audience, IE the choir he's preaching to, is exactly that stupid. -RannXXV 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1991 - Bush reinstates the dictator of Kuwait

I simply want to say that the above statement is false. Kuwait is not a dictatoship, it is one of the few countries in the Arabian/Persian Gulf that is ruled by a constitutional monarchy. In fact, the parliament can veto the Amir. The difference may seem trivial but I believe that it is quite important. If Moore wants people to take him seriously then he should get his facts straight; it only takes one minute on the internet to find out what kind of government Kuwait is. I am mainly annoyed because the Middle East doesn't need anymore bad reputations; he made it sound as if George Bush Sr. made Kuwait into a mini-Iraq (which had the most prominent 'dictator' in the Middle East). A word may not seem like much, but then again that is how propaganda and misinformation starts. - Layal.

Look closer. Kuwait is a nominal constutional monarchy - that is, it calls itself one, but doesn't behave like one (e.g. the head of parliament is the monarch's son, there is no freedom of the press, no political parties, women cannot vote, etc.).

To be fair, as of 2005, this is no longer true, and the situation has dramatically improved - but these changes are very recent, and took place after both the Gulf War and the release of Bowling for Columbine. So Moore's point - that the US has double standards - has some validity, surely? The Singing Badger 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the thing is, Kuwait is not a dictatorship in any shape or form. People can vote and there is a constitution that gives every citizen certain rights. As for political parties, you are right, they are banned, however there is something else that is quite similar. Quoted from Wikipedia from that very link: "Political parties are banned under Kuwaiti law. However, there exist several major political groupings that function like parties. Although the Amir maintains the final word on most government policies, the National Assembly plays a real role in decision making, with powers to initiate legislation, question government ministers, and express lack of confidence in individual ministers." (also note the article says 'most', not all.) So no. You can say it's closer to a monarchy since there is a 'King', true, but even then there are two Al-Sabah family lines that interchange. One gets the throne, while the second becomes prime-minister. Once the Amir dies, the PM from the other family takes the throne and someone from the original Amir's family becomes PM, etc. - Layal.

If what you say is true, then Cuba is no dictatorship either, cos they have elections too and several other dictatorships that hold democratical elections to deny that they are a dictatorship (the list is long, and it even includes North Korea to past dictatorships such as the one of Augusto Pinochet).

1953 - Shah Installed as Dictator of Iran

This statement is totally lacking in basis. The fact is, the PM had illegally taken control of the military, and deposed the Shah, Iran's rightful Head of State. The office of Shah had been a part of Iran for the past four centuries. -- Captain Spock

The part of the title regarding "Bowling" regards with the work done by Political Scientist Robert Putnam regarding political culture through civil society - organizations such as bowling - and the eroding of such civil society which thus harms governance in a state, such as in his book Making Democracy Work.

Bowling Metaphor

I removed the following sentence from the article: In essence, Moore seeks to knock down the quick and easy excuses ("pins") like video games or Marilyn Manson and break past all that to expose the truth behind it all.

This paragraph was self-contradictory; first, it says the bowling metaphor represents the build up of frustration leading to a destructive event, and then, this sentence says Moore is knocking down our illusions about the causes of violence in America like bowling pins. Pick a metaphor and stick with it. The second one's a bit of a stretch. In essence, I just scattered the contradictions in that paragraph like bowling pins being knocked down by a bowling ball.

this article is pretty much just a lot of criticisms. dont get me wrong im not saying any of the criticisms are unfair but looking at this page all i really see is "critisism from.., criticisms from.., more criticisms.... im not sure if its biased in favor of a conservative view but its just not a very in depth look at the movie its justabout the controversy

Criticise is about all you can do. The movie didn't have any depth.24.10.102.46 06:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The movie was intended to be controversial. Controversial works tend to draw a lot of criticism. This article documents that criticism. By the way, this discussion shouldn't be in the Bowling Metaphor section.

canada

the line about moore deceiving the viewers by saying "he sees more black people in canada therefore its true", i do not think is correct. i think moore was just explaining that he sees more black people either because there are more black people in canada or most likely that black people from the usa have come to canada where they will be treated more fairly. thats the assumption that i had while watching. if anyone disagrees than i will not remove the point in the article, but of course if people agree - than i will The Vince-alator 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I live in Maine, two hours from the Canadian border, and I see a lot more black people on their side than on our side. It may not mean anything, or may be based on economic or other factors, but there it is. ~BobBQ

Sorry, two anonymous eyewitnesses on Wikipedia who are in all likelihood just trying to defend Moore are not exactly a verifiable source. Try harder. -RannXXV 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• In fact, the southern Ontario parts of Canada where Moore visits have a much higher number of black people than the Canadian average, in Toronto it's better than 8% - so merely looking around, of course Moore says he sees a good number of black people - had he gone to Medicine Hat or Moose factory, he might have concluded that Canada has no black people at all. WilyD 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On Canada Issues

Moore states that 13% of Canada is non-white, to that line the defense is that America has over 30% of non-white population. HOWEVER, in the CIA factbook page, it shows that america has a 81% white population. Does that mean that america is the only country with a 110% population in the globe??. In the same page, the percents for black population is 13.9% and for asians is 4.2%. The page considers that hispanics are either black/white/asian/indian, according to what they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.186 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sure the haters will be glad to know Moore's wrong there too - 13.5% of Canadians are visible minorities, and Indians/Inuits/Metis are not visible minorities, though they're certainly not white. Overall, that means about 18% of Canadians are not white. WilyD 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an oddity of USA censuses. They have two "race" categories. One is the normal caucasian, black, etc, while the other is either Hispanic Yes/No. This is because many who are white (or more correctly, consider themselves white) are also Hispanic, but not all Hispanics are necessarily caucasian. When Moore counts the Canadian Hispanics as "non-white" then the US Hispanics are also "non-white" by that standard.--GunnarRene 21:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I loved the Bowling for Columbine film but as someone who once lived in Canada I was bemused by the point in the film about the similar populations of ethnic minorities in the US and Canada. The Canadian Black minority is 2-3% of the overall population. I don't know the figure for the US but it's much higher, I think around 10% or more. I presume Moore, by pointing to Canada with "similar" ethnicity to the US but much less violent crime, was trying to counter the argument that there are ethnic reasons for the large amount of gun crime in the US. I don't like those racial arguments either, but I'd have to say that Moore's point didn't do much to undermine them.81.108.30.88 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am cutting the paragraph critisizing Moore's use of Canadian and US news footage. It characterizes his contrast as unfair, pitting a US sensationalist news show vs the National, on CBC. If that were true, it would be unfair except for several things: 1) He also shows a local canadian show, with a segment about new speed bumps 2) CBC News is representative of Canadian news since the CBC is Canada's main news channel and news programming. Relatively few Americans watch PBS. So the implication that CBC is some fringe of responsible journalism vs the american common sensationalist perspective is not correct. Going further, Canada has no Fox News equivalent. Even CNN out sensationalizes CTV or Global in relative terms.

I wouldn't be opposed to a section quoting anyone reputable making similar claims with some form of statistics backing it. Demonstrate that, say, Canadian news spends roughly equivalent times focusing on crime stories or something. Otherwise the section is POV and not encyclopedic (and innaccurate in relaying the contents of the film too). --FNV 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Valid points. However, one can't just remove criticism just because it's "wrong". One CAN remove criticism that is unsourced, and the part that you removed WAS unsourced, so I agree with what you did though not for the reason you did it. :-) --GunnarRene 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the CIA factbook.