Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 4 April 2013

Film: American Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Conservatism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An Issue of Bias?

Many critics believe Bowling for Columbine is anti-Second Amendment propaganda, ironically from a lifetime National Rifle Association member, that distorts facts and paints an inaccurate picture of guns and gunowners and exploits the victims of the tragic 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado. This should be presented as a view of the movie and not the author of the article. Maybe adding something like "The movie furthers the belief that..." etc.

Not even. The passage is not relevant to Michael & Me to begin with, and belongs in the Bowling for Columbine article. I deleted it.Nightscream 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the word "controversial" used to describe Larry elders,and Micheal Moore seems to be a POV to me. And really not needed. I think I will Delete it.--MadDogCrog 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

External Link as Proof?

To finance the documentary, Larry Elder took out an equity loan on his home (Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Channel, August 26, 2005.) Evidence of this would be helpful but is not necessary.

Mr. Elder said so during his interview.GeorgeC 05:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

what the hell?

"Larry Elder also uses Moore's "ambush style" of journalism against him"

Shouldnt there be first a consensus about if Moore uses the "Ambush style" to begin with??. At least re-writte the sentence, its POV as it is.

This article reads like a biased movie review

There are several examples of unsourced opinions that are stated as fact, such as "Michael Moore insists that there are too many guns in America"(2nd paragraph), ". . .and presents evidence showing that an armed society is a safer society" (3rd paragraph), "The DVD includes a humorous animation . . ." (5th paragraph). As I recall, Mr. Moore did not assert that there were too many guns in America in Bowling for Columbine, and he even remarked that Canadians own more guns per capita in spite of a lower homicide rate. Concerning the 2nd quote, it should read something like "presents evidence in hopes of showing that an armed society is a safer society", because it is a subjective judgment as to whether or not the evidence presented actually acheives what the filmmaker wants it to achieve. Concerning the last quote, it is also subjective to suggest that an animation is humorous, and a neutral word is necessary (farcical, perhaps?).

In its current state, this article seems like the work of a fan of the movie who did not take adequate measures to ensure the article was appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Braincandle 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelandme.png

Image:Michaelandme.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources and notability

Per this discussion and Misplaced Pages:Notability (films), I've questioned whether this "film" deserves its own article. This article has been tagged as needing additional citations for verification for the last five years with no citations added during that time. The two links in the current article are actually just one repeated twice, both of which are dead links with no archival source. Allegedly, the link goes to a August 26, 2005 television interview with the director on Hannity & Colmes from the Fox News Channel. What we know is this:

1. The film was not widely distributed.
2. It is unknown if it has received two or more full-length reviews by nationally known critics, however, I've requested these reviews on the film project talk page and I've said I would restore this article if that notability guideline was met.
3. The film is not historically notable, as it has not received publication at least five years after its initial release in at least two non-trivial articles.
4. The film was not deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, at least five years after the film's release.
5. The film was not given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
6. The film was not featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
7. The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
8. The film was not selected for preservation in a national archive.
9. The film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

With all of the above in question, it is surprising to see another editor restore it with the claim "sources exist to establish notability". Is it too much to ask where these sources are, and how they meet the above film notability guideline? Per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Please provide these sources. Finally, it needs to be said that the alleged source in the current article is cited to Fox News. The film was directed, produced, and written by radio and television personality Larry Elder, who has a very close working relationship with the Fox network. Sources must not just be reliable, they must be independent of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A simple search yields (addition to FoxNews) sources in such as the Boston Globe, LA Times, CBC, Washington Post. Perhaps you should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then WP:CIR  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Stub-Class film articles
• Stub-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles