(Outdent) I know what the policy says.  Our dispute is over the phrase "the subject at hand."  You take the position that the subject is film and film only and thus only film critics count, and every other editor recognizes that the subject at hand is the factual claims made by a documentary whose director expressly states is trying to effect political change, and thus includes experts in health-care policy.  And your hundreds of words on the subject fail to address the arguments made by those editors, which is why it's tendentious to keep repeating the irrelevancy that 92% of professional film critics thought that the movie was entertaining.  No one disputes that most film critics thought that the movie was entertaining, but it's rather besides the point, since film critics who reviewed the movie before experts saw it had no way of knowing the factual inaccuracies that are being criticized (except in the case of the Canadian critics who knew right away that the movie was fictional), and have no reason to explore the issue.  I'm well aware that the article has had POV problems well before you started editing the page.  I appreciate the work you did on the synopsis, which was a large source of the POV problems.