Thanks to all for taking my rather offhand comment seriously.  To reiterate my original explanatoin to James: I'm interested in this more on a meta level (how do we approach controversial subjects) than out of deep feelings one way or the other towards Moore and his film; that is, I'm trying to see the forest of making a good article on the film rather than the trees of every factual detail within the film that contributors might have multiple viewpoints about.  For an encyclopedia based around the concept of a Neutral Point of View, any attempt to either counter or defend the content of a subject that is, in itself, an editorial statment seems wrong; such discussions wind up as parasites draining the life and meaning out of an otherwise useful article.  See, for example, something like Roe v. Wade  there's no need to use that article to debate all the pros and cons of the subject involved  there are other articles for that linked at the bottom  just state the facts about the case.  Even if you really consider Moore's movie to be completely indefinsible propaganda (and to risk the Wiki-equivalent of Godwin's Law here), note that the article on Triumph of the Will doesn't feel the need to explain all the reasons why Nazi Germany wasn't all it was cracked up to be.   Similarly, shouldn't we just describe the content of the movie (noting that it is controversial), and then if we want an article about the Bin Laden family departure or whatever we can put the facts about that subject there?   20:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)