Talk:Bowling for Columbine/Archive 3

message: Having wandered over here along a round-about path, and not having seen the movie, I have to say that this is pretty much impossible to follow. The mixture of plot outline and rejoinder is too choppy, and the writing is often poor.
It would make a lot more sense if the basic outline of the movie were presented first, followed by the criticism/discussion of particular points and some history of the film as a whole. Mangoe 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to do that. Feel free to help. DJ Clayworth 22:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, not having seen the movie I really don't think I can edit the article itself much. Mangoe 12:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the same goes for a lot of Moore's harshest critics. -Schrodinger82 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not exactly coherent 

message: A case has been filed with the Mediation Cabal regarding this article. If you are a neutral party and interested in mediating, please review Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators before starting mediation, then feel free to dive in! If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t)  21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine|Mediation Cabal case]] 

message: The comment nesting has gotten too smeared, so I'm going to pick this into separate threads.
Above, it was said that 'You might argue that that the FG article doesn't have "expert commentators," but they're a heck of a lot closer on the subject than Hardy or Kopel."
Well, I disagree on that, but in any case the reason why (and for that matter, how) Groening et al. are in that article is because their shows and FG are parodying each other. They are not cited there as experts on comedy, and for that matter I don't know that anyone without an axe to grind would even recognize the existence of such expertize, for humor is in the eye of the beholder.
In any case, it's a lousy article. Mangoe 12:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, these guys all have established themselves as national celebrities speaking with their own TV shows, with the exception of Chris Ware, who is simply regarded as one of the top in his field and spoke in a magazine widely available on newstands.  They aren't just random guys with self-published websites.  The same cannot be said of Hardy or Kopel. It's amazing how you insist that the sources on that site aren't notable, and then you hold the standards for BFC far, far lower.  You think that the FG article is lousy?  Imagine how bad it would be if you included comments from every random blogger who hated that show, and then you would have a good idea of what people are trying to turn this page into.  -Schrodinger82 19:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking this into single topics: the "Family Guy" article 

message: Please vote Support or Oppose and give a reason why, please keep the reason why to under 30 words.
====Support====
# Support per nom. PPGMD 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: # Support per nom. PPGMD 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Oppose for now. Does not give weight in proportion to the nature of controversies. See discussion.GunnarRene 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # I tend support except that I would hold that their websites are adequate for reference as to their views. Mangoe 01:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed