Talk:Mine Your Own Business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

I watched this movie andI think it is extremely baised. It surely gives you something to thik about. Hoever, it interpretes the facts only to show the autor's point of view and leaves out anything that would speak against it.

Even assuming the film were biased, something you have yet to prove, that doesn't mean that this description of it is. That's all this page is, a description of a film. It even talks about the film's financing and the economic aspirations of said financial source. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it biased. Several people, and rightly so, have accused Micheal Moore of bias in his analyses in Bowling for Columbine. Does that make the Wiki page describing his film biased? No.

I would be interested to see what other people who have watched think about that.

The director (a former journalist) claims that Gabriel Resources Ltd. had no editorial control over the documentary's content. So I don't see why this movie is more biased than any other documentary. Can you give any example of something he left out regarding the projects mentioned? Rc3784 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're so naive. :) Gabriel Resources gave him the money and didn't control what we was filming, do you really believe in this? They might haven't looked into any frame of the movie, but they certainly knew and controlled the concept, the idea, the viewpoint of the film.

Ollyn: Have you actually watched the entire movie? I did... Discpad 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gheorghe Lucian's role

Gheorghe's role in the film is pivotal: As a young and unemployed [Roşia Montană] resident, he is an actual victim of the "good intentions" of the European environmental extremist movement. Discpad 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/plagiarism

A big chunk of this article has been copy-pasted from http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2055/, which is not exactly a balanced source to begin with. 190.16.182.48 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does a documentary have to be necessarily non-biased? I can understand if weasel words are being used but accusing it of bias doesn't quite click with me. You could add a criticism section to the page and link to accepted sources that criticize the movie or back up your accusations of bias by showing us how the filmmakers distorted the truth using verifiable sources. Anangbhai 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and subjective

As a former NGO worker I would not call this film bias. It's not more subjective than many other documentaries and raises some very important questions. In many developing countries the NGO acts as a 4th power and has a lot of influence political and economical that doesn't nececarly have support in the local community. Many NGO also have a deep mistrust against anything who can be called commercial and will go against any commercial company wanting to start up in a poor area. The mining companies will not sovle all problems, but it should be up to the people who actually live there to deside what their intrest is, not to be overrunned by a wealthy NGO with big HQ in some western capital. 50 years of development aid has yet to prove that it actually has help a country out of poverty. But there are several examples of countries who industrialze and has success (South Korea beeing the start example).

On my travels i found that most NGO HQ's in Africa was often situated in the Embassy district. Wonder why... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korsveien (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)