Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 3

message: I've sent the following e-mail to Michael Moore via the e-mail address provided on his home page:
"This may seem like a bizarre e-mail but I want to finally put to sleep a ridiculous and trivial issue that your opponents are using to defame you and which is ruining the Wikipedia article on you due to childish arguments amongst otherwise intelligent people. 
The issue is that you spent most of your childhood life not in the actual city of Flint but in a suburb of Flint, Davidson. The article has been prevented from being edited until this issue is resolved.
What I’m asking is that you put a small article on your website detailing the fact that you lived in a suburb of Flint and not the actual city (Include the fact that went to high school in flint, published the flint voice and that many of your close family members worked at auto plants in Flint). Your opponents on the site claim that as soon as you say you’re from Davidson and that you only claimed to be from Flint because most people wouldn’t know where the hell Davidson is they will remove the article. If they don’t remove the article then it will be clear who the real hypocrites are.
George Miller."
If he writes such an article can you please stop arguing about this ridiculous issue. simpsons_contributor 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the Flint issue 

message: Hi, here from RfC. I hope I can help unify those involved in this dispute by suggesting, gently but firmly, that none of you is in the right here. Both versions of Flint v. Davison are POV, albeit one aggressively, one defensively. Neither will do. And as for "no-one has established whether Moore did or did not have a middle-class upbringing," well, I can cite a piece in Vanity Fair, March 2005, p. 247 which states clearly he was. "However, he actually grew up, as few of his fans know, in nearby Davison, a mostly white, middle-class community." The article goes on to give evidence of Moore's father's middle-classness. That said, the issue is not: Michael Moore is/is not a huge liar. The issue is whether he has, or is widely believed (regardless of how sketchy the circles may be) to have misrepresented his origins, explicitly or tacitly. I think that there is ample evidence that people believe Moore has deliberately allowed people to believe something about himself that isn't true. Whether they are justified in this belief is something for Wikipedia readers to decide, not Wikipedia editors. IronDuke 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about this article?  Can you quote the parts that say his family was middle class?  I'm genuinely curious. AlistairMcMillan 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why I'm not objecting to the rewrite as such. As noted, parts of others of Alistair's edits have had merit and been acceptable. However, he always turns them around into essentially trying to defend Moore, and in fact grows more and more defensive as edits continue, rather than attempting to reach any sort of middle ground or consensus. -RannXXV 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is the article in question. The part where it says that his father sent three children to school more or less indicates that he was middle class (for an American, anyway). Whether that ends up being solidly middle-class or lower-middle class, I cannot say. IronDuke 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about the part where it says he was an assembly line worker?  Working class kids go to college too you know.  AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assembly line workers made good money in the 50's. And Moore, apparently, came from a two-income home. And they lived in a middle-class suburb. And three kids went to college. I guess it's possible they were somehow secretly poor, but I very much doubt it. And there's this: "Michael Moore was born on April 23, 1954 in Davison, Michigan, a lily-white middle class suburb 10 miles east of Flint. His father Frank assembled AC spark plugs, and his mother was a clerk-secretary, for General Motors (GM) in Flint. For a few decades following World War II, America's global power (relative to war-shattered Europe and Japan) and the benefits provided to employees by GM and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union made life pleasant. Moore's parents enjoyed ample income, free medical and dental care, four weeks of paid vacation each year, and had two cars in their well-to-do Davison home. Moore's Irish-American father had spent workday afternoons playing golf. After he retired at age 53 with a full pension, he enjoyed a life of ease, golf and volunteer work at the local Roman Catholic church."  IronDuke 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah cause that site ain't biased.  :)  And none of their information is sourced.  Wonderful.  AlistairMcMillan 04:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I REALLY think we need to include the part where he killed his school principal. AlistairMcMillan 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: From IronDuke's source at thediscovernetwork.org, "At 18 Moore ran for city school board on a simple platform: "Fire the Principal." He won. The Principal, who had been kind to Moore as a child, resigned and died soon thereafter of a heart attack." Sorry doesn't that imply he was responsible for the principal's death? AlistairMcMillan 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Calling other editors names is not helpful or productive in any way and is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Let's try to keep this civil, shall we? Gamaliel 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Rann, please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your restoration and expansion of your personal attack does not get us any closer to a solution.  Imagine if AM had accused you of being a "meatpuppet" of Badlydrawnjeff just because the two of you agree.  What would you think of that? Consider your comments from that perspective. Gamaliel 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should direct your friend to them as well, as he has consistently acted more as if he is trying to win an argument than as if he is trying to reach a consensus, from the very start. And I refer to you as a meatpuppet because you consistently take actions that augment what he is trying to do when doing them himself might be inconvenient, such as making changes to the disputed section for him (to help him avoid the 3RR) or deleting comments about him that might damage his credibility. -RannXXV 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AM and I happen to concur on what we feel is a proper NPOV way of presenting this information.  Note that I first complained about this section on December 21, a full 10 days before AM's first comment on the matter, so you could just as well call him my meatpuppet.  Regardless, I have no interest in his credibility; my interests are in WP policies such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and in insuring this talk page is productive and does not degenerate into an insult fest.  Your comments are not productive in any way and do not bring us any closer to a solution.  Let's focus on issues and not personalities. Gamaliel 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd that you claim that you're here to promote NPOV and don't want personalities to get involved, yet when AM becomes snide, sarcastic, rude, and unproductive, you are curiously silent, and instead show him support, and choose only to censure those on the other side of the argument from yourself. If this is a display of how Wikipedia administrators handle themselves, I am not impressed by their process for choosing them. -RannXXV 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that AM has acted inappropriately, feel free to report his specific behavior to myself or another administrator of your choosing.  You are not, however, free to retaliate by escalating matters with namecalling.  Gamaliel 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the problem there don't seem to be any sources that go anywhere near really proving whether Moore has a middle-class or working-class background.  There are lots of sources where people accuse Moore of mis-representing his background, but no way to know whether they are basing that on fact or just supposition.  Everyone just seems to be making the lead that since Davison on average has a higher standard of living (our own pages on Davison and Flint prove that) that Moore must have too. AlistairMcMillan 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats all shiney and stuff, but could you provide a source that proves he does this?  BTW You are aware that Davison is a suburb of Flint right? AlistairMcMillan 08:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man, various internet sites, etc.  I think you're being insincere. MSTCrow 09:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm just glad we finally have someone who is really willing to debate the real issues here.  Thank you sir.  I guess all those people were wrong, Wikipedia really does work. AlistairMcMillan 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Hey uhm, does anyone happen to know which hospital Moore was born in?  Cause Davison doesn't seem to have any.  AlistairMcMillan 12:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is a 2004 Rolling Stone interview posted on his own site that says "At the moment, Moore is behind the wheel of his red Chrysler minivan, giving me a tour of Davison, the little town just outside Flint where he spent his childhood."  Isn't he supposed to be going around creating the illusion that he grew up in some Flint slum?  Not very smart taking a Rolling Stone reporter to the place where he actually grew up.  Unless it is part of some devious plan... AlistairMcMillan 12:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know which hospital Moore was born in?  Do you know if there are any hospitals in Davison?  Could you please try to back up your edits with evidence instead of just sticking to Moorewatch talking points? AlistairMcMillan 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the hospital you're born in is what defines where you're from, rather than where you grew up? Funny, I've never heard that definition before. And could you please try to reach some sort of consensus before pushing intellectually dishonest POV edits? (Oh, and before you start claiming personal attacks or some such, it would only be a personal attack if I were not being literally true in what I said. If I were, for example, to call you an asshole, that would be a personal attack, as you are not literally a sphincter involved in the excresion of waste materials. However, as you are being very literally intellectually dishonest, that is not an attack but a statement of fact.) -RannXXV 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this is really too much.  I don't care about your interpretation of WP:NPA, this is nothing more than a roundabout way of calling someone an asshole.  This is your second warning.  If you continue to disrupt this page by insulting others and violate WP:NPA, you will be blocked. Gamaliel 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking someone you're involved in an argument with? Funny, I seem to recall that Alistair was in some hot water over the same thing after taking a glance at his talk page. And your interpretation of what I said is your own, I was merely offering up an example. But you, too, are intellectually dishonest, so I'm not surprised. -RannXXV 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on content.  Comment on content, not on contributors, then the dispute will be resolved a lot faster and everybody can go their separate ways to other articles. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was Moore born?

message: "Depictions of Moore" is a dumb-ass idea. There's already a "criticisms" section. A section of "people who make fun of Michael Moore and how they did it" is redundant, silly, and very un-encyclopaedic. 
On the other side of the scale, all of Moore's detractors are not necessarily conservative. The sprinking of "conservative critics" throughout the document leads the reader to believe that all criticisms levelled at Moore are by definition partisan, when they really aren't.
:Agreed, on both counts. I think the depictions of Moore should probably remain, as it's notable that some people have decided to mock him, but if multiple people said it should come out, I wouldn't shed a tear. (I think the exception might be the one in Team America, as that exists due to a specific disagreement between Moore and other prominent creators of media. It's noteworthy in that it was a response to Parker and Stone feeling that they were wronged, but as a footnote.) Also, the whole thing of "conservative critics" really doesn't fit well... it's as someone I know once said of a report about the shooter of Larry Flynt that described the attacker as a "right-wing extremist": "How do they know? They never caught the guy, they don't even have any real suspects." In fact, the Bowling for Columbine article notes criticisms of Moore from both Conservative and Liberal sources. -RannXXV 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of thoughts... 

message: ...please work out your differences here, and remember that assertions must be sourced. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: This entire debate is incredibly silly.  I'll illustrate by example.   Another nationally known and controversial public figure spent his formative years in Michigan.  When he moved to New York City as a young man he went by the nickname "Detroit Red."  Actually he had never lived in Detroit.  He had lived in Lansing and had attended a nearly all-white school.  Later he stated this publicly in his autobiography with the comment that he told people he was from the nearest big city because Detroit is better known than Lansing.  No one attempted to raise that as an issue to challenge his clout.  This other public figure was Malcolm X.  Of course name the suburb where Michael Moore grew up.  Name it and move on.  It's trivial. Durova 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is purely just my own opinion, but I'd figure it's just for ease of reference.  I'm technically from Pasadena, Texas, a suburb of Houston, but nobody knows where Pasadena is, so for ease of reference I usually just tell people I'm from Houston. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, as I've said to others, you didn't build your career on the ills of Houston.  You don't claim to be from Houston in order to present yourself as an aggrieved party.  There's no question that a) Moore has done that, and b) that his lack of addressing the situation, even as a throwaway, has become a sticking point. --badlydrawnjeff 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sort of interesting I guess, but not really material to the article unless you can cite published criticism from someone else.  If that's possible, I don't see why it can't be included if it's properly cited.  If there's no such criticism, it's not really appropriate for the article.  (I don't know personally, it could well exist, I've just never looked for it.) · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who want to make this into an issue bear the burden of establishing any widespread challenge to this longstanding custom.  It seems to exist only among the political opponents of Michael Moore.  As such it's an example of the Irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy and sub-encyclopedic. Durova 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are numerous books, newspapers, magazines, and websites that have discussed or mentioned the "Moore isn't from Flint" connection.  I'm honestly not even sure why this is still a question as to whether it truly exists as a criticism. --badlydrawnjeff 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you provide a few sources? That would be helpful.  THanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnotes 7 and 8 above.  They've been posted here already. --badlydrawnjeff 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did read my response to 8 above right?  It doesn't cover the issue at all. AlistairMcMillan 20:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It mentions it, much like many others. --badlydrawnjeff 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind listing some of these "many others"? AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you seem to be asserting is that argumentum ad populum negates the Irrelevant conclusion fallacy.  Two logically flawed arguments are as irrelevant as one.  Demonstrate instead that the custom is in general decline: that people from surburbs no longer claim origin from the parent metropolis or that anyone other than Michael Moore has faced criticism on this basis. Durova 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity, when did a criticism have to be published to be notable? As well, published criticisms were noted in the sections (which Gamaliel removed completely as well as the debated section, to get his preferred version in under the page protection I'd already announced). But also, does criticism have to now be published in a magazine or newspaper before it's considered notable? Moore's apparent tendency to misrepresent himself has been noted in blog posts by people on both sides of the aisle, therefore it's a criticism. Whether it's considered valid or not is not the issue, but rather that it is a widely spread point of contention.
But in the end, I suppose it doesn't matter. Some people have made it clear that they prefer to remove notations of criticism and, rather than argue that it is not suitable to the article, simply make arguments that it is invalid and should not be included. This intellectually dishonest behavior proves that they don't have much of a leg to stand on, and people will still be able to find the truth eventually, at websites other than Wikipedia. -RannXXV 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To your question about "when a criticism has to be published to be notable," that's Wikipedia's policy.  Read Verifiability and Cite sources. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow your statement.  Are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?  I followed a request for comment about a specific matter.  If he has misrepresented his background in some sort of substantive way than that could be encyclopedic and worthy of discussion.  I might as well mention (since it's on my user page and germane to some of Moore's work) that I'm a war veteran.  I found Farenheit 9/11 very hard to watch although - with a well developed sense of irony - some of my friends in the service and I had enjoyed Bowling for Columbine in the gun mount.  I'm neutral about Moore and his politics. Durova 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I can only speak for myself, where the answer is no.  I'd also oppose any attempts to do so, but I doubt that's anyone's intent here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Uhm, why do we have the same quote listed twice? Ronabop 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the shorter version. Ronabop 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote section

message: I propose that :Category:Michael Moore be created, since there are already two subcategories (books and films by him) and any related articles can be placed there. Paul 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Discussions have slowed, so I have unprotected the article. Please avoid edit warring; continue to work toward a consensus. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: ...and let those who have a legitimate issue (i.e., "it's nonsense" is, uh, nonsense) with a sourced, realistic version of this speak now or forever hold their peace:
:"Moore's critics note that he claims to be from Flint, going as far as to use it in his handle and sign e-mails that he's from Flint (source). The critics note that Davison, his actual childhood hometown, is a middle class community as opposed to the lower class of Flint(source). However, those who reject this criticism note Moore's inconsistency in discussing his hometown(sources), as well as indicate Davison's proximity to Flint(source)."
Final thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just watched Farenheit 9/11 last night. Moore refers to Flint as "my hometown." He also does this many times in Columbine. IronDuke 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Moore's critics note that he claims to be from Flint, going as far as to use it in his handle and sign e-mails that he's from Flint (source). The critics note that Davison, his childhood neighborhood, is a middle class community as opposed to the lower class of larger Flint(source). However, those who reject this criticism note Moore's inconsistency in discussing his hometown(sources), as well as indicate Davison's proximity to Flint(source), and Moore's college and adult years in Flint(already sourced in artcle?)" Ronabop 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In their 2005 book "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man", authors Hardy and Clarke, accuse Moore of lying when he identifies Flint, Michigan as his home town in his books and films.  They instead identify his birth place and hometown as Davison, Michigan.  They go on to point out that Davison is "the wealthy, white bedroom town of the area, largely inhabited by management, not labour", listing statistics about finances of the Davison's occupants compared to Flint and also pointing out that almost all occupants of Davison are white.  Critics of the book point to the fact that the book is badly sourced (the FAQ that Hardy and Clarke used as the source of Moore's birthplace conflicts with itself, saying Moore was born in Flint then saying he was born in Davison a few paragraphs later), that little-known Davison is considered a suburb of Flint (which has been made famous by Moore's work) so residents of Davison might commonly identify themselves as being from Flint and that Moore has never denied growing up in Davison (in fact, Hardy and Clarke use Moore's own statements about growing up in Davison as their source for the fact he grew up in Davison).
AlistairMcMillan 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are two problems with the version above. The first is that the critics of Hardy and Clarke need to be sourced, otherwise we're starting to get into original research territory. The second is harder to untangle, but comes up on WP a lot in controversial issues: You start with an article about an individual, then have a section of criticism of that individual, and then there's often a desire to insert criticism of the critics. I wouldn't say it's automatically out of turn to do that, but where does it end? Can we have critics of the critics of the critics? After a while, the article becomes more like a well-sourced talk page. IronDuke 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, here's what I don't understand about this debate. I'm from Pittsburgh, PA. I was born in Pittsburgh proper, and, except for my last three years of high school, I lived in Pittsburgh proper for a total of 21 years before moving to California. I think that many people who were born and lived in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, when venturing out of the Greater Pittsburgh area, just say they are from Pittsburgh, instead of the little nearby hamlet they might have been actually born in. I would have no problem with people from the Greater Pittsburgh area saying that they were from "Pittsburgh", and wouldn't think of them as "liars" at all, and not many other Pittsburghers would have a problem with that, either, I believe. People from the suburbs might legitimately feel that they identifiy with the City of Pittsburgh as their home town, without having to say "I'm from Sharpsburg/Wilkinsburg/Blawnox/etc." and get blank stares when outside the Pittsburgh area. Why can't people from Davidson be given the same treatment? What if Moore indeed lived in Davidson, but every chance he got he went to Flint to hang out/work? I mean, what's the big deal? Why is this even noteable? Must every critic of a public figure have their criticism noted here, no matter how petty? Can you imagine this level of coverage for this criticism in any other respected encyclopedia? Thanks for reading this rant. :) --NightMonkey 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, as we've noted above, you don't make a career about criticizing your nearby city, nor do you make class an issue in your work.  The criticism stems from the belief that he's being deliberately dishonest - not a poor belief given Moore's track record.  --badlydrawnjeff 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an exaggeration to say that Moore's career is based on criticizing Flint (actually it is also incorrect, he doesn't criticize Flint, he criticizes the effect that other people's actions have had on Flint).  It is also incorrect to say class is a major issue in his work.  And I'll ask again, how can he be accused of being dishonest about growing up in Davison when the only reason people know he is from Davison is because he talks about it?  AlistairMcMillan 01:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People know he's from Davison because they looked it up. We've established he says he's from Flint. Except that here is where you say that Davison IS Flint and it all goes around in a big circle again. -RannXXV 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  They know he is from Davison because they found articles or interviews or whatever where he talks about being from Davison.  If you don't believe me check the sources that Hardy and Clarke list in their book.  They know he went to Davison High School because he has talked about going to Davison High School.  AlistairMcMillan 12:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right this is absurd.  We are not going to include every single anti-Moore talking point.  Wikipedia simply is not big enough for every anti-Moore rant.  Rann added a bunch of stuff.  The stuff about his alleged Haliburton stocks is still here.  The stuff about his New York tax haven is still here.  Consensus has to be actually reached before you can say consensus has been reached, I saw a bunch (three?) people suggestion paragraphs on this topic, none seemed to receive any support.  AlistairMcMillan 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The support seems to be to add it in, simply questioning how to add it.  Your protective, POV version was never as much as commented positively on, nor could you be bothered to comment on any of the issues IronDuke brought up with yours.  It's a shame that you feel the need to edit war over this yet again, and it's too bad that you feel the need to censor perfectly legitimate criticisms for the sake of your own POV. If you're interested in consensus, start acting like it instead of edit warring and causing this page to continually go into protection.  You of all people shouldn't be playing these games.  --badlydrawnjeff 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop talking about me and concentrate on the issue at hand.  This "issue" only sees play with people who are already heavily biased against Moore.  No one else even gives it the time of day.  All the allegation that we list under controversy were covered outside the right-wing papers/websites/whatever.  This issue, which was started based on very bad evidence (just how difficult is it to get someone's birth certificate in the states) has only been covered by media that are already heavily biased against Moore. AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue at hand at this point is your refusal to accept the consensus of editors with an opinion regarding this issue and your refusal to accept the established fact that this is an issue from Moore's critics.  Verify that this is a non-issue that isn't a legitimate criticism, and then maybe you'll have a point.  But, since you haven't been able to do that since this began, and choose to edit war instead, I won't hold my breath. --badlydrawnjeff 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus means agreement.  I don't see any group of people agreeing to anything.  You suggested a version, Ronabop suggested a version, I suggested a version.  A bunch of people left comments. No consensus.  And I do accept it is a criticism from Moore's critics, I could hardly deny it when I've produced more actual information and sources about this criticism than anyone else here.  However the criticism has to reach a certain level of notability... like being picked up in the regular media or something.  The only people who take this seriously are the people who leap gleefully on any Moore criticism.  That doesn't make it notable. AlistairMcMillan 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is that the information belongs there.  So you should have been editing with that in mind, not some wholesale removal.  If it's verifiable and real, then it belongs.  Period.  Quit playing games.  --badlydrawnjeff 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you do me a really big favour?  Would you mind going into the page history and finding the particular edit where that consensus was reached?  Because I'm just not seeing it.  Thanks in advance.  AlistairMcMillan 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know when you're actually willing to work on this article, then we'll talk. --badlydrawnjeff 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try to put this behind us... 

message: ...again. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected... 

message: " The show was performed around midday local time, which due to the time difference made it a late-night show in the UK." can't be right. Midday in New York is 5pm in the UK. Merchbow 03:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time zone error

message: Among the books I have sitting at my desk right now:
* Page 40, Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say, Not As I Do, he writes the following:
::"As recently as 2003, [Moore] wrote in the Los Angeles Times that after the Oscars he was 'heading home to Flint.'  But he hadn't lived in Flint in over 14 years...Moore explained 'I think it's just a function of growing up in Flint.'  On his website, he lists himself as a 'Flint Native.'  Even his e-mail address carries the mantle: mmflint@aol.com.  In reality,  however,  Moore's family was not in urban, blue-collar, mostly black Flint, but in the nearby white middle class town of Davison.  Nor was his father just a regular working stiff trying to make ends meet under the oppressive system of corporate capitalism.  Moore's father owned his home outright, had two cars, put all four of his children through private Catholic school, and sent three kids to college.  He worked for General Motors from six until two and played golf every afternoon at a private club.  He had four weeks of vacation and retired comfortably at age 53."
:For the record, the source on this is an article from the New Yorker, a two-parter in 2004 entitled "The Populist" by Larissa MacFarquhar.  This section actually kills two birds with one stone concerning the middle class thing, and shows that there is more than one published book recently that addresses the criticism that one person seems hellbent on keeping out of the article.  I'll continue:
* Page 17-18, Clarke and Hardy's Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man:
:: "'Ben [Hamper] and I both grew up in Flint, Michigan, the sons of factory workers,' he writes in the introduction to Hamper's book Rivethead.  Roger & Me constantly hearkens back to Moore's life in Flint.  His speaker's bureau describes him as 'born in Flint,' his website calls him a 'Flint native,' and his production company's website (as of the time of printing - bdj) informs us that 'Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan, where his father and most of his relatives worked in the automobile factories'...In fact, Moore was born and raised in Davison, Michigan, and attended Davison High School.  While Davison is near Flint, proximity doesn't translate to similarity between the two towns.  Davison is the wealthy, white 'bedroom town' of the area, largely inhabited by management, not labor.  Davison's median household income is one and a half times that of Flint's, and its median house value is just over twice that of Flint's."
:The intro to the book is here, the speaker's bureau is here.  The "notes and sources" area of the book also has a paragraph containing the following:
::"There is some question about whether Moore resided in Flint at all.  I spoke to one of Moore's high school classmates.  Moore went to school in Davison, Michigan - 25 miles east of Flint.  'Growing up in Davison and telling the world you are from Flint is like growing up in Bloomfield Hills and saying you are from Detroit,' Moore's classmate said. 'It just doesn't cut it.'"
There is absolutely no excuse for us not to have the information there, so I'm adding it back in.  It is overwhelmingly sourced, and even moreso now. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the SMH doesn't seem to have any information in it that wasn't gleaned from the Clarke/Hardy book, so I don't really think it belongs.  There are only three paragraphs mentioning the Davison/Flint issue and they don't say anything new.  And if Shweizer sourced all his info from Larissa's article for the New Yorker, then list that as a source, instead of someone who is just repeating her work.  Also please note where Larissa sourced her information... Michael Moore.  There he goes again trying to hide that he grew up in Davison by going around telling people... the nefarious bastard. AlistairMcMillan 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is pointless anyway, Alistair. It's not whether the criticism is valid in your eyes, it's whether it's a criticism, period. But this has been explained to you several times, so I don't expect it to get through this time, either. -RannXXV 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, so much for civility.  It doesn't matter "Whether it's a criticism, period", as we are not obligated to report every single criticism of an article's subject.  We must weigh the encyclopedic value of each item we include, and certainly validily is a perfectly, well, valid criteria.  Gamaliel 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra sourcing for the "disputed" section 

message: I'm removing the template. It doesnt link here and it pushes the picture down too far. If there was a large section on his antiwar activities that would be a good place to readd it. Plus he is significant far beyond the antiwar movement. Savidan 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it on, and I agree.  There's been some discussion at the template page and we're no longer putting it on articles on individuals, mostly. It was an experiment which failed.  Kalkin 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiwar template 

message: According to a post above Moore said in [rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e112305_moore.rm this speech] (real player file) that he was born in this hospital in Flint.  Unless any evidence is provided to the contrary, I don't see why we shouldn't rely on this source. Gamaliel 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At 16:29... "I was born about 500 feet from here in, unfortunately what is now a parking lot, St. Joe's Hospital." AlistairMcMillan 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is another link about the hospital in question. http://www.flint.lib.mi.us/timeline/civics-buildings-01-00/stjoseph.html AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore's birthplace 

message: http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=103383&mod=bio
I'm not a big fan of NYTimes, but I'm assuming their sources are correct, maybe someone should check with them to confirm their citing that Moore is from Davison.
http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/fulldetail/id/1117492 another source CFM865 22:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the conflict comes from a semantic issue - most smaller suburbs don't have a hospital, so you're born in the nearby city.  For instance, I'm in Millbury, MA, but there's no hospital here, and I was born in Worcester, the big city north of here.  So I live and grew up in Millbury, but was technically born in Worcester. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...technically born in Worcester..."???  This is getting surreal.  You either were born there or not.  AlistairMcMillan 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is why it's a semantic issue. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hollywood and nytimes 

message: I don't think it's fair to lump the Moore criticisms given by Kopel and Hitchens in the same breath in the controversy section.  The articles said to have a similar, caustic tone, but they are in fact quite different.  Only one of the listed rebuttals even mentions Kopel's list; a specious list by an independent writer. Triphook 07:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kopel and Hitchens 

message: Would it not be possible to find a more handsome picture of Michael for his article?
:Yes, but not a more accurate one. -RannXXV 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Regarding the back and forth editing that this article seems to be getting, here are my suggestions.
1. views of/opinions on/views on ... doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of style
2. I think the word "alleged" should remain when talking about links between Bush and the bin Laden family, in the interest of not tilting the article too much in one direction.
3. By the same token, the section on Moore's entry in Goldberg's book (which I haven't read, BTW), could say something along the lines of "Moore was listed as #1 without further justification for his position or inclusion on the list".
--Tachikoma 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum to #3--after skimming through the whole article and seeing that the Moore/Goldberg content was listed under "Controversy and criticism", it's probably not necessary to explain Moore's ranking on the list, seeing that it is a criticism section. Alternatively, something could be added that "supporters of Moore point out that there was no explanation why Moore was ranked #1" or whatever. --Tachikoma 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits on April 13, 2006 

message: The criticism section consists almost entirely of the mostly political controversy over his most recent films.  However, he was a highly controversial documentarian (with some even questioning the label "documentarian") long before that; the debate has been going on since Roger & Me.  Essentially the debate is over the implications of his style: He depicts some scenes that are reenactments or dramatizations along with real footage, and some allege that by doing so he is fabricating a documentary.  One of the large controversies in Roger & Me, for example, was over whether the "stockholder meeting" scene, which was staged in a studio and does not represent an actual GM stockholder meeting, was misleading or dishonest.  In any case, I would add some myself, but I don't have any good references on the matter (I remember most of this from a film-studies class some years ago). --Delirium 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's mostly because it was with Bowling for Columbine that he "hit it big". Since there's a lot more exposure for those, there are a lot more people looking through it, sourcing the problems, and so on. I agree with you, he's been dishonest since the start, and people have leveled criticism at him for it, but as they have failed to go through it quite so thoroughly, adding on stuff about it would come perilously close to the dreaded "original research". -RannXXV 07:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not original research at all; there are literally dozens of academic papers on the subject.  Roger & Me was very well-known in the film-studies community, and hotly debated in the early 1990s. --Delirium 08:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then dude, you're the one that knows where the references and sources are. Go get 'em. -RannXXV 19:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is tilted towards recent films 

message: On this page and a description on IMDB it describes Sicko as being a documentary on the healthcare industry from the viewpoint of the mental healthcare system. However it does not mention mental healthcare on the Sicko page. On Michael Moore's website so far I've found no traces of the words 'mental healthcare'. The descriptions of the subject of this film are very vague and general so far. Most people on various messageboards and around the internet seem to assume this film is about healthcare in general, judging from the discussions brought up by mentioning the film (surgery, medicine, doctors, hospitals, etc.). No mentions of psychiatry or the DSM in these discussions, however there are some places on the internet that mention mental healthcare being in Moore's film, mostly antipsychiatry websites. Possibly also MooreWatch. I started a topic on IMDB about the subject matter of the film since the grand majority of the other topics were debates about the state of the healthcare industry and having to pay too much or not getting proper treatment, etc. etc.. From the replies I've received so far nobody seems to know for sure the exact subject of this film but most assume that if it says it'll be inspecting mental healthcare, that's what the film will probably be about.    .....Anyway after that ramble, my point is there is apparent confusion about the subject of Moore's upcoming film Sicko. I would appreciate it if somebody looked into this and figured out what EXACTLY this film is about. Healthcare in general or mental healthcare to be specific? Both? 
P.S. As far as I know psychiatry and surgery are two totally different stories. It's a bit frightening that they'd merge in the minds of people, but then again, the drug companies and such have been aggressively pushing the notion that every single life problem you have is not only a problem, it's a medical problem, therefore you need medicine. 139.142.225.191 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every Corporation, Politician, Media Outlet, and Organization, and so called 'Do Gooder' thinks people are stupid and we cannot do for ourselves! and we need there  so called professional advice, direction ,service and beurocracy so people can servive in its antique idea of a society, Protecting people from themselves, by fear and humiliation tatics, which is devoiding  people of true direction, and extension of culture. a planned society is devoid of culture, a rather boring, costly, sterile existance! Oh Maybe I just need to take a pill!--MadDogCrog 05:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sicko Confusion

message: If someone has a link to the original newspaper article, I will get a confirmation whether it is in the text and what the proper translation is (from a native swedish speaker living in the US), after which I will post it here so that other can scutinize it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swidish newspaper claim