Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 6

message: Still needs two sources. One for the left-wing politics and another that these left wing political views lead to him being known as a political activist. Both sources are needed or this information is going to be removed and the opening paragraph rewritten as per the needs of wp:blp.Turtlescrubber 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Chris Cunningham 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inconceivable? Turtlescrubber 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources never seem to match what you want them to. Why don't you tone down the condescension machine until you get it right?Turtlescrubber 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you are too busy basking in your own sweaty glory, you put the cite in the wrong place and it still doesn't match what you are trying to make it match. Why don't we just use npov language so you don't have to scramble for a source 5 more times? It has been five times already, right? Turtlescrubber 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "NPOV" does not mean "pussying out". Moore is not Alan Colmes. He is proud to be left-wing. Avoiding the term is jumping on the euphemism treadmill, which just means that conservative pundits will pick some other adjective to vilify, and then we'll have to go censoring another bunch of articles to avoid using "derogatory language". Wikipedia is not censored, not even when the right goes redefining words to make them Bad and Wrong. Chris Cunningham 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to fix the ref on the first one..
Error on call to Template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specifiedFlesher, John (16 June 2007). . Associated Press. MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-06. “But the filmmaker, known for his fiery left-wing populism and polemical films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," told the audience "Sicko" would appeal across the political spectrum.”Turtlescrubber 18:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. Cheers. Chris Cunningham 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still needs to be rewritten to fit those references. The text still doesn't match the sources provided and there are still major pov problems. I can take care of that later tonight or you can have a stab at it. The neutrality and reference issues still stand (see my first post in this section). Turtlescrubber 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I gave it a try but you still need to fix the second source. It makes no real reference to political activist. Yeah, it doesn't read very well but that's what happens when you try to fix sources to the text instead of the other way around.  Turtlescrubber 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverted. Your refusal to accept that someone can be "left-wing" in principle by holding left-wing views does not mean the intro should suffer. Chris Cunningham 07:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By refusing to accept "that someone can be "left-wing" in principle by holding left-wing views" means that I am refusing to do original research (pov) and am actually matching the text to what the source says. Turtlescrubber 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this what you use in your sourcing to justify the label "political activist"?
"Can a movie do what a million get-out-the-vote initiatives have failed to do? Will an evening's smashing entertainment turn couch potatoes into political activists? Could Michael Moore's dream be George Bush's nightmare?"
Seems pretty thin too me. Turtlescrubber 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pov tag and reference continued

message: Wait a minute. According to Larissa MacFarpuhaur of the New Yorker, in her article "The Populist," written on February 16 and 23, 2004, Moore did NOT grow up in blue-collar town Flint, but instead lived in the nearby white-collar town of Davison.
Shouldn't this be edited?
:I actually edited this many months ago but the people who like to ruin articles by falsifying information removed it. It's disgusting how they drag WP down into the gutter like this. Jtpaladin 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hometown 

message: There's been talk that Michael Moore might make a documentary on homophobia. Moore has always hinted at retiring from documetaries all together, saying he still writes original screenplays and might like to do a romantic comedy. Do you think there should be a section for future plans? There's already rumors that Fahrenhit 9/11 1/2 has been shelfed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear199 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 July 2007
: Fahrenheit 9/11½ was never set in stone. The page should be deleted. smb 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what Michael Moore had to say during a recent web chat: "Doing a film on the corporate media is the most requested thing I get! But I can’t talk about the next film. It will take a year or two to do. The theme I referred to that exists in all my films is the economic system that we live under. It’s unfair, unjust, and not democratic." (message #124) "Let me be blunt. We Americans get some pathological kick out of beating up those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We do indeed punish the poor for being poor. We have structures in place that guarantee that they will never climb out of their poverty. It’s not an accident. And it is a very black mark on our soul." (message #365)  Moore already appears in The Corporation, which attacks the corporate media, so he's unlikely to trample the same ground.  Alternatively, Moore has lots of unseen footage of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit, because he dispatched a number of camera crews down there to film over a period of several weeks. So if one were to speculate, his next project might encompass this material in some way. smb 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moore's Future?

message: The Big One article has sat around since 2004 and remains a stub. If it can't be made into an actual article after all this time, it isn't worth keeping as a separate page and should be merged into the section of this article that lists Moore's films. If that stub is actually made into an article it would be a different story. Noroton 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was released in theaters as I recall, so should pass WP:N. It doesn't bear greatly on Moore's notability and looks like a passable stub with more content than we want here. Because it satisfies WP:N, I think the material really is better there than here. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree as far as notability goes. My point is that its an unreferenced article with no more information than a directory listing. It would disappoint any reader looking for information on the film. Ideally it should be added to, but that's obviously not happening. Noroton 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I'm surprised how meaty the film synopsis on this article are. I agree with both of your proposals assuming no one expands to the point we wouldn't be comfortable keeping it all here. I might work on it in the next few days though; I liked this movie enough to put it on my watchlist, apparently. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[The Big One (film)]] into this article

message: Here's another article that's sat around as a stub since 2004. The argument for merging is the same as for The Big One (film) as proposed just above. There is no reason to have a separate Wikipedia page for nothing more than a stub. Wikipedia is not a directory.Noroton 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marge [[Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint]] into this article

message: Under Wikipedia policy, the site needs to be removed while the attack on a Wikipedia member remains.
From WP:NPA:
Removal of text
There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.
Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.
[edit] Off-wiki personal attacks
Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
[edit] External links
Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked.[2][3] As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.
And I might add, it's also the decent thing to do. Not a small consideration when we have WP:CIVIL. Please consult your conscience. Noroton 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moore Web site

message: Michael Francis Moore (born 23 April 1954) is an American author and Academy Award-winning director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, two of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time.
Moore is a self-described liberal who has criticized globalization, large corporations, gun violence, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.
Chris Cunningham 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be highly difficult to fulfill this request at this time.  The link in the info box is disputed and we administrators have gone on a back and forth discussion to keep the link.  It was discouraged in the WP:ANI discussion to remove the link but the edit war has currently left the page with the linkless version.  Any edit even if we refactor that request minus the link is a bit of a testy thing to do right now.  Best just to let this article sit for the time being and fulfill the request maybe after a good 24-48 hours or so.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Lock the page with the link removed, which is what Noroton wanted  but was denied. This user is breaking every rule in the house right now, ignoring consensus on Sicko controversies, which editors agreed should be trimmed and merged (and not expanded  ), edit warring like a grand master, and absolutely nothing seems to be getting done about it. Nothing. smb 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you arguing against WP:NPA policy or my interpretation of it? (I don't know how else you'd interpret it though.) Neutrality doesn't apply when decency is at stake. You don't take the median position between decency and indecency. Especially not when Wikipedia policy is all, totally, on the side of decency. I don't think that's being overly sensitive. I think it's just being decent. Not a huge humanitarian question. Just basic decency. Noroton 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like a case of Dumb and Dumber... a dumb policy (against linking to so-called "attack sites") getting (ab)used in ever dumber ways.  And your talk of "decency" reminds me of the FCC's crusade against bad words on the airwaves, yet another dumb policy being used in dumb ways. (As if there's any smart way to use a dumb policy.) *Dan T.* 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've disabled the editprotected request. The article's not protected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I've made the changes. Chris Cunningham 07:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful edits while the war continues 

message: The official website links in the PJ article were deactivated for the reasons stated here. Deactivating the official website links in this article seems like a reasonable solution while that site chooses to inject itself into Wikipedia by hosting Wikipedia commentary. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See ANI just now. Removing links because of disapproval of a site's current editorial policies is childish. There's ongoing discussion as to exactly what the policy should be in cases like this, but at this point consensus is to keep the links. Chris Cunningham 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the links may be kept, they should be deactivated by removing the brackets from around the relevant links in the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see that this is semantically very different. What's more, if there's no consensus to delete, why would there be consensus to de-link? Chris Cunningham 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and I think this is childish.  Moore's website is factual, no more, no less.  That some of us don't like that it is factual and "casts light on those who edit Wikipedia" (who casted the light on themselves, I might add), makes no difference.  There is no policy or guideline that supports removal.  If people are going to edit on Wikipedia using their real names, real initials, and trumpeting their real-life work, then they should be prepared to have their work raised on outside websites.  --David Shankbone 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, there is no reason to remove or deactive the official website. Turtlescrubber 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly doubt that most of those who view Moore's website find it via Wikipedia. Removing links will only serve to inflame the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deactivate the official website link?