Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 2

message: The tone of this article is not relevant to an encyclopedic text. --Sigorni 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Specific citations are needed. Thanks. --NightMonkey 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism in general reads like a laundry list of personal vendetta. A POV warning seems necessary when an overwhelming amount of it comes from questionable sources. Does it matter that the authors of (clearly biased) Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man devoted a chapter to the opinion that Moore has Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Especially when the following clause states neither of them have training in psychology? The item about Moore calling 9/11 victims "scardey-cats" is backed by an external link to rightwingnews.com, which in turn seemingly quotes an article from The Guardian, however it no longer exists on The Guardian's server. Even if it had, it could only amount to hearsay, and shouldn't be given much gravity. --24.31.29.171 08:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the bit about "scared cats".  BTW It was the Independent not the Guardian.  If no-one objects in 24 hours I'm going to pull the POV tag. AlistairMcMillan 11:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I vote the POV tag stays.  Two overly long sections give the  article a strong anti-Moore bias.  The "Controversies" section needs to be greatly edited down  and the "Depictions" section, which seems completely unneccesary anyway, goes on and on and on.  Until these two sections are either rewritten to a shorter length or eliminated altogether (which is what I feel should happen with "Depictions"), the POV flag should remain.200.122.158.40 21:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you specifically point to the POV content in the Controversy section?  I'm a fan of the guy but he attracts a hell of a lot of controversy, it would be a mistake to not mention that here.  And we have depictions sections on other famous people, what is wrong with noting them for Moore?  And where exactly is the POV in that section?  AlistairMcMillan 08:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I ask myself, "Self, how could you POV push in Wikipedia, while still keeping within technical NPOV boundaries?". Since I've watched more than a few POV skirmishes over the years, one way that seems quite popular is to over-source, and over-detail, one side of an argument. So, for example, if the article is about Foo, a pro-Foo POV pusher might see that there are 10 sentences neutral or opposed to Foo, and then write 20 well-sourced sentences in favor of Foo. The neutral, pro-, and anti-Foo pushers are then compelled to do the same, just to keep an article reasonably balanced, eventually creating an article of rather severe bloat, which then has the controversy section split off into a separate entry, just to keep the parent article at least somewhat encyclopedic. So maybe the solution is to split out controversies and depictions into their own articles? Ronabop 09:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Flag 

message: I feel that the depictions section is unnecessary and unhelpful.  It doesn't tell us anything about him, his ideas or legitimate criticism of him.  The fact that he was mocked on various television shows is irrelevant and can be said of almost any celebrity.  It is one element that I feel gives an unnecessary negative POV and is atypical for an encyclopedia.  Bill Clinton's page doesn't contain a description of every Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at him.  Can someone explain why these "depictions" belong on Michael Moore's page?
I've removed the depictions.  I am willing to leave them in if someone can explain why it is necessary and/or relevant.
: It tells us how he is seen by other people for a start.  It also tells us that he is willing to poke fun at himself, since he was involved in a number of them himself.  And the Clinton argument doesn't work because during his time in office he was probably in skits in every Saturday Night Live.  AlistairMcMillan 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope he appeared in two of them: Simpsons and the Oscar LOTR parody.  What is your point about the tone of the depictions?  Because they are not all positive we should pull that section?  Anyway the section does tell us a lot about him: (1) he is popular enough to be depicted all over the place, (2) he has pissed off enough people for them to take the time to depict him in a negative light, (3) he has enough of a sense of humour that he can poke fun at himself. AlistairMcMillan 18:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, he was involved in two of them.  My mistake.  Here's my suggestion:  We leave in both the Oscar parody and the Simpsons appearance, because he was a part of them.  Also, we leave in the Team America part because it was a result of a specific conflict the creators of the film had with him.  I feel the other three should be removed.  MadTV makes fun of anyone and everyone and is not the result of any legitimate criticism.  Neither the Dead Ringers reference and Arrested Development depiction give us any helpful information.  Also, if we agree to this, I think that Depictions should no longer be a sub-section of criticism.  BTChicago 17:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to my proposed edits?BTChicago 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  You still haven't explained why we shouldn't list them here.  What is wrong with listing depictions?  What is wrong with listing depictions that aren't positive? AlistairMcMillan 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: To be clear, I am a fan of Michael Moore's work.  But I still think it is interesting to see how other people see him, even if they don't like him.  AlistairMcMillan 00:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All famous people get made fun of on MadTV and similar shows.  That doesn't tell us anything about actual opinions of Moore.  It simply shows that he's famous enough to be made fun of on television.  However, it's clearly established through other information that he's well-known.  My desire is not to remove anything that paints him in a negative light.  My desire is to remove anything that's irrelevant.  I want to leave on the Team America depiction, despite the fact that it is probably the most negative.  The reason I want to leave it there is because it (a) shows actual criticism of his political stance and (b) the depiction was a result of an issue the creators had with Bowling for Columbine.  I also agree that the fact that he's willing to make fun of himself shows us something about him.  I've looked at about 20 other celebrities, both controversial and not controversial and none of them have "depictions" section.  Can you refer me to someone with a section devoted to how other people have depicted them, so I can have an idea about why it belongs there?  We know how people see him based on other sections?  If we care so much about what random people think, are we going to have a quotes section and include anything anyone has ever said about him?  Of course not.  We have legitimate criticism and references that tell us something about him.  I feel the depictions section should be the same.  BTChicago 01:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Stone. Mocked for JFK, Platoon, etc. Columbus, mocked for the HP films, Home Alone, etc. If you want a documentary filmmaker who has been seriously mocked, check out Leni Riefenstahl Ronabop 15:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions 

message: Shouldn't the last paragraph in the films section be listed under "criticism?"
: You're right.  Done.  Please remember to sign comments with four tildes, like so...  ~~~~ AlistairMcMillan 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films 

message: This section his some blatant errors and needs to be edited/removed:
A recent controversy surrounds Michael Moore's public comments about the Iraq insurgency and terrorists. In a memo released on his personal website, Moore said "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy'. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?" The Minutemen were a group of elite militia in the 18th century that participated in the American Revolution as well as other conflicts in pre-Revolution America on the side of the British.
As a resident of Lexington, MA, I can tell you that the Minutemen were not a group of "elite militia" nor did they "participate on the side of the British." I don't want to go into a lengthy account of local history, but suffice to say the minutemen were not "elite" by any standards. They were a volunteer militia who were formed in preparation for a hostile response by the British. They fought against the British in what most consider to be the first battle of the Revolutionary war, the Battle of Lexington. The minutemen did not fight any battles beyond the Revolutionary war. Some members were incorporated into the U. S. army after the war, but the idea of the Minuntemen was to protect their home towns from the British. Mr. Moore may be trying to suggest the the revolutionaries in Iraq are not so different from the "Patriots" we hold in high esteem here in our own country, but this paragrpah distorts that intention.
JSnyder 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minutemen 

message: Come on, people, I'm as big a Moore-hater as the next... heck, I'm a regular on Moorewatch. But please stop with spamming the article with incorrectly-placed diatribes against Moore and liberals in general. All it does is make us look bad. We need to keep Moore's article as factual and neutral as any while still presenting all credible information, just as any other figure would be on Wikipedia. -RannXXV 07:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism/POV 

message: First of all, you need to take a good long read of Wikipedia's actual definition of vandalism. You sling the term around far more often than is actually appropriate. Secondly, you cannot keep deleting things simply because you don't want to believe them, and with no evidence that you have done any checking at all to see whether they are true. Both the fact that Moore is from Davison and lives in New York, and that a tax shelter he and his wife are the sole beneficiaries of owns Halliburton stock, are available in a number of places. The sections you removed were poorly formatted and sourced, but the solution is not deleting them simply because they are negative. People here who disagree with Moore have done their best to be neutral, reversing vandalism, removing blatant anti-Moore POV from the article... you are not returning that courtesy. -RannXXV 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make childish additions to things I have posted on the talk page, as it could be considered vandalism. You also do nothing to address the fact that the claims could in fact have been sourced, rather than simply removed. This is not a debate, it is a Wikipedia article. You are approaching this from a standpoint of "You only get to include this if I can't find a way to remove it", when the standpoint should be "Can this be sourced?" Removals should at least be mentioned on the talk page, and without you turning it into a you vs. us mentality. -RannXXV 01:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  8BitJake 

message: this is vandalism, right?  i mean, the typo just tips it off.  
-sparsefarce
Well, a typo doesn't mean it's vandalism. (Unless it had been spelled "Cross Cuntry skills", maybe.) But it does seem rather nonsensical and pointless... maybe it's referring to his promotional tours? But I'd say go ahead and remove it, probably, if you think it's vandalism. -RannXXV 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross Country skills? 

message: So what exactly is the protocol for requesting a cleaning of old issues and discussions from a Discussion page like this?  The length of this page is getting pretty wild.
--8bitJake 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --badlydrawnjeff 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning old issues and posts on this page