Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 1

message: Why so vague and brief? Wouldn't it perhaps be preferable to go in depth in the criticism section. Many of the sites list extensive incidents (bowlingfortruth.com). For instance, the Charlton Heston incident is oft noted. And in other Wikipedia articles, specific criticisms are often noted. With Moore's large body of work (no pun intended) there are very many criticisms in the public sphere. Why is Wikipedia taking a "minimalist" approach vis a vis Moore? Less is not Moore.
:There's so much criticism that the only way to keep it manageable is to segregate it by film.  In the Bowling for Columbine article, the "Summary" section includes the Heston incident, and there's then a separate "Criticism" section.  Anything you think is missing could be added there. JamesMLane 06:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very vague criticism of Moore 

message: Cut: 
:which is getting a boost from organizations related to terrorist group Hezbollah.
While the fact that a UAE company named Front Row is distributing the movie in the Arab world isn't be disputed, a statement that they are "getting support from Hezbollah" is an exaggeration. Relevant confirmable reports about this amount to Front Row receiving a phone call from someone related to Hezbollah that had an interest in helping promote the film. That's an awful far cry from insinuating that Front Row is supported by Hezbollah, which IMO the phrase I cut does. KeithTyler 23:23, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
:This does need mention somehow however. I read this today myself (placed the news link I read in the article actually, thats why I'm here), and along w his claims to have held video of U.S. soldiers abusing Irai's long before the scandal broke (isn't that illegal or something?) seems to be some particularly damning evidence. Keeping it out of the article does not serve the purpose of NPOV, Finding better wording would, however, I agree that the above was unfair. Sam [Spade] 02:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Row 

message: There was an addition to Controversy that stopped just short of praising Moore for his great documentaries.  I removed the blatant praise, leaving the basic content.  I removed the comment that his documentaries are the only documentaries ever shown at Cannes after finding that the documentary "Uncovered" premiered at Cannes. Kainaw 14:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: User:MSTCrow recently added this:
:Affiliates of the Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit  9/11, and Moore’s Middle East distributor, Front Row, is accepting the terrorist assistance.
I think this assertion should be in the article if it is accompanied by an indication of the source of the information, allowing readers to verify the statement and judge its credibility. I do not think it should be in the article without any citation or attribution, and have therefore removed it, pending such attribution. Dpbsmith 01:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged Hezbollah support

message: The content about the anti Michael Moore works in the intro is better placed in the Controversy section, not in the intro.
Removed John McCain's speech. It adds nothing to what we know. We already know that Republicans disagree with him. DJ Clayworth 13:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate line in the introduction 

message: Compare  and . What is this, article edit history vandalism? It's the first time I've seen an anon undo their own vandlism. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:19, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I've seen it before. A lot of people who come to this site for the first time can't believe that they can actually edit it, so they perform a "test". This same anon has done some other "testing", but he's been putting things back just the way he found them. func(talk) 20:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Invisible vandalism"

message: I just wanted to apologize to user 66.215.14.12. Somehow I thought they were blanking content when in fact they were adding content. Sometimes, my mind is mush. func(talk) 20:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: There's a thread above about whether to include this article in :Category:Propaganda.  There's also been at least one such thread on Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11.
Josiah added the category here.  I removed it, referring to the earlier discussion.  He restored it with this edit summary: "discussions seem to all agree that MM & AC fit dictionary defintion of propaganda."  I disagree for two reasons.  First, the discussion on this page showed that several of us did not agree.  There was no consensus; whether there was even a majority for any conclusion would probably depend on the phrasing of the question.  Second, the issue here isn't the dictionary definition, but the explanation that a reader of the Michael Moore article will find if he or she clicks on that link.  That explanation notes that the term "generally" refers to government actions.
I'm removing the category from this article (and, to be fair, from Ann Coulter) again, but I'm not going to get into a revert war over this.  The whole category has been listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.  I urge everyone who's sick of this discussion to go there and vote to delete the category.  The problem is that "propaganda" is a clearly pejorative term to most people.  If the category remains, we'll continually be arguing about applying it to these articles (and to Rush Limbaugh and to Yellowcake Forgery and so on). JamesMLane 20:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Propaganda" category again

message: I saw this change:
... which was met with boos from a portion of the audience. However, despite the resulting criticism for his outburst, sales of his ...
... which was met with mixed reaction by the audience. However, despite the resulting criticism for his speech, sales of his ...
Mixed reaction, did you actually watch the Academy Awards? He pulled a Susan Sarandon. Anyway as you see I didn't change it, so you can just ignore my outburst ... speech Webhat 03:19, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
----
'boos from a portion of the audience' means exactly the same thing as 'met with mixed reaction by the audience', except the latter doesn't read as though it was written by a functional illiterate. --203.221.52.24 19:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Possibly both. However I think the intro could be better - it's a bit sparse, and 'Social Deomcracy' means different things inside and outside the US. DJ Clayworth 13:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. The allegation is relevant, it is well known and topical, and as long as it is clearly identified as an allegation is should stand. The Disney quote is particularly relevant. I have modified it somewhat to clarify that it is an allegation. I also agree the paragraph was long, and I have introduced a paragraph break. Ben Arnold 04:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-table of Contents text 

message: ed2k://|file|Michael%20Moore%20Oscars%202003%20Backstage.asf|26992863|E476AB3F7A9F1B989B8F9363D96F65F9|/">Michael Moore Oscars 2003 Backstage.asf
Is it possible to include ed2k links in such a way that they are clickable...? --Rebroad 13:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Oscars backstage speech link: 

message: I make a small edit to his early life to point out that he graduated high school in 1972.  Later that year, he ran for the school board (a requirement of which is to have a high school degree or equivalent).  I thought it important to make this distinction because Moore has started referring to himself as "a guy in a baseball cap without a high school education."  Technically, you can graduate high school without getting an education, but his phrase implies that he never graduated. 128.23.157.76 20:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  High School Graduation 

message: "Moore became involved in an altercation with Secret Service agents as they tried to prevent him speaking with the media, which led to several agents' voices being broadcast live on NPR as they attempted to remove Andrea Seabrook."
I would be interested to know how the idea that the Secret Service tried to prevent Moore from speaking to the media came up.  Can this be substantiated, or is this a sensational analysis? plain_regular_ham 14:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Service altercation 

message: The critical success of Bowling for Columbine was overwhelming--it has a 95% Tomatometer reading.  There are many bloggers and the like who have made quite a cottage industry of finding what they claim are deliberate factual errors and distortions in the movie.  Those people should not be described as critics (which has a specific and well understood meaning in the context of the movie industry).  I'm restoring the wording that says that most critics praised the movie highly (the phrase "the overwhelming majority", while true, would be too verbose).  I'm also removing the POV implication of the wording, which seemed to represent as a fact the opinion of the movie's opponents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also redid the "Reviews" section of the article which actually contained pro- and anti- Moore polemics, lists of alleged lies, rebuttals, etc.  These were moved, most of them, to another section (some of the less significant bloggers were left out, I kept in the likes of Hardy and Kopel, as well as columnists).  I've replaced those in that section with actual movie reviews by real movie critics, mostly in print media, for Moore's most famous movies, Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowling for Columbine critics

message: May someone call Moore's way of documenting a form of gonzo journalism? --Abdull 08:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a euphemism for massive drug consumption by a junketing "journalist". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzo 

message: Despite the controversy surrounding Moore and his work, he has had great critical and financial success as a filmmaker and writer. His films Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 debuted as the highest-grossing feature-length non-music nonfiction films of all time, the latter making over 120 million dollars. Bowling for Columbine won the Oscar for Best Documentary and Fahrenheit 9/11 won the People's Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture (an unprecedented honor for a nonfiction film), as well as the Palme d'Or Best Picture at the Cannes Film Festival.
: This isn't a closer in the Criticism section.  The criticism section goes on until it lists Moore's works (it includes his oscar acceptance and on).  Not to mention the fact that it's already mentioned in other parts of the article, i.e. the Films section.  If it stays in the article, it should be moved to a different part, because it makes no sense where it is.  It's like "Controversy Controversy Controversy DEFENSE Controversy Controvery Controversy Controversy Controversy Controversy."  So I motion to take it out or move it.Stanselmdoc 9 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
I agree entirely.  Why hasn't this been moved? If I don't see a defense for it in the current location I'll move it someplace that seems more appropriate. Lawyer2b 06:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This Doesn't Have a Place Here - Move It

message: Moore was an interviewer in the documentary Blood in the Face .  Where should it be mentioned? —Morning star 16:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Blood in the Face'' 

message: I just put in a notation on allegations of Mike having NPD.  I'm not sure I quite achieved NPOV, though, and I'd appreciate having both a supporter and a critic take a look at the paragraph to check it (and to make sure it's in the right section).  I stand by its appropriateness for the article, given the controversy surrounding much of his behavior and such, but I do want to make sure that it's presented as just a point of interest for the reader to decide and not treated as right or wrong (the whole point of NPOV). BobGreenwade 17:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I just noticed Tony Sidaway did a little of this even as I was writing the above.  Thanks, Tony! BobGreenwade 17:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you mind explaining how someone could prove Narcissistic Personality Disorder without having any mental health training? Someone 18:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It'd be a lot easier to have you read the chapter in question than to try to write out a long explanation. (It's a not at all unreasonable question, though.) Nonetheless someone did edit in the appropriate direct quote from the book, which is best to make it clear. BobGreenwade 20:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Even a mental health professional can't prove someone has a disorder.  They can merely give their expert opinion.  And any serious analysis not only has to be done by a professional, but it has to be based on clinical interviews.  --  Geo Swan 22:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Narcissistic Personality Disorder

message: The subject of this article is referred to as "Moore" throughout, except in the "Oscar acceptance speech" section, where he is referred to as "Michael". Is there any reason for this?
Also, I seem to recall that award recipients at the 2003 Oscars were specifically asked not to mention the war in Iraq in their acceptance speeches, in order to maintain the atmosphere and focus of the awards ceremony. If this was indeed the case (and it may not be, my memory is imperfect), then it should be mentioned, since this would explain why Moore was criticised for this speech. 198.166.248.65 08:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed all the references from Michael to Moore.  Even if this request of winners was true, I don't see it as particularly relevant, as Moore would have been booed by some people in any case. Gamaliel 17:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References to subject in "Oscar acceptance speech" section

message: leftist views of corporations and the Bush administration. That sentence may be OK according to the common American interpretation of Leftist, but doesn't look the right term for others. Fadix 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leftist can mean socialist or communist which just "left-leaning" or "left-wing" doesn't. –Shoaler (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Leftist" is a word, that is confusing, it is a very relative term. For me, as a Canadian, Moore is more a rightist than a Leftist, he supported the Democrats, and both Democrats and Republicains are Right(according to my Canadian stardards), compared to the system we have in Canada. This is also true, for an European, that won't consider Moore a "Leftist." I criticize corporations, but when I pass some tests, I am right leaning. In France, the Right, would be considered left for an American(because of the ways, "corporations are treated there, taxation etc.). Fadix 17:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the word.  It doesn't add anything and there's plenty on his political views later in the article. –Shoaler (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does add something.  It very succinctly describes where Moore sits on the political spectrum; something very appropriate for an article's header.  Bill O'Reilly's and Al Franken's entries do so, describing them as "traditionalist" and "liberal" respectively.  I'm sure you'll find most entries for those heavily involved in politics will have their opinions described as such.  I don't care whether you put the word left-leaning, leftist, left, or liberal, but something should go in his header to briefly characterize his point of view.  To not do so is silly....What's also silly is to conveniently bring up the well-known differences in meaning that words like "leftist or "liberal" have from country to country as a reason to eliminate labeling Moore, while ignoring the three other uses of them in the article:  1) "...Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine...", 2) "...Moore has been known as a critic of the neoliberal view of globalization", 3) "...a call-to-action for liberals in the 2004 election."  Gee, wasn't anybody really confused by their meanings?  Why don't we eliminate them as well?  Come to think of it, why don't we get started on the project of eliminating the word "leftist" or  "liberal" from every wikipedia article?!  (Sorry...I went Dennis Miller for a second) ;-)  Lawyer2b 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I don't think, in most cases, trying to "simplify" a description of a person's political views by reducing them to one or two words is very helpful in an encyclopedia. So, restoring previous version. Thanks. --NightMonkey 22:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent point.  Since I think any of the terms leftist, liberal, left-leaning, or even progressive is accurate in describing Moore's views I'm happy to let you choose which you'd like included.  If you don't think any term like that is warranted in an encyclopedia, you are going against pretty much the standard in any political commentator's entry.  So, making it just like any other article like this. -- Lawyer2b 02:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. - NightMonkey:  You may want to check a very curious contribution you made to Bill Maher's article on August 2, 2005:   when, apparently at that point in time you felt it quite helpful to reduce a person's political views to one word.  You chose one of my favorites I might add, libertarian, and coincidentally (?) had a problem with that troubling word, left-wing.  Has your opinion changed on one-word descriptions or are you just trolling here? -- Lawyer2b 02:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the "trolling" personal attack. Remember, WP:NPA... Anyway... Context matters. The Bill Maher article details a comedian and commentator who makes his personal political affinities (or lack thereof) a centerpiece of his media persona. I don't like it much in that article, either, but each article is different, and this article does not require a lead-in which attempts to reduce this filmaker's contributions to a label. Bill Maher, on the other hand, makes self-labeling a core part of his media persona. While I wanted to reduce it further, there was merit to its inclusion in the opening paragraph. Each article on Wikipedia, while it must adhere to the policies and should follow guidelines, does not have to be cookie-cutter in its style. However, I'm willing to wait to hear consensus before reverting this redundant addition again from this article (which has now expanded). --NightMonkey 03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If asking someone honestly if they were trolling is a personal attack (which it isn't) then accusing someone of making a personal attack when they didn't should be one too.   So, WP:NPA "right back at ya" and let me add an equally valid charge of libel...Anyway...I don't see how labeling Moore as leftist/liberal/etc. "reduces" his "contributions" (and I use the term loosely).  Being labeled a liberal/leftist should only be a slur to people who think liberals are idiots.  (smirking grin) Regardless, I would be delighted to hear a consensus on the matter as well.  -- Lawyer2b 05:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Lawyer2b, I know you are new to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia:No_legal_threats is official policy here, which you have just violated. Also, you are supposted to interact with other editors with respect and assume good faith. This is the first I've interacted with you, and you lead with attacks. Please read the policies, and try to follow their spirit, as well as their content. Thanks. --NightMonkey 09:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: NightMonkey, my stating a charge of libel was not intended as a legal threat.  It was intended to be as ridiculous as your accusation of personal attack but especially in light of my username I should have understood that it could be interpreted as such.  Just to be clear, I have no intention of suing you for libel and every intention of following Wikipedia official policies.  That being said, I haven't attacked you.  You assumed my honest question was a personal attack.  So as for assume good faith, please look in a mirror.  And, regarding respect, your tone has been flippant:  and/or pedantic:  since your first response so again, look in the mirror.  (sigh) Why do we see in others what we hate most in ourselves?  Thanks!  :-) -- Lawyer2b 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have apologized to User:NightMonkey on his userpage for my uncivil tone and await his response. -- Lawyer2b 21:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please allow me to say that while I disagree (strongly) and feel the word is appropriate for the header, I would like to acknowledge your legitimate concern.  If there was some other word that could be used to give an accurate picture of the general place where Moore is coming from (i.e. that he is not criticizing from an ultra-conservative, libertarian, or even moderate perspective) and that would also eliminate possible misinterpretations I'd be all in favor of it.  Any suggestions? -- Lawyer2b 01:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftist? 

message: Sticking the words "controversial" and "liberal" in the first paragraph of someone's bio is a clear attempt to introduce POV.  The use of "controversial" is obvious and please don't tell me I have to explain that.  And "liberal" because, as we say on liberal, it is currently used as a pejorative.  The page on Moore is does not need to pigeon-hole him in the first couple of paragraphs.  Would the POV-pushers please move on. AlistairMcMillan 02:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think liberal is really POV, even though, the term "controversial" might be. Leftist on the other hand sure is. Since, many, many people will disagree about him being one. In fact, Europeans won't even understand why he is claimed to be one, so presenting him as a leftist is to present one POV as an absolute truth. Fadix 18:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding "controversial", I disagree but I won't press the issue.  The header of the article is fine without it IMHO.  Regarding "liberal", I'm certainly not intending it to be an insult; I just think it accurately describes his political stance.  As I mention above hopefully there are other/better words that can be used that are accurate and people don't find insulting.  I read the American Liberalism page and it seems that progressive might work.  How does that sound? -- Lawyer2b 03:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that the term liberal has become an insult even for liberals. I always thought that they considered to be called one as a compliment. Fadix 18:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  If it is really necessary to pigeon-hole his political stance, how about finding out how he defines his political stance himself. AlistairMcMillan 17:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He does qualify himself as a liberal I think, but I really doubt he qualify himself as a leftist. Fadix 18:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought all liberals are leftist but not all leftists are liberal. -- Lawyer2b 20:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits