Talk:Michael & Me

message: Many critics believe Bowling for Columbine is anti-Second Amendment propaganda, ironically from a lifetime National Rifle Association member, that distorts facts and paints an inaccurate picture of guns and gunowners and exploits the victims of the tragic 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado.
This should be presented as a view of the movie and not the author of the article. Maybe adding something like "The movie furthers the belief that..." etc.
Not even.  The passage is not relevant to Michael & Me to begin with, and belongs in the Bowling for Columbine article.  I deleted it.Nightscream 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the word "controversial" used to describe Larry elders,and Micheal Moore seems to be a POV to me. And really not needed. I think I will Delete it.--MadDogCrog 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An Issue of Bias?

message: To finance the documentary, Larry Elder took out an equity loan on his home (Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Channel, August 26, 2005.)
Evidence of this would be helpful but is not necessary.
:Mr. Elder said so during his interview.GeorgeC 05:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link as Proof?

message: There are several examples of unsourced opinions that are stated as fact, such as "Michael Moore insists that there are too many guns in America"(2nd paragraph), ". . .and presents evidence showing that an armed society is a safer society" (3rd paragraph), "The DVD includes a humorous animation . . ." (5th paragraph). As I recall, Mr. Moore did not assert that there were too many guns in America in Bowling for Columbine, and he even remarked that Canadians own more guns per capita in spite of a lower homicide rate. Concerning the 2nd quote, it should read something like "presents evidence in hopes of showing that an armed society is a safer society", because it is a subjective judgment as to whether or not the evidence presented actually acheives what the filmmaker wants it to achieve. Concerning the last quote, it is also subjective to suggest that an animation is humorous, and a neutral word is necessary (farcical, perhaps?).
In its current state, this article seems like the work of a fan of the movie who did not take adequate measures to ensure the article was appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Braincandle 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article reads like a biased movie review

message: :Image:Michaelandme.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelandme.png

message: While I greatly appreciate the recent good faith edits to help improve the coverage of this topic, they are still highly problematic and run afoul of our sourcing and notability guidelines.  I'll begin listing the many problems with these edits in the next few subsections, by order of appearance in the body of the article. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: *The Wall Street Journal 2009 source is a very good article, regardless of whatever partisan politics one brings to the table.  Rounding out at approximately 1,217 words, this article is primarily about the "cottage industry" of anti-Moore filmmakers circa 2009, when Moore's film Capitalism: A Love Story was released.  One might be inclined to describe this article as a reactionary hit piece by the WSJ, but that isn't really relevant here. The secondary focus of this article is on the film Shooting Michael Moore and its director Kevin Leffler.  If one were trying to argue for the notability of either that film or Leffler, one would want to cite this article.  The tertiary focus of this article is on criticizing the person Michael Moore as seen through the eyes of these films and filmmakers, particularly through Leffler.  The film Michael & Me is only mentioned in passing, rounding at about 22 words: Michael & Me," directed by Republican talk-show host Larry Elder, came out a year later, defending gun advocates against Mr. Moore's claims.  22 words out of 1,217 is not significant coverage about the topic, and as I've previously explained, we already know that Elder has made this film.  The problem is that there isn't significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to base an encyclopedia article on at this time.   If the film Michael & Me was the secondary or even tertiary topic of this article we might have an argument for using this source, but it isn't. Further, this is the kind of article that could conceivably be used in the Michael Moore biography.  However, this WSJ article is a great example of the type of coverage we wouldn't use as a source in this article, or rather, as evidence for an argument for notability—in other words, only passing, insignificant coverage.  We don't construct articles about biographies, organizations, products, or works of art out of passing insignificant coverage.  We need actual coverage about the topic in reliable sources.  For film articles in particular, the notability guidelines are very clear, and this source does not help us meet that guideline.  It helps to evaluate a source before using it in an article. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wall Street Journal

message: *The 2007 CBC.ca article  is another good article.  It is a 1,462 word film review primarily  about the 2007 film Manufacturing Dissent.   Secondarily, this article is about  filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine and their body of work.  The tertiary focus is a criticism of Michael Moore, just like the WSJ piece above.  In fact, the two articles are very similar, albeit two years apart.  However, Michael & Me is only mentioned in passing and does not represent the primary, secondary, or teritary focus of this source.  Given only 30 out of 1,462 words, it reads: The result is a film too complex to be slotted into the sub-genre of anti-Moore films like conservative talk-show host Larry Elder’s Michael & Me, often shown at right-wing film festivals.  I would also take issue with that generalization.  Exactly how many right-wing film festivals has Elder's film appeared in anyway?  Three?  Four?  Maybe five?  In any case, this isn't significant coverage of Elder's film, only passing mention.  Insignificant coverage does not an encyclopedia article make.  Finally, it is important to evaluate sources for their coverage.  This is primarily a film review of an entirely different topic, secondarily an analysis of the filmmakers of that work, and like the WSJ article up above, a tertiary criticism of Moore. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

message: *The 2004 Los Angeles Times article is a vox populi, public interview style article primarily about the now-defunct Liberty Film Festival.  The author of the piece says he "stopped by during the West Coast premiere of radio host Larry Elder's debut feature, "Michael & Me," to take the temperature of the fire on the right" and then interviews four seemingly random members of the audience.  I have serious doubts that this kind of article can even be considered "reliable" for the purposes of Wikipedia.  While it is true that the Los Angeles Times published this, random interviews with the public about why they are attending a film festival and what movie they consider their favorite of all time does not meet our RS guidelines.  This is a fun, light-hearted piece that gives us insight into what the man on the street is thinking about at this film festival, but there's nothing here we can use as a "reliable source" on Wikipedia.  Again, it would help to evaluate a source for reliability before actually adding it.  I've really racked my brain about this, but I can't imagine a single article on Wikipedia where we could use this as a source.  Honestly, this piece can't even be used for the Liberty Film Festival article, which is its primary focus.  Now, if we can't use a source about the primary topic in an article about the topic, how could we possibly use it here?? While I respect the time that the editor took to find this article, I think this choice also shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how we use sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Los Angeles Times

message: *The 2004 article in The Washington Post (full access on EBSCO) is an excellent 1,256 word article whose primary topic is that of the Liberty Film Festival.  This is similar to the Los Angeles Times article up above, although they were published several weeks apart.  Unlike the unreliable LA Times vox populi piece, this is a neutral, objective news article written by a seasoned journalist. It would be a great source for our article on the Liberty Film Festival, if one needed to argue for its notability (either as a standalone or entry on a list).  In either case, it doesn't help establish notability for this topic.  The secondary focus of this source is on the people and organisations that make up the conservative film movement and their attempt to challenge the alleged bias of Hollywood.  I'm not really seeing a tertiary focus as the movement and their goals are tightly interwoven into the article.  Michael & Me gets approximately 15 out of 1,256 words: In talk show host Larry Elder's "Michael & Me," about the benefits of gun ownership.  That almost rates below passing mention.  Again, we know that the film exists, but there's nothing here supporting a separate, standalone film article aside from a subsection on Larry Elder's page.  It doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Washington Post

message: *The dead link to the Fox News Channel refers to a transcript of an "interview" of Larry Elder by Hannity & Colmes from August 26, 2005.  Gale archives this interview as "Documentary Challenges 'Bowling for Columbine' Theories", so this is, so far, the only actual source about the topic.  Sadly, it is an interview with the director, the same director who has been employed by Fox in the past, so this cannot be described as an independent nor a secondary source.  In the interview, Elder talks about why he made the DVD and how he tried to interview Moore.  There's no review of the film by anyone outside of Elder himself, so this doesn't meet the guidelines.  While this particular source does cover the topic more than passing mention, it is an interview with the director from a source that is not independent of the subject.  That is to say, 1) Elder has worked for Fox in the past, and 2) Elder and Fox are both part of the conservative movement backing Moore-related critical works and pushing the same gun POV.  In other words, this is a "canned' interview.  The film notability guideline states that "the source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic. Authors should not include members of the production, and publishers should not include the studio or companies working with it on the production and release. The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand..." So the source fails the independence criteria.  In other words, this interview is considered by most neutral commentators as a form of "press release"; books and films are marketed and promoted on television shows for the purpose of selling products, and in this case, advocating for the POV of Fox News Channel. Unless the author was interviewed by an independent expert on film not connected to pushing gun POV, this is not a valid source.  Per the guideline, the film should have "received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".  I don't believe Hannity & Colmes meet this guideline, especially because they are engaging in advocacy of a singular POV rather than actual film criticism (there is no review of the film in the interview).  Lastly, most of the information contained in this source that could be used in this article has not been vetted for accuracy but amounts to a primary source (Larry Elder). One advantage to having access to secondary sources is that there is at least one authoritative, independent author writing about the topic who also has to answer to an editor.  The reality is that we know who Hannity & Colmes have to answer to, and it isn't considered a reliable, authoritative mechanism for insuring accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fox News Channel