Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Michael Moore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

2003 Oscar Appearance

Shouldn't his appearance at the Oscars in 2003 be included in the main article. It could now be seen as a heroic action for degrading the bush administration and its decision to invade Iraq. Even though he was booed and music droned him off the stage, his position then reflects the majority of the american population as opposed to what it did in 2003.

yes. Ill try and put that in later. Or go ahead if you feel like it. Turtlescrubber 09:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NRA

Is Michael really a life member of the NRA. Can someone put a citation to this?

He says it himself in Bowling for Columbine 80.229.222.48 21:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Weight

Michael has struggled with weight issues througout his life. This has impacted how he is perceived, and, unfortunately, he receives a lot of negative criticism from people for his weight (including from Ralph Nader). Recently, I believe he lost a significant amount of weight..... yeah right. Lets just he's the big the one and is a sicko in how much he eats. maybe he should stop ruining America and his body and work out and eat healthy once. Would it be appropriate to include a section about his weight? 64.109.56.48 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I met Michael a few weeks ago, and he has not lost weight. Brianga 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, how about a piece about your weight. 83.70.221.61 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand Michael's latest film[1] praises the NHS in England, which restricts treatment to very obese people [2]. Does this make Michael's weight relevant, given that he would probably be unable to receive treatment in many NHS hospitals? --Dilaudid 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat of an exxaguration. He would recieve treatment however if he had an obesity related condition requiring ongoing treatment he might be told he had to try and loose weight first.80.229.222.48 10:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should we put in a section on his weight? It just looks like a way to make him look bad by damn conservatives like 64.109!

Picture

Can we get a better picture of him?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bear199 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I wanted to upload a screenshot from his interview on Bill Maher that occurred May 25 this year re Sicko. He looks great, much healthier. I am not sure how to do this or if the pic would be copyrighted, though. Ladarzak 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC) For ease of reference, you can check it out here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7417398@N02/517261260/ Ladarzak 04:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blood In The Face

I added that Moore appeared in "Blood In The Face" to the "Appearances in other documentaries" list. What's the reason for it being removed? Thanks. --Weakmassive 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual Error

The last movie featuring John Candy was NOT Canadian Bacon it was Wagons East.

What about "The Divided State?" That was a great doc featuring Moore causing controversy in Utah.

Not An Error

While CANADIAN BACON was finished before Wagon's East, The Release Date for Canadian Bacon was Sept 22. 2005, while Wagon's East was released almost a year earlier on August 29, 1994. This is according to imdb.com.63.147.237.66 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)David

Tidsskrift...

Hi Why have somebody deleted my external link to this article on Michael Moore ? To this article on Moore I have added an external link, that later was deleted by someone, and I find no diskussion or argument here on teh matter. It is a webliography, named

Michael Moore & Fahrenheit 9/11

The site is the Copenhagen-based Tidsskriftcentret.dk - progressive online library It contains

Websites
Articles and reviews
Funny stuff

and I have added it on the defence part of external lins, since it is clearly pro-Moores political goals (though some critical of the film itself). BUT contrary to the present external links, this is a collection of links to reviews etc. which means - contrary to the present external links - that they have beem compiled and evalueted and most of the stuff commented or summed up.

Now I am just waiting for an answer Hi Jørgen Lund Librarian, CHP

Firstly because this is the english part of wikipedia. English links normally go on the english part of wikipedia, french links on the french part of wikipedia, etc.

Secondly because you added the link to a number of articles. And we generally consider that spamming. Please read our rules on Wikipedia:External links. AlistairMcMillan 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

St. Joseph's citation and reference

I put in the citation i knew of from Tom McMahon's book. but I just dont have the skills involved in doing it correctly. But someone asked for citation so I did my best.

there are other references in this talk page in the where micheal moore was born section above. But again I lack the skill. Please help fix.--MadDogCrog 10:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The book "Michael Moore is a big fat Stupid White Man" wasn't written by Tom McMahon. The book doesn't mention which hospital Moore was born in. Neither does the excerpt that Tom McMahon quoted on his weblog.

Someone left a comment on McMahon's weblog saying Moore was born in St. Joseph's Hospital, but weblog comments are not reliable sources. Sorry but I reverted your edit.

Moore did say he was born in St Joseph's in the Wellstone speech video that was linked above, but PBS have pulled that video now. If someone knows of another site that is hosting that video we could link to that as a source, but I couldn't find it anywhere. AlistairMcMillan 10:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry I appologize. So you do not dispute it, but obviously someone does. My computer here at the lab is restricted, so I will fix this at home--MadDogCrog 11:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "dispute it", you mean the person that added the "fact" tag, then that was me. I don't dispute it, I just think something like that should be source (see WP:VERIFY) since people have made such a big deal about the Flint/Davison thing. AlistairMcMillan 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A google maps search shows that Saint Josephs hospital is not located in Flint [3].Mrdthree 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The desciption of second street and kensington is hurley medical center. Was it renamed?Mrdthree 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

the St. Josephs that Micheal Moore was born in is no longer there.--MadDogCrog 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true, at the aformentioned Wellstone speech, Mike mentioned being born at St. Joseph's hospital, which has since been torn down. I have a VHS copy of the speech, which was broadcast on C-Span, but do not have the technical expertise or hardware necessary to make it available on-line. If somebody else would like to give it a try, I would be happy to provide a copy to you, free of charge, of course. Kevin McKague, City Council member, Davison, Michigan, Hometown of Michael Moore; KevinCityCouncil@yahoo.com Kevin mckague 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

For Moore supporters and detractors alike: The only articulate criticism of what Moore is doing (and why he is doing it) can be found at http://stores.lulu.com/americandissident It proposes a thesis that can't be refuted. Check it out.

This page needs some clean up. The criticism links need to moved to the criticism page. ```` I removed the claim Michael Moore made a video of beastlity. If that was true, it would be in every major newspaper.

Can someone tell me why the criticism section is longer than any other section? Shouldn't this article focus more on him and his career rather then peoples negative point of view on him? It really should be cut down. Redd Dragon ^{talk contributions} 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Could be because he's a magnet for criticism. Some deserved (for his stretching of facts in his "documentaries") and some undeserved. He's got a right to grind his axe, and there'll be people who don't like him for it. If he'd just be a little more honest himself when pointing out the dishonesty of his subjects, he'd have a lot more credibility. -- LoudMouth 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing that says an article has to have an equal amount of text for and against. As long as there's nothing incorrect or unencyclopedic in the criticism article, the only remedy would be to add to the rest of the article (since it would be inappropriate to remove valid info just because it's critical). VxP 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons. The first is the fact that he has made his career controversial and that is the way he wants it. The second is, as the section states, he is very "creative" in the filming and editing of his "documentaries". The article does in fact focus on him and his career in the sections NOT titled "Criticism".

Yeah, cos those 2 reassons really make a point there. Its total BS, the criticism section is filled with assumptions and quick jabs from right punditry and if its in any way bigger than any section in this article, its because its been filled like that by people who plain hate him.

The criticism section is fair- it merely cites examples of published criticisms. It makes no claim to the validity of said criticisms or of Moore's material itself.

Agreed - No matter if they Have legitimate points or they are as Moore calls them "Whacko Attackos", The Criticism of Moore's work(No matter if it is Brilliant propaganda or a Brilliant exposé) Is a significant part of his working history, just the same as People laying it on Uwe Boll is noted on His Wiki Page. Churba 08:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Criticism section is fair", but heres a little sample of pure unadultered POV from the criticism section "Moore's honesty has come under fire from those who claim that when making his films, he unfairly edits and re-sequences events in order to twist or misrepresent the words of his targets or interviewees[citation needed]. In a similar vein to Dave Kopel's accusations of dishonesty and deceit, Slate.com's Christopher Hitchens compiled a list of Moore's alleged lies.". He unfairly edits and re-sequences in order to twist or misrepresent???, pleeeeease, thats one section screaming to be written properly. Fair my ass.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.167.114 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The key words in the text you quoted are "from those who claim." Again, these are merely claims. The article makes no attempt to defend or refute those claims; it merely lists criticisms. Simmer down, now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikedotnet (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The excerpt that you quote is not taking a definitive jab at Moore, it is simply elaborating on what someone else has publicly accused him of. It is not a subjective slant against Moore. Posie 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, this is an encyclopedia NOT A FORUM TO CRITICIZE PEOPLE YOU HATE!

States of America

I've seen some rumor somewhere that he isnt allowed into one of the American states...I'm not sure if that's true or not. Little help?

Definately not true... it would be completely unconstitutional. VxP 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing I can think of that could be at all legal would be for some resident of a state to have said publicly that Moore was not welcome in that state. Even a public figure or politician could legally say he was not welcome in a given state, as opposed to being denied entry.Lawikitejana 23:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless he was found guilty under some law, and charges were brought against him in that state, I don't believe they can just refuse to let someone in. Posie 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Request semiprotection for this article due to anon vandalism over several days ST47 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Polictical side

As a self-declared Bush oppositor and enemy of north american conversavadorism, he can be considered left in United States?

Moore is properly left wing, outside the world and in America, in contrast with Democrats, who are mistakenly seen as left-wing in the states when they are actually right-wing (so theres right and righty). Michael Moore is considered by many anti-american and very close to an anarchist.

Moore has declared and consistently proven with his actions that he is(Among other things) firmly on the left. Churba 08:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Oppositor"? "Consersavadorism"? Are we now so desperate for bad things to say about MM that we are making up new words to describe him?

And how the hell is the Democratic Party Right-Wing? --63.135.21.99 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The ideological equivilant of the Democrat Party in many other countries would be at best center on the left-right continuum. Moore could probably be considered a Democratic socialist, which is much further left than mainstream US parties. I doubt he could be considered anarchist by any stretch, since he consistently calls for more state intervention, whereas anarchists hate the state. bobanny

End of Article

Why does the article come to such an abrupt end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.148.27 (talk • contribs)

I restored it. Most probably, an editor accidentally deleted it the last portion of the article (certain technical problems can do this). Keep up the good work. --TeaDrinker 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotation section move?

If its okay with everyone I would like to move the quote section to wikiquote. I dont know wikipedia's exact policy on quotations (does anyone?) but I think that this would be a good way to start cleaning up the page. Disagreement? Jasper23 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Jasper23 08:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to move the quotation section to wikiquote if nobody has any objections. Jasper23 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"May Contain Weasel Words" flag still necessary?

While reading this article I noticed that the Criticism section is marked with the "weasel words" flag. However, the references in that section seem to all be correctly cited now. Given the amount of editorial focus and scrutiny this section has undergone, :) I propose that the label be removed. Thoughts? Randy549 04:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to concur. The tag was added [4] on June 10, the difference with the current version is here. I see a pretty good change, especially toward the beginning. The (now archived) discussion of the tag was here. The only place I see immediately where the criticism may still apply is the section on his bithplace. Most of those critics, while unnamed in the article, are cited. I think it is time to removed the tag, and I have done so boldy. --TeaDrinker 09:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should create a criticisms page

and turn the depiction section into a smaller and more compact trivia section. What do people think?

Yeah, I did. Moved some stuff around too. Just trying to be bold. Jasper23 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon an outsider's intrusion, but why is criticism of Michael Moore moved to a separate page, when everything else about him stayed on the main page? Smells fishy to me.DC 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Madonna World Tour

There is opinion at the end of this bullet.

Depictions of Michael Moore

Can anyone give a good reason for this section to be here? Is this a common section in biography articles of people in the spotlight? Jasper23 00:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one wants to answer this question I will soon remove this section in its entirety. Please speak up if you have a good reason for it being in the article. It seems to me that it is a way to slip in pov in the hopes of mocking michael moore. Jasper23 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take out the section if no one objects. Jasper23 17:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the section is gone. Jasper23 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never understood the importance of that section anyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.167.114 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This cannot be true.

In the Writings and political views section there is a line that says "Moore became a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association upon winning an NRA tournament as a youth.". Please tell me this is just simple vandalism. BigSciZot 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's actually true. Moore's NRA membership was mentioned in Bowling for Columbine. Eron 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it's true that he's a lifetime member, but I don't recall hearing about the NRA tourney. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. I heard he joined the NRA to take them down from the inside (no idea how he was going to due that). In any case, we should be able to find some sourced material so we don't have to go by what we heard. VxP 17:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I slapped a citation required tag on it; if no source can be found, I think we can just change it to "Moore revealed during Bowling for Columbine that he is a lifetime member of the NRA." Eron 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He definitely said it during Bowling for Columbine ---Stickywick.

Yes. Michael Moore says he comes from a "Gun lover's paradise"

In Bowling for Columbine he actually shows his membership card to Charlton Heston. Maybe the article can cite the film? Blastfromthepast 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is a member of the NRA. You can use his movie 'Bowling for Columbine' if you can't find another citation. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

The article needs major clean up. I removed some of these things that mark the entire page \'\'. Someone has to remove the rest. --66.218.12.52 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to an earlier version so that should eliminate this problem. Gamaliel 00:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirected from Breast implants

Ha ha ha... Now can someone fix this?

Are you suggesting that Michael Moore is a big "boob"? If so, that's a reasonable argument. Jtpaladin 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP

Isn't a link to Michael More's homepage a violation of WP:BLP because it slanders George W. Bush? Andries 23:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No. George W. Bush is a public person (as defined by Times v. Sullivan) and there's a high bar for defemation against a public person. VxP 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

American Progressives Category

I removed this page from the Category:American progressives because the category itself says that it is a collection of "[Progressive] American political figure[s]...in the Progressive Era (the 1890s to the 1910s)." Michael Moore does not fit that category (having been born after 1920). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you for real? Do you have any idea what a "Progressive" is? Most liberals and left-wingers use that term to indentify themselves as "Progressives" right now. Jtpaladin 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)