Talk:Michael Moore controversies/Archive 1

Micheal Moore hates america, The sub title of the movie

I would like to know why the sub title of this movie was that it tells the truth about a great nation, because it doesn't. after watching it i was wondering where this truth was. was it somwhere between the penn & teller clips, the interveiw with the army guy who had his hands blown off or somewhere in the interveiws with that documentary guy. And does micheal moore hate america or is he trying to show it's citizens that there goverment is racist & corrupt. And for that matter why is it that americans are so confinced that theirs is the greatest nation on earth or in history, what great things is it that they have done maybe it's just me but i don't see them. Yours Grimm MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.196.108 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

what great things - helped destory fascism, nazism, and communism, gave us great inventors (internet included), art, lifted the world economy after WWII. Its a broad list with much more and within each listed thing it seperates down. So yes its just you. --Xiahou 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Key word there was helped meaning with others so these others must be able to claim that they are the greatest nations on the planet too then, there have been other inventors from other countries so who decides what is the best inventions of the world. Destroy would mean that facism, nazism & communism don't exist any more, but they do still exist America didn't do a great job destroying these things. Lastly it's not just me that can't see america's self imposed greatness there are others. Your again Grimm MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) 18 March 2007.

OK, I agree with Grimm MD that the current U.S. administration leaves MUCH to be desired. However I can think of no other country in existence (and this includes my own) to which droves of people are risking everything to emigrate to on a daily basis, so there must be something to it or the exact opposite would be true. The neo-con revolution will be rolled over in the inevitable backlash that will follow it - as it always does in the U.S. when the political spectrum tilts too far in one direction or the other for any extended period of time. Then, hopefully, the U.S. will once again be in step with the rest of the civilised world and we can all be friends again. Just a thought from a well-meaning neighbour to the north who misses a 'common sense' U.S. CanadianMist 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my feelings my Canadian friend, I believe that Most of the recent administrations to go into office have pampered, spoilt & brainwashed their peolple at the expence of the rest of the world or at least some parts of it. "the old saying of if you can't beat them join them comes to mind". However it is my belief that America is dying & i believe it deserves to. When the baby boomers of the 50's & 60's retire there will be more claiming social security than there will be earning to cover that (there was supposed to be some set aside by Clinton however Dubya has been dipping into it) only way they will be able to cover it is by borrowing from friends, don't be to keen to make up. Yours Grimm MD

umm... 'the internet' was actually invented by an English guy, Tim Berners-Lee [1] Yyem 13:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing Dissent

A lot of controversial movies made by Moore are chronicled in the new film Manufacturing Dissent. I think this film should probably get its own subsection based on the wealth of information it presents. This one article alone presents a dozen different points of controversy: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/Spotlight/2007/04/22/4102402-sun.html. Thecorch 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is listed among other critical films and doesn't need it's own section. If people are interested in learning more about the film and it's "revelations", they can click on the title and read the article written about it. Inoculatedcities 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

controversies

A lot of this text shouldn't be here since it doesn't discuss controversies. --Ryan Wise 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then. Have at it. Jasper23 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Menus

This information would be better under subgroups. However I don't know very much about the system, so someone else should do it. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Merge?

Personally, I think this article should be cleaned up, have its sources checked, and be merged back into Michael Moore. - Crockspot 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that cleanup, sourcing and merging would be ideal. However, because of the edit wars this brings I think its much better if it has its own page.I mean there was an edit war over if he was from flint or not. I am open to the idea, just not very optimistic. I mean, he is being accused of being a government agent on this page too. Jasper23 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just finding that there are a lot of these living bio forks that are not categorized with the "Living people" category, so they are missed by the Living People Patrol's monitoring tool. Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan is another one that I just added the category to. Edit wars will get noticed more now. - Crockspot 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Jasper23 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The cleanups are obviously needed, source checking is vital but I want a better reason for a merger. The article is linked from Michael Moore and I think it deserves its own page. Its a whole list of claims people have made about his work, not per se about him; ergo: a different subject. I am not sure about Wiki's rules about this but there should be one somewhere. If someone experienced could jump in and save the day that would be greatly appreciated!. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this page is merged or deleted. Other controversy articles such as Controversies of Rudy Giuliani and Al Gore controversies have been merged. See WP:Content forking & WP:Criticism . Robneild (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this page needs to be merged back into the Michael Moore page. The Moore page itself isn't excessively lengthy and neither is this one. And the argument about editing wars isn't valid. I don't know how to merge things or how to get the process started though so if someone instructs me I'll do it. Chexmix53 (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to merge. See the previous debates on the Michael Moore article, including the recent AfD result. — eon, 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

LIVING PEOPLE!!

In case some recent editors who can't be bothered to sign in aren't aware, if it's not VERIFIABLE it shouldn't be in the article. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article contains the following paragraph:

--> Moore denied this on C-SPAN, with the statement "Michael Moore own Halliburton stock? See, that's like a great comedy line. I know it's not true - I mean, I've never owned a share of stock in my life. Anybody who knows me knows that, you know - who's gonna believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it - crazy people who tune in to the Fox News Channel." <--

After that, there are two citations that refer to the sentences *before* this one. They contain no reference to the aforementioned quote from C-SPAN. These two citations belong after the sentences which they are supporting. The C-SPAN paragraph needs its own separate citation.

I already made this revision once and it was undone. Why?

71.55.62.160 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments section

There is nothing in this section that verifies that these comments were contreversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

More information please

This page should really be re-done. If it were, it could be very interesting. Instead of just mentioning that there have been controveries or criticisms, discuss them in-depth. Someone should really talk about the media's and the public's reaction to him, list more of the actual criticisms, explain any real controversies, or perhaps even say his reactions to such criticisms and controversies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.244.167.249 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

ADHD-documentary by Gary Null

I came across this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3609599239524875493&q=The+Drugging+Of+Our+Children&hl=en documentary in which Michael Moore voices some strong opinions against the pharmaceutical companies regarding ADHD-medication. The documentary is made by Gary Null, who according to this Gary Null amongst other things claims that HIV and AIDS are unrelated... Have not found any criticism regarding Moores participation in such a project, anyone else have better luck? The footage of Moore seems to be shot specifically for the documentary, as the lighting on him is identical to the other interviewees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) 18 April 2007.

Until we have corraborating evidence it is best to leave it out of the main article. Mister Fax 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just saw the documentary, and it's seriously strange that no-one seems to have a problem with this. The documentary is the usual paranoid Scientology-inspired pseudo-scientific anti-psychaitry delusions, and Moore is sitting right there talking about how his family used to have great long family dinners, as if this has anything to do with anything else. What's the deal concerning referencin video clips? There are quite a few sites that speak of Moores involvement in the documentary, like here: http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html, featuring Mike blaming Columbine on medication instead of Bush this time. He is obviously joining the Scientologists on this one, and it should be included on this page. However, I'm a newbie, so I'll give you fellas a day to respond before editing the page. Cutting 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can this section please be less biased?

Defense

Francois Primeau's AMERICAN DISSIDENT: THE POLITICAL ART OF MICHAEL MOORE is the only extensive defense of Michael Moore's work to date. It fills the gap left by neo-conservative authors who wrote books bashing the controversial figure in the past, and puts into perspective the last 20 years of American history.

Besides being a thorough study of Michael Moore's stylistic orientations and most cherished themes, both in his feature films and television shows, it is also, and without a doubt, an effort to settle a few scores with the Right in America. Sustained by dozens of examples, the author vindicates Moore's work and methods by claiming that it is art, while deconstructing the failures of the Bush administration since 2001.

"American Dissident: The Political Art of Michael Moore" is as controversial as its subject matter. It is a lucid and ground-up analysis of Moore's project and, ultimately, a mandatory read for anyone interested in the mischievous doings of the great American patriot. (http://www.myspace.com/americandissident_book)

• In response to the Peter Schweizer book: Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, ownership of even one share of public ly traded stock in the United States guarantees that the stock owner (or stock holder) can legally choose to attend any stock holder meetings scheduled by the company board of director and that the same stock owner can solicit to represent other stock owners by proxy vote during any company stock holder meeting that ownership votes are sought by the board of directors.

I can see what the author is trying to say, but in the absence of a quote by Michael Moore saying that that is why he owns the stock, I feel this point is not verifiable. I'm at work at the moment and struggle to log in, but I'm NatashaUK. I'll return to this and sign it when I can.212.56.97.238 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitor

"Stone, who is a gun-owner himself, expressed anger over what he saw as a misleading attempt by Moore to insinuate that he and Trey Parker had produced the animation, by playing these two completely separate segments consecutively[6] (the animation actually appears later on in the film)."

I haven't seen the film. Can anyone clear this up?--Heyitspeter 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After a story about a homicidal maniac who eats babies, we'll have a film segment about kittens!

(Several people with kittens sue)

Moore claims innocence.

That's about it, happens with every one of his films. Ronabop (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

20/20 and Wards

I attempted to verify this statement with a fact tag and was unable to find any references to it outside Wikipedia. Moving to talk.

"However, videos smuggled out of Cuba, later seen on another ABC News program, 20/20, show that the hospital wards Moore visited in the movie were really reserved for upper class citizens. The videos show that health care for lower class citizens in Cuba is much worse, with inexperienced medical professionals and appalling conditions in hospitals. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One question, if the CIA report that the Cuban childbirth deaths are less than those of the USA, should this be reported in article? (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Guardian Angel?

There is nothing about that: http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1635/P50/

Renewed request to merge page

This page is a blatant violation of the Wikipedia policy on content forking. This isn't just me making a general argument trying to persuade other editors. This is a policy. We can't defeat the policies just because there are special arguments regarding Michael Moore. It has to be merged. In all honesty, I can't help but think that if such an article was made about other subjectives, the creator of the article might be warned for vandalisism or serious NPOV violations. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Leak of Sicko

"Although Sicko was scheduled to be released on June 29, 2007, the film was leaked onto the Internet in June 2007.[24] Moore, who previously expressed his support for Internet downloading, denies leaking the video himself and an investigation has been held as to the source of the Internet leak."

Support of downloading (free distribution or copying) is not the same thing as support of pre-release leaking. I believe the article excerpt I quoted has to be rewritten to avoid making that assumption. --Sonjaaa (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deserting Ralph Nader and selling out between 2000 and 2004

Michael Moore sold out his progressive principles between 2000, when he supported Nader, and 2004 when he supported Kerry and launched scurrilous attacks on the independent candidate. Matt2h (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

Encyclopedias do not contain slag sheets and tabloid tittle-tattle, this kind of Wikipedia page makes all of us look like a joke. Zeth (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is to detail sourced and relevant criticism of Michael Moore. It's hardly a "slag sheet" article; the criticism is sourced and presented fairly. If there are any responses from Moore or his supporters that we should put in, feel free to do that. Croctotheface (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of this article is to convince people to hate Moore. It is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.26.89 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, obviously, but the answer to you is that if you have a concern like that, you should fix it by adding in missing opinions that serve to "bias" the content. Croctotheface (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement that the cartoon does not follow the Stone interview

We can't say, in the encyclopedia's voice, that Stone is wrong and Moore is right without a source. I find it a little puzzling that an edit based on my recollection (that this was a change from the theatrical release to the DVD) was reverted as unsourcedby the same editor who then reverted my second edit that only _removed_ unsourced material. Why is one kind of unsourced material OK while another is not? Another alternative would be to remove the reference to the cartoon coming "right after" entirely. It's not at all necessary to explain the criticism. Croctotheface (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have a source: Bowling For Columbine. If editors are to retain this criticism, then we must go with Matt Stone's actual words. It is not a viable solution to redact them to better fit one's own preconceptions. The current revision also introduces a curious void, which suggests Michael Moore cunningly altered his film to deflect away criticism. For this reason, the original wording is accurate and uncontroversial. — eon, 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I presume that your source is one version of the film, the DVD version, and not the theatrical one. If you had access to the theatrical one, there would be no need to dispute any of this. Moore did make changes for the DVD: for instance, he edited on-screen text displayed during the Willie Horton ad. There's also the question of what "right after" should be interpreted to mean. Is Stone wrong if the segment with him in it extended for a few minutes more, and then the cartoon was shown? Does the cartoon need to come on screen before Stone is even done talking? Also, we obviously need not include every word that Stone has ever spoken with respect to this criticism. We can easily communicate it without including the "right after" line, which leads us into this murky area. It's better to avoid it for now. We should not go out of our way to make Stone appear unreliable. Croctotheface (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We're going through this again. I have no objection to including that line WITH A SECONDARY SOURCE. The Charlie Rose interview that was just cited did NOT source the notion that the cartoon came later in the movie. I also have a concern that the placement was changed between the theatrical release and the DVD release, but I would settle for any secondary source that says what the IP user keeps putting in the article. That's all I want. Croctotheface (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Gustav Comments

Regarding:

"Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise is demanding an apology from Moore. In response, Moore later said “I mean I certainly hope nobody gets hurt. I hope everybody’s taking cover.” [1]"

This sentence implies that Moore said the comment in response to Scalise, when in fact Moore said it immediately following his "There is a god" statement. As this is misleading - I am rewording it to:

As Hurricane Gustav approaches the Gulf Coast as a Category 3 / 4 hurricane, Moore told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on August 29, 2008 that the hurricane is “proof that there is a God in heaven,” since it will be arriving on land on the same day as the start of the Republican convention. He further stated that it is proof of God “To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.” He also added “I mean I certainly hope nobody gets hurt. I hope everybody’s taking cover.” Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise is demanding an apology from Moore. [1]

Bigfellahull (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik Moller

Moller is clearly notable as a figure in the free culture movement, as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and even as a commentator on digital culture. However he is not a notable film critic, commentator on American gun politics, or anything else that is related to the issue he is being quoted about here. Hence my removal of the quote - though he's notable in general, nothing about him makes his web-post on Kuro5hin (which is not really a reliable source to begin with) a significant or reliable source on this issue. I'm all for more pro-Moore statements, but lets get ones from people who are in some way relevant to the subject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be an "expert" on guns (or anything else) to provide a relevant point of view. Especially considering how few pro-Moore statements are in this article, we shouldn't exclude one from a person who is important enough and whose opinions in general are respected enough to merit a WP article. If you want to replace it with a similar comment from a film critic or likewise, by all means do so. Until then, we're not representing the full range of opinion on this matter--and therefore not writing from a neutral point of view--if we exclude opinions that defend Moore. Croctotheface (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, Kuro5hin is effectively a self-published source. WP:V clearly states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Moller is not an established expert on the topic of the article, and his self-publishing on Kuro5hin is not a reliable source for this issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I think there's certainly a distinction between this site, which has a form of editorial control involved, and your run of the mill self-published material. However, even setting that aside completely, the site is not being used as a source for facts or expert technical analysis. It's being used as a source for opinion. The notion that we can't "reliably" determine what a person's opinion is from what they publish themselves is kind of crazy to think about. If anything, Moeller is an "expert" on what he thinks about an issue. Again, if we don't represent the views of people who don't believe Moore was wrong to do what he did in this case, then we're violating NPOV. Croctotheface (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We are only violating NPOV if we are ignoring specific viewpoints that appear in reliable sources. We do not have an obligation to include every view that could possibly exist - just the ones that show some evidence of significance. If the best evidence for significance we have is that Erik Moeller wrote about Michael Moore on Kuro5hin then we have no adequate evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a secondary source articulating Wilson's criticism, either. The fact that he got someone to distribute his movie doesn't really make his opinion so authoritative compared to Moeller's. I'm sure that there exist sources with a greater degree of editorial control that articulate a similar criticism and a similar defense. However, if we're going to leave out Moeller's opinion, I don't see why Wilson's is so "reliable" either, so I'm going to remove the section for now. Croctotheface (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of the recent edit summary, I'll reiterate my point here: the Wilson/bank criticism strikes me, on its own, as insignificant and weak. But that's really beside the point, as the standard I thought Phil was articulating had to do with "viewpoints that appear in reliable sources," but there's no "reliability" issue with Moeller; we are not left to wonder what he thinks because it was unreliably recounted. One person's movie is no more "reliable" than such a person's blog posting. That someone was willing to distribute his movie is not evidence of "significance" by itself. If it were, then everything Moore ever said in any of his movies would need to be included in all relevant articles (including George Bush, Bill Clinton, and so on) because having a movie distributed is prima facie evidence that a viewpoint must be represented in the article. I further contend that SOME opinion defending Moore is significant by definition, as he was not alone in defending himself and is certainly not alone in disagreeing with Wilson's criticism. Croctotheface (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The only ref is some comment on a public forum, not him in a news interview. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed: Moore's opinion of Cuban-Americans

In his 1997 best-selling book Downsize This!, Moore wrote about Miami's Cuban exiles as "always present and involved... in every incident of national torment that has deflated our country for the past three decades," [...] Moore has also referred to Cuban exiles as "Batista supporters"

This is not entirely accurate. Moore actually wrote about "a nutty bunch" of Cuban exiles that have helped shape U.S. foreign policy toward the Island. To quote directly from the book in question, Downsize This!: "These Cubans, many of whom were Batista supporters and lived high on the hog while that crook ran the country, seem not to have slept a wink since they grabbed their assets and headed to Florida." Moore was not talking about all Cuban-Americans, just an influential "nutty bunch", "many" of whom were "Batista supporters" that "have insisted on pulling us into their madness." (page 193). Dynablaster (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Interview Wtih Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine is faked

Moore had only one camera he shout something at Heston then we see the camera filming Moore asking the question without the camera turning on him. How did one camera get in two places at once. Info available online if you search Moore and controversy. 12:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.209.84 (talk)

If there are secondary sources that report on this as a controversy, we may be able to include it. (Though it might be better served at the Bowling for Columbine article.) However, unless there is a source reporting on it, we can't include it because of policies such as WP:NPOV and [{WP:NOR]]. Croctotheface (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 The next links give rebuttals to the portrayals in "Bowling for Columbine,"

such as the one of Charlton Heston, which may add to the section on controversies about that.

 Truth about Bowling for Columbine
 http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
 http://www.freedomfiles.org/movies/bowlingfiction.htm

Source N°7 (Youtube video)

Hi, trying to follow the link for the reference N°7 ("Charlie Rose interview with Matt stone and Trey Parker", youtube video VqtLudQtIGs), I get an error message, saying that the video is private. Is there another version online of that interview ?

FiP ^{Что вы думаете?} 23:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Julio Cesar Alfonso

The section on Dr. Julio Cesar Alfonso was directly copied from the article it was sourced from, with the only change being the removal of quotation marks around "a disaster" and italicizing those two words. It does not come of as particularly NPOV. In addition, there is absolutely no reason why this section is necessary. "Dr. Julio Cesar Alfonso" does not seem to be anyone of any real import, and his statement does not seem to be backed by anything. (I'm really doubting the practicality of using sharpening stones on needles, and I'd want to see something backing up that statement.) To top that off, other sections of this article have been taken verbatim from the same article. (The Ileana Ros-Lehtinen section, for example.) I'm going to remove the sections on Dr. Julio Cesar Alfonso and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Someone should run through the article and make sure that the other sections are not copied verbatim from articles. I recommend that the Ileana Ros-Lehtinen section be rewritten and reinserted, and that the Dr. Julio Cesar Alfonso section be left out permanently, unless someone can come up with a reason that this person is actually significant in some manner, and can verify his statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.168.100 (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The man may not have a famous name - but he was a doctor in Cuba and has experience in the Cuban medical system and his claims are published in a mainstream source. This article in the Miami Herald deals directly with Moore’s claims. If you that Dr. Alfonso is lying or is otherwise incorrect, feel free to include additional information to support your claims. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Plagiarism is not acceptable. You are invited to rework this mans criticism, using original words, but as thing s stand, I am removing text for the concern expressed by anon editor above. Dynablaster (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I find Alfonso's claims rather difficult to believe, especially about the needles. The X-ray machine, I could probably believe, given that many American hospitals have similarly old equipment. However, I do think, even if it is more believable, that it should be removed, since it refers only to one hospital, which is not, I believe, even the one in the film. As he is not a well-known or reputable source, despite being included in a more reputable source, I'd really like to see a second source corroborating Alfonso's statement- not too be included in the article, most likely, since it would cause unnecessary clutter (one quote saying that is enough for the article). Won't make any immediate changes to the article, would like to hear feedback first. 129.237.168.100 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

His opinion is published by a reliable source and is probably notable. The main complaint I have about this doctor's criticism, is that it almost completely misses the point! Michael Moore acknowledges that the Cuban health care system is run-down, describing it in Sicko as third rate. He didn't travel to Cuba to say "Gee, look how nice and shiny all of this equipment is," rather, he was championing their pro-active approach to medicine and 'care in the community' programs, backed up by figures from the United Nations, and reported elsewhere, by the BBC, for example. [2] Moore's proposal (in the film) is that the United States should borrow the best ideas from these other systems and develop them at home. So yes, it would be nice if people criticised what is actually in his film as opposed to what's not in it. The only thing I can suggest, is to cite an independent Gallup poll -- conducted in Cuba -- which shows that, while Cuban's are generally dissatisfied with the level of individual freedom, a whopping 96 percent said they were satisfied with the Island's health-care system. [3] Moore himself points this out on his website in direct response to criticism about the film, so it can be both properly sourced and attributed. [4] Dynablaster (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I still think the section is a little large, but not unacceptably so. 129.237.168.100 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This citation should remain in the article. It is published in a mainstream source in an article that specifically focuses on Moore's claims about the Cuban health care system (i.e. it is from a notable third party source and it is not original research). Perhaps additional citaitons could be added that express support for Moore's position (or that contradict Dr. Alfonso). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Self-published sources

As per WP:SPS ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources") and WP:BLP, we should not reproduce comments about living persons made in self-published sources, unless reliable sources have reported on them first. So the to and fro between Moore and his detractors, with citations of Moore's rebuttals on his website, may go a little too far in the article as it stands. Allegations and rebuttals are only worthy of inclusion here if they have been commented upon in a third-party reliable source. Jayen466 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What exchanges do you have in mind specifically? Ta. Dynablaster (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just go by the refs: [5]

• Numbers 4 and 5 are off Moore's self-published website, so they are out as standalone sources for comments about living people. We need a third-party source reporting on Moore's statements on his website to prove they are worthy of inclusion. Refs 28, 33, 36 and 37 are the same. Ref 25 is originally an AP article, but is hosted without licence on michaelmoore.com, making it a WP:LINKVIO (WP:ELNEVER). Better to drop the convenience link and just cite the original AP article (or perhaps it's available in archive.org). Ref 32 is only referenced on Moore's own website and doesn't otherwise refer to the topic of this article.
• Number 17 is from Dave Kopel's private website; so again, unless a reliable third-party sources has commented on Kopel's website and is cited together with his website in that section of our article, material sourced to his website is out as per "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources" (WP:SPS).
• Per WP:WELLKNOWN we shouldn't use court documents unless they have been referenced by reliable secondary sources.

This is as much about WP:OR as it is about WP:BLP. Our coverage of these disputes should not be more thorough than the coverage they have received in reliable third-party sources, and we should base our decisions on what is due weight on coverage in third-party sources as well. For example, for the argument between Kopel and Moore, there are dozens of references in Google News. There also appear to be treatments in books. We should evaluate those news sources and books, rather than going to the guys' own websites. Jayen466 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am struggling to see the purpose of this article. Precisely the same criticism of Michael Moore's first movie can be found on the main Roger & Me and Manufacturing Dissent articles; similar Bowling criticisms are described on the main Bowling for Columbine article; the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy article includes the same criticism; and the main Sicko article contains much the same material as written here. That only leaves Moore's Hurricane Gustav comments which, if editors agree, can easily be merged to the Michael Moore page. Dynablaster (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will begin merging material soon, if nobody objects, and redirect to Michael Moore. Dynablaster (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)