Talk:Michael Moore

Moore's Future?

There's been talk that Michael Moore might make a documentary on homophobia. Moore has always hinted at retiring from documetaries all together, saying he still writes original screenplays and might like to do a romantic comedy.

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

Archives

• /Archive1 - Archived talk through Oct 2005.
• /Archive2 - Nov 2005 -> Dec 2005.
• /Archive3 - Dec 2005 -> June 2006.

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

1. Websites
2. Articles and reviews
3. 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).

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)

'liberal'?

Michael Moore has emphasised in numerous interviews that he does not consider himself a liberal. In fact, he has said that he "hates liberals". The description should removed from the aricle.

Micharl Moore is not the only source on Michael Moore. There is a perception in America that he is liberal. If he denies it, that should be included in the article as well, but you can't avoid using the word at all when Michael Moore is concerned. VxP 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read two of his book, I would hardly describe him as a 'Socialist', someone please remove him from the 'American socialists' list. Nepstad 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No support in article for 'american socialsts' category, will remove now. R. Baley 06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2006-11-14 Here he sights "A Liberal's pledge.... By Michael Moore" implying he considers himself a liberal.

Moore may not consider himself a liberal but he has clearly stated that he is "left-wing" in his politics. Anyone that doubts this needs to retire from Wikipedia immediately because they are not fit to edit here. I have re-added what WP:VERIFY and WP:CON had established before some devious vandal removed that info. Stop acting like children and don't remove established info. Jtpaladin 22:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From reading Moore dislikes live being labelled a "liberal" because he regards most American liberal politicians with contempt accusing them of being either ineffective and/or excessively moderate and too willing to compromse on core values. Perhaps "radical liberal" would be an appropriate term ? 80.229.222.48 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

'Practicing Catholic'?

Towards the end of the biography section it states Moore is a practicing Catholic. While Moore on numerous occasions has stated he had a Roman Catholic upbringing and education there is little evidence that he remains a practicing catholic indeed while he does in his books pay tribute to some of the nuns at his school and Pope John Paul II for his condemnation of the Iraq war and the death penelty some of his writings are strongly critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church particularly in relation to condom use, homosexuality, and abortion.

While this does not necessairly imply (although it does strongly suggest) that Moore is a lapsed Catholic the "citations" following the statement that he is still practicing do not give any indication either way. In any case the relevence of the statement is highly debatable therfore the sentence should be removed 80.229.222.48 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth

The article claims that Michael Moore was born in flint Michigan. But several sites show him as being born and raised in Davison Michigan.999mal 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael was born and raised in Flint, Michigan. The house he lived in is right by Kearsley High School.

Boom!

Disambig to "Boom! (song)" please. 83.67.217.254 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, criticism, criticism

There already exists a Michael Moore 'Controversy and criticism' page [5] and 'Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy' page [6], so I see no reason to reduplicate many of the same links here under 'General criticism'. Hitchens, Hardy and Kopel's criticisms feature prominently on their respective pages, so I argue that these can go. smb1971 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I will soon begin moving some of these critiques over to other pages, along with any 'defense articles' that relate. I will do it gradually so that if anyone raises an objection, we can talk things over. smb1971 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The more I reflect on this section, the more I question its need. A 'controversy and criticism' page was started in late 2006 for precisely this kind of material, so I submit that ALL of the material be shuffled across. More specific criticisms can be moved to the various film pages. I can't find a single other entry on Wikipedia that has a section labeled "Defense articles". Let's have some feedback. smb1971 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Numbers??

Michael Moore did not direct the film Lucky Numbers. Can this be corrected? --70.49.8.116 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing political activist

I added "left-wing" prior to the phrase "political activist". I think that this is an obvious description since no one could accuse Michael Moore of being a "right-wing" activist and all of his political activism is clearly left-wing. Jtpaladin 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am of agreement that "left wing" is used in a derogatory fashion, while "conservative" is a self-appointed label. If Mr. Moore calls himself "left-wing," and we have citation for this, then it might be different. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, more importantly, that "left-wing" is merely a reductionist label, used more frequently by Moore's critics than by his supporters. As I stated in my edit summary, describing his views (for example, saying--as the current article lead paragraph does--that Moore is critical of "globalization, large corporations, gun violence, the Iraq War, US President George W. Bush, and various other domestic and global policies of the United States and its allies") imparts far more information than the somewhat inflammatory label, regardless of whether Moore considers himself "left-wing."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The test for applying a description is not whether the person considers themselves "conservative", "liberal", or whatever. It is Wikipedia:Verifiability[7]. Is anyone doubting that Michael Moore is a "left-wing political activist"? There are plenty of sources that would verify this description. This description is applicable because it meets the standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability[8] and that style is used to describe other persons such as Sean Hannity[9], Ann Coulter[10], Noam Chomsky[11], Al Franken[12], and other politically active figures. Can you point to a Wikipedia guideline that supports your argument?

In the "Writings and political views" section, he is described as "Progressive" in his political views. That is a left-wing political perspective. He was an editor for "Mother Jones", a left-wing publication. He calls himself a "liberal" on his website. [13] In an interview, he states that, "Somebody came up to me and said Canadian Bacon is the first left-wing film for the mall crowd. I can only hope that that's what it is."[14] He then refers to himself as being on the "Left" on his website. [15]

Clearly, Michael Moore is a left-wing political activist so arguments trying to omit this fact have absolutely no validity. Without pointing to some Wikipedia guideline that supports this argument, the description should not be reverted. Jtpaladin 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How the heck do you consider the label, "left-wing" as being "reductionist" and a "somewhat inflammatory label" if it is correct and verifiable?!! If that is held as valid as a Wikipedia rule then we have to edit lots and lots of articles on Wikipedia to conform to this perspective. Jtpaladin 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Point us to some other articles bio articles that use "left-wing" or "right-wing" in their opening setence, and we'll talk. I'm fine with the way the Noam Chomsky article uses the term--to say, much later in the intro, that somoene is "considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics" constitutes much better writing than to just flatly state that somone is a "left-wing activist". The Chomsky statement, by the way, could use a source.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bother to check out Michael Moore's own statements about being "left wing". Why you are working overtime to try and deny this man his self-identity is a mystery. Either come up with a valid Wikipedia argument or let's include this self-descriptive phrase. Just saying that he's a "political activist" isn't direct enough. If Moore were making films and speeches that were critical of both left-wing and right-wing issues, then you would be correct in just leaving it as is. But he clearly only directs his political activism towards the Left. And as such, he is a "left-wing political activist". What is so hard about understanding this concept? Please stop making up stuff as you go along. Jtpaladin 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Self-descriptive" phrases do not automatically lend themselves to neutral, encylopedic language. I'm sure Moore has refered to himself using a variety of terms, many of which would be ill-suited for the lead sentence of an encylopedia article (brief quotations might be appropriate in the main body of the article or on Wikiquote). "Leftist," "far-left" and "left wing" mean different things to different people, and depending upon the context and reader, varying degrees of disparagement can be inferred from their use (I would similarly object to the indiscriminate use of more positive terms like "progressive" or "populist" since they are open to interpretation and debate). In the introductory paragraph, readers will be more more interested to know what he does and what agendas he supports than what he calls himself.

I'd still be interested to see if any important bio articles use the label in a similar manner to what you are propsosing, but I doubt such articles exist. I'm not going to discuss with you indefinitely, but I will strongly suggest you seek consensus (or at least a distinterested third opinion) before making the change. If you do not, the addition will likely be reverted. I will respect consensus, but so far I see none.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have privately consulted with an Administrator and he agrees with the "left-wing" title. If you are going to call someone a "political activist" and that person is an activist for one particular perspective then it would be appropriate to distinguish as to what his activism leans towards. He's clearly "left-wing". You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. It is verifiable and appropriate to acknowledge this fact. If you want to remove the phrase "political activist", then do so. But keeping only half of the description does a disservice to the reader. I'm going to add "left-wing" back to the article and give a citation for it. If you find that this citation is wrong, then feel free to remove it. But if it is correct then removing is is merely vandalism. My action is supported by WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, and WP:VANDAL. If you can cite some Wiki policy that supports your position, please state it or please move on. Jtpaladin 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just say "liberal", "liberal leaning", "left-leaning" or something else that still gets the idea accross without being perjorative? PS: "I have privately consulted with an Administrator and he agrees with..." is simply not justification for anything. Administrators have no more authority in regards to content disputes than anyone else, and consensus needs to be public. Otherwise everyone will claim that Jimbo Wales privately agrees with them :) VxP 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with any of those titles. They are descriptive and they verifiable. That's all I'm trying to do. The problem is that I stand on WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CON, and WP:VANDAL whereas the person reverting has no foundation. He says he's looking for consensus, and that's fine, but if he reads the "Exception" section on consensus[16], he will find that consensus does not override WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. He refuses to even accept Michael Moore's self-description of being left-wing. Which is absurd. Plus, the reason I asked this particular Administrator for advice is that he's well respected and if we need to mediate, an Administrator will likely be involved. Jtpaladin 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all necessary or desirable to have three external links following the words "left wing" in the article's first sentence. First of all it's overkill (one or at most two references would be fine), secondly it should be modified into footnote form as the three consecutive external links are distracting. Anyway the second and third links contain no reference to Moore being on the "left"--only the first one does (and even there Moore only makes reference to "those of us on the left" or something to that effect, he does not refer to himself as "left-wing"). In the third link he actually refers to himself as a "liberal" and quite frankly I think that's a better label for him. I think in order to be truly "left-wing" (in a general sense, not as in "the left wing of the Democratic party") one has to be explicitly opposed to capitalism and I'm not sure Moore falls into that category (he has heavily criticized corporations obviously, but that's different). As an example of his non-left-winginess, Moore supported Wesley Clark in the earliest stage of the 2004 presidential campaign (Clark was heavily criticized by most died-in-the-wool leftists, who were generally angry at Moore's decision to support him).

Though I'm not going to change anything here for now, I do think at the least that the references should be cleaned up and I think "liberal" is a more accurate description of Moore. One comparison worthy of mention, note that in the first sentence of the Ann Coulter article Coulter is described as a "conservative columnist" despite the fact that her views are clearly on the far right of the Republican party.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jtpalidan, it ain't cool to accuse well-meaning, estabilshed editors of vanadlism, just because we disagree. I'm a bit disappointed that you can't see the difference between flatly stating in a neutral article that someone is "left-wing" and merely reporting that certain people have referred to him as such.

For example, I'm sure plenty of sources have called Moore epithets along the lines of "fat fuck" or a "traitor" or worse. I wouldn't even be opposed--as long as it's in the spirit of improving the article--to including such disparaging quotes in the article, as long you made it clear in the body of the text who is making these claims. You have merely provided verification that people have called him names, without adding any intelligent context.

I think your edits and purported application of policy in this case are misguided, and I find your revert warring less than constructive. As a compromise, I'll change it to "liberal" for now, until further consensus can be reached. Personally, from the standpoint of good encycopedic writing, I find idealogical generalizations like "right-wing" or "liberal" distateful; such labels are subjective and convey much less information than specifically stating what he believes--but I won't fight the issue if others (that's a plural) disagree.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Michael Moore being called a liberal? He's not a liberal, his ideas are not liberal ideas. If you need to characterize his political views with one term, left wing, or progressive would be the most applicable. I don't think that it makes sense to call him a liberal, when a more correct term is available. (Lucas(CA) 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Having read all the above comments, by twopenceworth is this: criticising a regime, does not make you diametrically opposed to that regimes political slant. For instance as a 'left winger' I can be critical of left wing governments, without being instantly cast as a right winger (unless I went about it in such a way as to promote in a particularly conservative way). Merely commenting on poor governance, lack of direction, mishandled information and the continued misbehaviour of the political elite can be dependant of political motivation.--Koncorde 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And after all this discussion and agreement and verifiable information WP:VERIFY that Moore is left-wing, someone goes and removes that description. Why? What is wrong with some people? Please face the fact that Moore proudly considers himself a left-winger. If he can be proud of that, why can't some of you accept that fact and let the man have his description? Jtpaladin 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the links that were removed by a vandal. These are valid references and although I agree that they should be better incorporated in the body of the article, there is at least one person who refuses to accept this fact so I have to blatantly address this issue up front. I would rather I remove the links in the first paragraph and then add them in the body but leave the phrase "left-wing" in the intro as is applicable in such circumstances. Also, someone tried to suggest that Moore is not a "political activist" and gave a link. Actually, by the definition of a political activist, he is one whether he acknowledges it or not. And the link says nothing about him not being a political activist. Guys, you need to adhere to WP guidelines. Is it worth all our time for me to call in a mediator who will in the end look at the evidence and agree with the facts that I have added? Does anyone want to waste time doing that? Come on, for the sake of not wasting time, be honest and fair about this matter. Moore is a left-wing political activist. He's proud of it so you should respect that perspective. Jtpaladin 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was adding a ref where more discusses the label "political activist", but I picked up the wrong lik, my bad :). This is the right one: "MichaelMoore.com : SiCKO : 'SiCKO' News : 'I am the balance,' says Moore". Retrieved 2007-07-06.. --BMF81 16:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary subheading about critical documentary

==Critical documentary on Michael Moore==

Debbie Melnyck and Rick Caine document the (subtle?) manipulations of Michael Moore in their film Manufacturing Dissent: Uncovering Michael Moore, Canada, 2007, 74' (or 96').

I removed the above completely unnecessary paragraph for a couple of reasons. First, there are numerous films about and/or criticizing Moore. This one doesn't deserve a special mention or subheading for itself. If anything it belongs in the article Michael Moore controversies. Secondly, the assertion that the film documents "the (subtle?) manipulations of Michael Moore" is patently NPOV and ridiculous. Yeah, real subtle, AlexQuestionmark. Inoculatedcities 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

add quote section

Michael Moore uses words as a tool. A section with quotes from his works, and speeches, may be a good addition. Likely it will be a struggle to get a good balance, but I think it is needed. --gunnerclark 20:34, 15 may 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be troublesome. How do we differentiate between something he may have said in jest, during stand-up, and something altogether more serious? smb 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918

Please open a discussion regarding whether Mr.Moore would be considered in jeopardy under Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 laws as there seems to be quite a bit of scuttlebutt regarding Mr.Moore's works and whether or not they are seditious and if Mr.Moore is acting with sedition as defined by this law. This is not a jab, I would just like to see some intellegent consideration of this from people other than the "locker room lawyers". Thanks.

What are yout talking about? That'd be like arguing over whether a relationship was in violation of miscegenation laws. Both those acts were repealed a few years after they were enacted if I'm not mistaken. Brentt 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

-What I'm talking about is what I'm hearing from other people and want some informed/educated consideration of; particularly since I'm not a lawyer. Last time I looked, the link on wiki for Sedition Act of 1918 states it was repealed but the site for the Espionage Act of 1917 seems to state that the Act of 1917 was not repealed (see the reference to Scooter Libby) and is just kind of on the shelf. I have heard several people, and I think also on talk radio, say that they believe Mr.Moore is acting seditious and that the current administration is just choosing not to enforce the law or something. I'm just curious if there is any base to thier claims and if Mr. Moore, and other people who object to the war in some form of media, are facing legal jeopardy. I'm just curious, and a little concerned about freedom of speech, and would like to hear something definitive if possible and would really appreciate input from someone trained in U.S. law. Thanks.

Insn't that the job of the courts to decide if he is handels against the laws cited above. If anyone thinks yes, or if they think he does, they or sombody will sue him for that. (Dobby-fc 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Of course it is up to the courts to decide, but, is it likely or even possible for someone or some agency to reasonably attempt to prosecute Mr. Moore with the provisions in these laws? If repealed, can they be reinstated? The original question has still not been entirely answered, I am not a lawyer and therefore can not provide an accurate answer.

See Wikipedia:OR. We don't do original research here. If there is a reputable source discussing whether Moore could be charged under some law, then we can mention it here, but we're not going to go off on our own tangents. VxP 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who did attempt to charge Mr Moore under these statutes would probabably be doing him the biggest favour he could ask for in terms of publicity. Besides there is a little matter of the first amendment ! 80.229.222.48 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Nation

The article suggests that this was an NBC programme but the TV Nation page says it was a BBC Two show. Can this be corrected? 212.140.167.99 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was originally a BBC show, but was on NBC in the states for a while. I'm not sure if it was NBC exactly, but it was run on some American network, probably NBC. I don't know if that counts as being an "NBC show". And I'm not sure if some episodes were made specifically for NBC. (maybe analogous to how Da Ali G Show was a british Channel 4 show originally but became a HBO show)Brentt 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was originally made for the BBC TV because they were willing to show the series, as no US network would originally touch it (as described by Michael Moore in Stupid White Men. – Agendum 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could a registered user add the fact that the show was made by the BBC to the article. And, possibly, the fact it was made by the BBC because American networks wouldn't make it (if people think this is relevant and it can be properly sourced- apparently in Stupid White Men).212.140.167.99 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Get me a source, and I'll be glad to ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal who's against free-trade?

He's described in the first paragraph as a liberal who is against globalization? How is that liberal? Tri400 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom, in the 18th and 19th century liberalism "emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal ... It supported laissez faire at home [and] supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically ... Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930, the term liberalism became associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom ... In the name of welfare and equality the twentieth century liberal has come to favor a revival of the policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought.". So essentially these days, to Americans, liberal means protectionist and left-wing in an economic sense - both of which I am sure Michael is proud to be. See the talk page talk:liberalism for more than you would ever want to know about it. --Dilaudid 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better to describe him as socialist?Lostnight 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Turtlescrubber 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes i completely think so, considering that he support gun control, plus, his latest documentary Sicko is against private health cover. Tri400 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gun control and anti-private health care = Socialist? Think there's a little more to it than that.--Koncorde 03:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

His critics might describe him as socialist, but they would be using that word in a perjorative way, which is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. VxP 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Supporters of free trade nowadays are as likely (if not moreso) to be conservative. One problem with "Liberal"/"Conservative" labelling What was considered liberal 50 years ago may be regarded as conservative today and vice versa which results in paradoxes like "neoconservative" politicials espousing "neoliberal" economic policies 193.112.172.12 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many liberals are opposed to free trade with countries they deem to have inadequete labour standards and/or poor human rights policies. Similarly most pro-free trade conservatives usually make exceptions when it comes to countries like Cuba and North Korea. 80.229.222.48 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Trouble

I renamed Legal Trouble to Legal Investigation - Legal trouble sounds a bit colloquial, perjorative, and prejudges that there will be some action after the investigation. On the other hand I've seen reports that Moore smuggled his film out of America [17] in case the government took action against him - so maybe trouble should stay. Revert at will :) --Dilaudid 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Co-Person of the Year?

According to multiple sources Moore claims he was intended to become co-person of the year with Mel Gibson - and was only turned down because Gibson backed out on the day it was intended to be announced, so instead President George W. Bush won it. [18], [19]. Should this be added? --Dilaudid 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace change

Moore was born in Davison, Michigan, which is an independent municipality from the widely-attributed Flint (therefore, the information in the article and infobox is incorrect). Sources: [20], [21], [22], [23]. --75.21.227.250 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the controversy page if you haven't seen it already. Turtlescrubber 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The other anon specifically stated "born in", not raised. This is a separate issue than the one discussed on controversy. --66.227.194.89 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moore picture

Come on guys, could someone please add a better picture of Mr Moore? Perhaps this is an incorrect assumption, but it seems that whoever uploaded the current picture selected the worst one possible!!!

It's a good composition free image. There are probably better copyrighted ones, but your dissatisfaction may come from Mr. Moore's appearance himself. --75.21.166.42 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's just the way he looks in real life. It is a good NPOV picture. It captures his physical appearance. It captures the appearance of his soul. 68.97.41.118 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think he looks worse now that he changed the frames on his glasses. Maybe I'm off but I think the picture is quite good. -- Gerkinstock 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Could a registered user expand the controversy section or add the template? Before linking out like that, pages are usually supposed to put a summary of what they're linking to. 69.12.143.197 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't drive his Detroit car??

I heard something on the radio about him bragging of driving an American car, probably a modest one, but that he sold it or traded it in and it didn't have any miles on it. Is there any truth to this at all? --Howdybob 05:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While one shouldnt believe everything one hears on the radio (It wasnt on Rush Limbugh's programme by any chance ?) Perhaps he was demonstrating his concern for the enviornment by minimising his usage of the vehicle ! 80.229.222.48 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that template a bit odd?

Michael Moore isn't a current event. I'm pretty sure that the template is referring to SiCKO, but isn't there a more appropriate template that can be used? I'm not a Wikipedia regular so I don't know, but surely there's something that applies to people involved in current events. 71.2.72.28 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Left wing

JTpaladin, we've already discussed this at length; there was absolutely no consensus for the change to the lead sentence[24]... unless of course the admin with whom you ""privately consulted"[25] recommended this change, in which case I beg your forgiveness. But, in all seriousness, many editors prefer the word liberal; some, like you, prefer "left-wing." Others, like myself, would rather omit an ideological label altogether and let the description of his views in the opening sentence speak for itself. I'm willing to abide by consensus and happy to discuss the best options for a lead sentence with you and the rest of the community. However, the fact that you've refered to me as a vandal several times--and called the subject of this article childish names[26]--does not speak well to your ability to collaborate productively, nor to your willingness to uphold a neutral point of view.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fat Man, I was sked to provide citations backing up that claim. I did. Then you or whoever reverted them. Why do we have to play these games? The man is left-wing in his politics as Ann Coulter is right-wing in hers. Do you place some kind of shame on hese postions? Well, if so, that's your problem. These people enjoy their place in the political spectrum and it's not your place to deny their place. Stop reverting what has been clearly been established. Jtpaladin 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah. From what I can see the key argument is that "left-wing" is used as an attack by cable news pundits. So is "liberal". So is "east coast". Let's not keep running along the euphemism treadmill here.

The lead's far too short anyway. I've split this into two sentences. Chris Cunningham 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything is relative. Being considered left-wing in the USA would probably be considered being pretty much in the Center in most European countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.178.183 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's the thing, isn't it. Moore does a film which says "why don't we adopt an attitude towards healthcare which matches every other industrialised nation" and he gets painted as a Marxist for it. Chris Cunningham 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gets "painted as a Marxist for it"? He IS a pinko, he painted himself that way, no one had to do it for him--IworkforNASA 23:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, wingnuts. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I noticed the way you ignored my points. So are we now going to remove the word "conservative" from Ann Coulter's intro as well? And even though Moore calls himself "left-wing", you think that his comments be ignored? How do you come up this nonsense and actually try and justify it? Jtpaladin 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

pov tag and reference tag

There is no proper citation for left-wing. I have asked many, many times to be shown the source material and none has emerged. Liberal and left-wing are not the same thing as thumperwad knows. These tags stay on the article until proper sourcing is shown or the offending word is removed. I would remove it as unsourced and derogatory as per wp:blp but I have a distinct feeling that I would be blocked for 3rr. Turtlescrubber 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That took two seconds on Google. "My friends on the left". "Those of us who may be to the left of the #1 liberal Democrat". (here's the search.) Le sigh. Chris Cunningham 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Le sigh. That article doesn't even mention left wing. Double Le sigh. Get a real source. Turtlescrubber 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What. What the feather duster does The Left mean to you? Moore's own words aren't a good source? This beggars belief. Chris Cunningham 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You removed the tags. You are totally wikistalking me and trying to antagonize me. Big man on the wiki. Triple Le sigh. However your newer source isn't reliable (it's a blog).Why do you revert unsourced derogatory and contentious information into a wp:blp article? Pretentious Le sigh again. Turtlescrubber 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm stalking you because as a heavy editor of WP liberal political bios I reverted you on Al Gore last week? Get over yourself. And it's a primary source, the only rock-solid blog reference allowed. It isn't "derogatory" except amongst those precious flowers who feel that being called "left-wing" is offensive, and Moore fortunately isn't one of them. Chris Cunningham 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Le sigh. Its a derogatory term used on a wp:blp article. What part of that can't you understand? It's also unsourced. So the happy furry puppy kitten blog is the official blog of michael moore? When did that happen? You didn't revert me on Al Gore..I reverted you and then you came in and le sighed me with your wonderful demeanor my precious flower of an editor. Turtlescrubber 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Norbizness is a well-known blog which mocks the tendency of US conservatives to refer to liberals as "the Left" in a derogative manner. it was intended as humour for people who (a) knew the political blogosphere and (b) had a sense of humour, not as supporting evidence. If you don't believe that "the Left" and "left-wing" are synonymous, and further do believe that "left-wing" is "derogatory" but "the left" (a phrase used by Moore to describe himself in a referenced primary source) isn't, then you're in a minority. Why you would think I'm spending my free time trying to slander Michael Moore when I spend much of it seriously improving liberal articles is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are adding unsourced and derogatory material to a wp:blp article. It doesn't really matter what you or I "believe". You should show that you have character and integrity and either revert your addition or put the tags back on the main page. Odds of you doing so are plenty slim. Turtlescrubber 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't derogatory, and it is sourced. See previous comments. We're done here. Chris Cunningham 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The term left wing isn't even mentioned in you "source". We aren't done here as you could see if you bothered to read the rest of the talk page. Turtlescrubber 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, stop indenting your posts randomly. It makes things almost impossible to follow. As I said three levels up (at "Norbizness"), "the left" is synonymous with "left-wing". And as I said in my first post, the primary negative here is the statement that "left-wing" is a derogatory phrase, which it isn't, so that isn't an issue. Chris Cunningham 18:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contention that the terms are the same is original reasearch and pov. Also, left wing is used as a derogatory phrase. You are wrong on all counts my friend. Oh, it is also considered rude to edit somebody elses comments. Please stop. Turtlescrubber 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are WRONG. Left-wing is no more derogatory than is Right-Wing yet there does not seem to be any apprehension in using Right-Wing in other articles like Ann Coulter. You have no standing in this matter so it's best to stop making absurd claims. Jtpaladin 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I CAN write in CAPITALS TOO! See below for my response (All I want is a decent GOD DAMNED SOURCE). Turtlescrubber 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

HOW is left wing derogatory! NOT in Canada! Mabye in the U.S.

How you guys can with a straight face remove any reference in the intro paragraph about Moore admitting to being Left-Wing and yet maintain multiple references to Ann Coulter as being conservative in her intro is why Wikipedia has gotten the well received title of being an unfair, unbalanced, and dishonest orchestrated mouthpiece. Don't some of you have any shame in the blatant way you mask the facts? Even when Moore refers to himself as left-wing, you guys still ignore that in favor of non-descript labels. I have posted multiple references to the facts yet some of you remain obstinate regarding this clear reality. Are you afraid and ashamed that Moore is left-wing? Well, Moore is not ashamed and you are responsible for maligning his political afiliation. Your actions here bring disgrace upon WP and, for that, some of you should exclude yourselves from articles where you can not make a fair, honest, and balanced presentation of the facts. Jtpaladin 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Left wing has never been sourced. I have asked for sourcing dozens of time. You have ignored me. I don't give a fuck what Ann Coulter's page says. If you don't like it, go over there and change it. Until you find a credible source for left-wing and show it on the talk page, it stays out of the article. Show me a source from Moore himself that says, "yeah, I am left-wing" and I'll put it in the article myself. Turtlescrubber 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. Right wing isn't in the Ann Coulter article. The correct corollary to CONSERVATIVE is LIBERAL. See how that works? Turtlescrubber 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, watch your mouth. Who do you think you're talking to like that? This is not some sleazy forum where you can run off your mouth like a drunken sailor. I have given the sources for Moore's political affiliation but for some reason you can't comprehend them. Here they are again. Now try harder: "Those of us who may be to the left of the #1 liberal Democrat..."[27]. "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore"[28]. So he is a LEFT-WINGER!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

As for Ann Coulter, read it AGAIN!! I said she was listed as a CONSERVATIVE not as RIGHT-WINGER!! See how that works? How do you feel now? Stupid? No, don't be so hard on yourself. I wouldn't say that. But, do you feel like begging for my forgiveness now?

As for this issue in general, if you need help to figure out that Moore is a Left-Winger, then you have no business editing this article. You are one reason why WP is being blasted in the media as a disgrace to the word "encyclopedia". Stop wasting our time and give it up. Jtpaladin 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for cutting in. Hmm, fucking a right. Don't tell me to watch my fucking mouth, it's none of your fucking business the god damned language I use. Anyway, 'the phrase left wing does not exist in your sources'. How the hell can you say that you have sourced it when 'the phrase left wing does not exist in your sources'. How hard is that to understand? So you listed a false corollary and I am supposed to feel what? You are the one wasting time as you don't know how to properly source a simple little phrase and then keep frothing off at the mouth about it. Silly. Once again, Show me a source from Moore himself that says, "yeah, I am left-wing" and I'll put it in the article myself. However, it shouldn't go into the article yet because, 'the phrase left wing does not exist in your sources'Until then, you just might want to be a bit quieter. So silly. Turtlescrubber 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of Moore, and consider it self-evident that he's a leftie. Reminds me of a similary brouhaha over at the article on Alex Cockburn's CounterPunch over whether that publication has a left-wing perspective: nobody with a heartbeat oud contest that. This is basically one of those "the sky is blue" facts that shouldn't require the spillage of so many electrons to sort out.

By the way, since you (person whose comments are above) brought up the issue: no, there are lots of more substantial reasons why Wikipedia is taking well-deserved hits for pretending to be an "encyclopedia". +!ILike2BeAnonymous 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

pov tag and reference continued

Still needs two sources. One for the left-wing politics and another that these left wing political views lead to him being known as a political activist. Both sources are needed or this information is going to be removed and the opening paragraph rewritten as per the needs of wp:blp.Turtlescrubber 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Chris Cunningham 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconceivable? Turtlescrubber 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sources never seem to match what you want them to. Why don't you tone down the condescension machine until you get it right?Turtlescrubber 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you are too busy basking in your own sweaty glory, you put the cite in the wrong place and it still doesn't match what you are trying to make it match. Why don't we just use npov language so you don't have to scramble for a source 5 more times? It has been five times already, right? Turtlescrubber 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV" does not mean "pussying out". Moore is not Alan Colmes. He is proud to be left-wing. Avoiding the term is jumping on the euphemism treadmill, which just means that conservative pundits will pick some other adjective to vilify, and then we'll have to go censoring another bunch of articles to avoid using "derogatory language". Wikipedia is not censored, not even when the right goes redefining words to make them Bad and Wrong. Chris Cunningham 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to fix the ref on the first one..

Error on call to Template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specifiedFlesher, John (16 June 2007). . Associated Press. MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-06. “But the filmmaker, known for his fiery left-wing populism and polemical films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," told the audience "Sicko" would appeal across the political spectrum.”Turtlescrubber 18:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers. Chris Cunningham 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Still needs to be rewritten to fit those references. The text still doesn't match the sources provided and there are still major pov problems. I can take care of that later tonight or you can have a stab at it. The neutrality and reference issues still stand (see my first post in this section). Turtlescrubber 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave it a try but you still need to fix the second source. It makes no real reference to political activist. Yeah, it doesn't read very well but that's what happens when you try to fix sources to the text instead of the other way around. Turtlescrubber 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Your refusal to accept that someone can be "left-wing" in principle by holding left-wing views does not mean the intro should suffer. Chris Cunningham 07:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By refusing to accept "that someone can be "left-wing" in principle by holding left-wing views" means that I am refusing to do original research (pov) and am actually matching the text to what the source says. Turtlescrubber 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you use in your sourcing to justify the label "political activist"?

"Can a movie do what a million get-out-the-vote initiatives have failed to do? Will an evening's smashing entertainment turn couch potatoes into political activists? Could Michael Moore's dream be George Bush's nightmare?" Seems pretty thin too me. Turtlescrubber 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hometown

Wait a minute. According to Larissa MacFarpuhaur of the New Yorker, in her article "The Populist," written on February 16 and 23, 2004, Moore did NOT grow up in blue-collar town Flint, but instead lived in the nearby white-collar town of Davison.

Shouldn't this be edited?

I actually edited this many months ago but the people who like to ruin articles by falsifying information removed it. It's disgusting how they drag WP down into the gutter like this. Jtpaladin 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)