Talk:Michael Moore

Intro NPOV?

In the intro it says Michael Moore has criticized a variety of things including the Iraq War and George Bush. That seems accurate but it also lists "gun ownership" which redirects to a wiki page on the Second Amendment. I don't feel that is accurate at all. He is a member of the NRA, supports responsible & lawful gun ownership. In the film Bowling For Columbine he only criticized ownership of assault weapons. I feel it is a giant leap to state that he is critical of gun ownership when that is not an accurate statement. Many people are pro-guns and yet anti-assault weapons at the same time. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points. How do you propose we fix this? Dynablaster (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "he is critical of assault weapon ownership." That seems to be neutral and more accurate. What do you think? --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He's "critical" of what I like to call "cosmetically-challenged self-loading" rifles. That is, firearms that look like they are an Assault Rifle, (the tightly regulated full auto type), but actually are functionally equivalent to semi-auto sporting rifles. An Assault Weapon is a made-up term loaded with non-neutral POV.

96.255.171.212 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All terms are made up. The term Assault Rifle is the officially accepted term for high capacity rifles and carbines considered to be light enough to be used by troops on the move (meaning tailored for assaulting enemy positions.) Higher caliber/heavier rifles such as the M1 of WW2 fame are typically referred to as Battle Rifles. These are (or at least were) official NATO designations. If you specifically mean Assault Weapon is a term manufactured to generate non-neutral POV I agree but the term Assault Rifle is legit.98.25.13.139 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He also attempts to skew history and infer that the NRA was founded by the KKK. He's a real smarty, that Michael Moore... 207.5.160.27 (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Provide a source or you aren't helping anyone.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Total gross of Moore's films

Michael Moore's films have earned over 172 million U.S. dollars. The source of this information is http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/MIMOO.php I think the amount of profits Michael Moore's film have made should be included in the section regarding his filmography.

I agree with you. Also, in 2009, while his net worth was more than $50 million, he said, "capitalism did nothing for me." That should be in the article too. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Michael Moore is saying capitalism should not be credited for helping him become a filmmaker because, if you read the rest of his answer, he is happy to acknowledge that he went on to do very well for himself, and is now using his time, energy and wealth trying to bring down what he perceives to be an unfair system: "Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film [Roger & Me]. You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal [to make the film]. The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there. [...] I’m not loaded in the way you described. But I do well, obviously because my films do well. So, that means I have an extra responsibility to make sure I spend my time trying to make things better for the people that don’t have what I have." Dynablaster (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Only he hasn't done any of that. He spends all his time talking about how the corporate world is so evil and how it hates america, yet he hoards his money like everyone else, and relies on corporations to distribute his movies that have apparently "changed the world." He's not in it to make a change, he's after money and he's after fame. He wants people to think he's the good guy trying to make the world better, but he doesn't want the problems to go away, what he wants is to blow them out of proportion so he can continue to reap the benefits of acting like a "crusader" for the good of the working class people that he has nothing in common with. 207.5.160.27 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. But this is an encyclopedia, even if it's an odd one, and not a tabloid at the supermarket checkout. The article should have specific, verifiable criticisms, but not a general "he's a hypocrite" opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.83.119 (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I add something here quickly? The section on Fahrenheit 9/11 is wrong, it says "second highest grossing film of all time" but the citation says first. 174.36.153.147 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just want to reiterate the above point since this hasn't been changed but the page is locked. The article says second highest grossing and links to a sight that names it the highest grossing, which it is. Should be changed by someone with those privileges. 08:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.197.138 (talk)

Damnation Alley

The movie Damnation Alley has a Michael Moore credited as second unit director. WikiTourist (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Moore (Born 1914).

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601077/

Lots of other people named Michael Moore - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore_(disambiguation)

-- 187.67.203.186 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why isn't there one?124.158.32.144 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

People would feel inclined to slit the throats of one another on this website. It would be the end of Wikipedia as we know it. LaRouxEMP (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't realise that Wikipedia was this biased. What happened to NPOV? A criticism section needs to be added immediately for this ignorant economic illiterate. I mean if there is no criticism section for MICHAEL MOORE then no one deserves a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these people. Is there any doubt he is a controversial figure. People from both sides of the aisle agree he has some controversy. Please add some criticism of Michael Moore to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some mention of criticism, but the problem is, I haven't come across any actual criticism. Aside from childish insults, the only complaint is that he's "rude" and "takes people out of context". If there is any legitimate criticism, it should definitely be cited and added.

The Ground Zero project

I am removing this from the article and placing it here on talk, per WP:Recentism and WP:Undue. Moore has launched/supported many causes and campaigns -- what distinguishes this one from the countless others? How much coverage has this received in the quality press? (Note for user Hearfourmewesique: Newsbusters in a low quality source that should be used sparingly, particularly where WP:BLP is concerned. If you disagree, proceed to the RS Noticeboard.) What this article needs is a balanced expansion of his religious views, given his longstanding interest in the topic, both in film and print. Wikispan (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On September 11, 2010, Moore has publicly expressed his support of Park51, a project designed to build a Muslim center on the ruins of the Twin Towers. Moore insists that the Muslim center must be built directly on Ground Zero, rather than near it, claiming that it will promote the image of the American people as a "a loving and generous people" and will "help [the Muslims] get [their] religion back." He also stated being more displeased about having a nearby McDonald's, claiming it took more lives than the terrorist attacks. Moore has already collected about $60,000 in donations on his website.

I am reinstating this in the article. Don't point at other stuff. He is proudly talking about this on his website, citing the CNN article. What exactly is not publication worthy here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not a considered reply to my expressed concern. The NewsBusters piece is not fit for this or any other BLP related article ("Schlockumentary film producer", "people who live in pants the size of tents shouldn't throw Big Macs"). The Slate magazine article is dated 2004. JOHANNORBERG.NET is a personal website. The weight of evidence is against you. To repeat, this article could do with a section that describes the subjects religious views in a neutral and balanced manner. Wikispan (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, then let's leave CNN and Huffington Post – are these unreliable as well? "Not fit" is your opinion btw, I think it's fair, albeit somewhat personal. Still, there are two reliable secondary sources, with one being directly quoted in the primary source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take the necessary time to read and understand exactly what I am trying to say. I do not oppose mentioning Moore's view on the building of a Mosque as near as possible to, or on top of, "the ruins of the Twin Towers". I simply ask that we approach this topic in a balanced and more complete way (i.e. his dislike of organized religion, etc). For your information, BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." And "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Let's avoid sound bytes and encourage editors to work toward a more complete section. Wikispan (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and there we go again:

• High quality sources – Moore's website itself, the CNN article it cites in its entirety, and Huffington Post. I could dig for more, but isn't that enough?
• Unsourced/poorly sourced – just demonstrated two good primary and two good secondary sources that fully back up this story.

So... after it's been established that the BLP policies that you've quoted have not been violated, what's next? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Moore's support for the mosque/center should be included. Perhaps it could be included in the existing "Political views" section instead of its own section or under a "Religious views" section. Besides the high-quality sources CNN.com and the Huffington Post and Moore's official website (allowable under WP policy if same article), there is also an article in The Washington Times, and broadcast reports on both CNN and Fox News. Drrll (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... now an editor is removing most of the links, claiming that it's a WP:LINKFARM (a policy which that editor obviously needs to review, considering that it doesn't apply to citing references but only to a list of external links!) and... let me guess, in a couple of days this passage will be deleted for lack of coverage. Am I right? Please, no more tricks. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive external links

On September 11, 2010, Moore has publicly expressed his support of Park51, a project designed to build a Muslim community center on the ruins of the Twin Towers. Moore insists that the Muslim center must be built directly on Ground Zero, rather than near it, claiming that it will promote the image of the American people as a "a loving and generous people" and will "help [the Muslims] get [their] religion back." He also stated being more displeased about having a nearby McDonald's, claiming it took more lives than the terrorist attacks. Moore has already collected about $60,000 worth of donations on his website.

• -http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/if-mosque-isnt-built-no-longer-america

• - http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-in-the-news/build-islamic-center-ground-zero-says-moore

• - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/11/moore-build-islamic-center-on-ground-zero/

• - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pearl-korn/michael-moores-fundraisin_b_720615.html

• - http://arabnews.com/world/article144068.ece

• - http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/75360

• - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/12/inside-the-beltway-908658550/

Discussion

There is no need at all to have this content cited by more than a couple of citations, what we do here is report content and cite it to a reliable location, multiple externals are undue and are better removed. Also . .the text is a bit weasely, the word insists is weaselly, he has on authority to insists anything, also the expression publically expressed his support, publicly is not neededOff2riorob (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, you are forgetting what WP:External links are. It is a bare list, usually found below the {{reflist}} section. Secondly, I've been trying to establish the notability of this passage for a while now, and had to find a large amount of sources to overcome yet another silly wikibattle. Lastly, nothing here is "weaselly"; "insists" is a neutral description of his firm statement, and "publicly" is a neutral description of his loud outcry to reach as many supporters as he can. All I see on your end is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we don't add as many external links as we can find in an attempt to assert the issue is notable. Personally I see the addition as basic partisan attack type content. We can easily cite this content from two external links (in this manner I am considering any link to an of wiki site as external) . The weaselly words will be better gone, I will look through the cites, as for I don't like it, no I dont like such POV pushing partisan attack additions, wikipedia needs NPOV contributors and even discussing this is a waste of my time, clearly there are unnecessary citations and clearly the measly words are undue, you like them, you wrote them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything that you don't like is an attack. Gotcha. Michael Moore has never stirred a controversy in his life, and if the whole world, including Moore himself, says he has, it's a conspiracy, which will probably be the theme of his next movie. POV pushing? This is precisely what you are doing: removing content that is not to your liking. There is not a single POV-driven word in that passage. Had it contained sentences like "Michael Moore has decided to dance on Sep. 11 victims' graves by making a mockery of the aforementioned date", you would have been right. Again, nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is undue, as I said previously. BLP is unambiguous: our purpose is to provide a broad overview of Person X's views on any given topic, being naturally conservative, avoiding the temptation to reproduce only the most sensationalist sound bytes (the very opposite of what is unfolding here). The same rule applies to every notable person on Wikipedia, regardless of political persuasion. Unfortunately I don't have the time to craft a balanced section, nor in the immediate future. Wikispan (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what he's doing. This is what he's distributing on a scale as broad as possible. Come to think of it, I'm actually doing him a public service by (justly) including this here. I've gathered both this section and the hurricane issue under "Controversial media appearances" – can we at least agree that Moore has a tendency to make those? Multiple reliable sources are covering this issue, describing it as "controversial" and "stirring the pot", and Moore even cites the CNN entry on his own website, under the headline "Mike in the news"! Geez, what more do you need to eradicate the "undue" excuse? Marching elephants? Fireworks? Moore going door-to-door to make sure everyone knows? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moore receives frequent press attention―negative and positive―for things he says, writes and does. I can identify 5 similar instances with ease. The material you wish to add is not very illustrative, but it has a much better chance of sticking if we expand the section to give a general summary of his political/religious views, instead of focusing narrowly on a single point of contention, which is no more 'controversial' that many other things he has said in the past. If not, a pattern will emerge of selecting the most salacious quotes we can find, and pretty soon the whole section will be zapped. Wikispan (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Zap. There should be a way to integrate the content into the major sections without sensationalizing it as a controversy or out of context. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think this section is good for the long term health of the article. BrendanFrye (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this coat rack and recentism section as unencyclopedic for a second time. Default on BLP articles is exclusion not inclusion of disputed material. I would like to be convinced as to importance of this content to a biography before it is added again. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-read BLP please. That's all I'm going to say now, after repeatedly asserting the importance of including these controversial media appearances. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We do not assert the importance of biographical material. We use sources that make that assertion. Unless you can show that this coat rack recentism is in any way important or significant to this biography, we have no good reason to include it. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources say it all, please read. They are asserting the importance of including the material. Editors are either claiming there are too many sources, that they (were) garbled at the end (I've rearranged them to match citations) and now you're saying there's not enough? At least make up your mind. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you need to stop forcing disputed BLP content into this article and wait for this discussion to conclude. Please do not keep edit warring on a BLP. We default to exclusion when we are dealing with biographies. Now, please explain in your own words, how and why this material is significant, important, and essential to this biography. I don't see it. All I see is an editor cherry picking negative, trivial criticism to make a BLP look bad. That's not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, all I see is editors excluding any material that might balance this appraisal piece you call a BLP. Michael Moore has created several controversies, upset many people and got more than plenty of WP:RS coverage about this. Now you explain why you are fighting so vigorously to exclude this from the article. It's supposed to cover a person's life, not just assorted points that you like. Why isn't there a single word about the endless negative criticism he keeps getting? Does WP:NPOV spring to mind? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't responded to a single question I've asked you about the content you keep adding and until you do, it doesn't belong in the article. Please refrain from addressing other contributors and directly address the content and its applicability to this article. There are many problems with your latest edits. First, you have added back redundancy to the lead section that describes Moore as a liberal twice, and uses a primary source to do it the second time. On Wikipedia, we use secondary sources to highlight significant claims, and we use the lead section to summarize the article. The lead already says Moore is a liberal in the first sentence, and does not require that an editor find a primary source to state it for a second time. Lastly, you have added back a "controversial media appearances" section. This section is a hand-picked, cherry-picked, hodgepodge of non-notable trivia using Fox News sources and primary sources from Moore's website to "create" a controversy. That's not how we use sources, and that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry about a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, I've responded to all your questions more than once. You're just playing stupid. For the 238476537th time: the material is important because it balances the otherwise one-sided fanclub appraisal piece.

I do not "create" controversies. I use multiple sources that describe the events as controversial. Like it or not, FOX news is still a WP:RS until proven otherwise; if you want to change it, find a noticeboard. Still, it's only one of the sources and that wasn;t even my addition. The 9/11 controversy is backed up by seven sources, most of which Moore fans here were removing under the pretense of "linkfarming", just so that someone like you could say that there are not enough sources to convey importance. Just because a reliable source represents a view that contradicts your own, doesn't make it any less reliable. Another editor removed the Cybercast article because he didn't like the tone. A neutral biography is supposed to cover everything, not only hand-picked, cherry-picked, biased Nobel peace prize winning appraisals about how much revenue Moore's films made (it's just an example, please don't take it verbatim). Check the sources please, I even outlined the inline citations that clearly define the events as controversial. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. You have not answered my questions nor addressed the points raised by others. Your response, "the material is important because it balances the otherwise one-sided fanclub appraisal piece" is a non-response. I would be happy to discuss and analyze your sources and material word by word, but you will need to also do your part, which means putting a stop to the disruption, the edit warring, and the non-answers. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

General criticism

What is the most frequently levelled criticism of Michael Moore? It is sometimes said that his work is unscholarly, that his films lack balance, and that he sometimes plays fast and loose with chronology, events etc. Perhaps it would be better if we could find two or three sources that summarise these points in a concise manner. Moore has responded to such criticisms several times before, so we will need to provide his response. We should use high quality sources, per WP:BLP. Wikispan (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I actually came here to say this. Imagine my surprise to find my words here, already written by another. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This article as it stands now doesn't have a shread of criticism of Michael Moore. Doesn't that seem odd since Moore frequetly responds to his crictics? I was just searching for the "Criticism of Michael Moore" article only to find it was deleted. I think someone is POV pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)