Talk:Michael Moore

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.

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. Would it be appropriate to include a section about his weight? 64.109.56.48 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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).

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 [1].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)

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)

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 [2] 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)

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?

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).

'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)

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)

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 [3] and 'Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy' page [4], 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[5]. 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[6] and that style is used to describe other persons such as Sean Hannity[7], Ann Coulter[8], Noam Chomsky[9], Al Franken[10], 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. [11] 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."[12] He then refers to himself as being on the "Left" on his website. [13]

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[14], 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)

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)