Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Left wing

JTpaladin, we've already discussed this at length; there was absolutely no consensus for the change to the lead sentence[1]... unless of course the admin with whom you ""privately consulted"[2] 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[3]--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 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 6 July 2007
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)
Nobody is more of a wingnut than the brainless idiots who swallow all propaganda, left wing and right wing, that they hear. And doesn't your comment violate the civility and "assume good faith" Wikipedia clauses?--Rotten 04:10, 20 August 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..."[4]. "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives Michael Moore"[5]. 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. 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)
You are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Do you understand that? Would like to be banned? Let me know and I can arrange it for you. I'll call an Administrator here for you. As for Moore, being left-wing, if you would actually read the articles, you would read Moore not only claiming to be a "liberal" but also that he to the left of the most left candidate. What does that tell you? Everyone here is telling you the same thing but you can't understand it. Stop wasting everyone's time. I also noticed you didn't apologize for your misquoting of the Ann Coulter issue. I guess being wrong is normal for you? Jtpaladin 18:58, 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)

Can we all calm down a bit please? Take a step back, think before you type, keep it civil. Thank you. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel, thank you for getting things calmed down. I didn't appreciate the use of foul language and hysterical behavior by Turtlescrubber. He also refuses to accept Moore as being liberal and/or left wing. I have posted evidence that he claims that he is and no one seriously doubts this self-evident fact. Can you chime in on this? Thank you. Jtpaladin 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth anymore. I never said that he wasn't liberal. I said that you don't have a source. Which you don't. It's not a self-evident fact it is your pov and or. Please don't pretend your the victim in this either. Most of your responses on this page, like a good amount of mine, can easily be considered rude and discourteous, to say the very least. Turtlescrubber 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No one is putting words your mouth. I do have a source: Michael Moore himself. In the title of an article: "A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives Michael Moore" what do you think that means? As for Ann Coulter, you have yet to acknowledge you are wrong in that as well. As for being rude, saying "f*ck" is a violation of WP rules. You know that but you show contempt for those rules. Don't you get bored chasing windmills? Jtpaladin 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
So where is your source for left-wing? Stop the strawmen. This whole conversation is about the source for left-wing, which you claim to have. Where is it? Btw, just saying fuck is not a violation of wp rules. Wikipedia is not censored. Also, reread what I said about ann colter, I said you were using a false corrollary, which in fact you were and probably still are. I feel no need to apologize for being right. Turtlescrubber 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Nicely twisted logic you have there. You said, "As for Ann Coulter, read it AGAIN!! I said she was listed as a CONSERVATIVE not as RIGHT-WINGER!!" I never said that she wasn't listed as a "Conservative", so you are operating under a false pretense. As for Moore being left-wing, he said it in his article and yet you ignore it. Why? Does it suit some bizarre agenda of yours? Why is it so hard to accept what other people and scholars are saying about Moore being left-wing? Does that hurt your feelings? I'm sorry but it's true. At least you recognize that he says he's liberal so why not include that in the article? I'll do it for you. As for "fuck", you addressed at me in violation of WP:CIVIL, so yes, it is a violation. Don't you get tired of being wrong? Jtpaladin 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Man, you seem to be getting everything wrong. Last message, don't worry, you can stay on topic in the future. I know you never said she was listed as conservative (seriously, read what I said again), you were using a false corollary. You still don't have a source for left-wing, never did and probably never will. And I said, just saying fuck is not a violation. Using it against someone is. Let's stop talking now. Anyway, if you ever find a source for left-wing let me know. That's what this was all about and you still have nothing that even remotely resembles an adequate source. Sucks huh? Turtlescrubber 23:38, 21 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. 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)


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)

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. Do you think there should be a section for future plans? There's already rumors that Fahrenhit 9/11 1/2 has been shelfed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear199 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 16 July 2007

Fahrenheit 9/11½ was never set in stone. The page should be deleted. smb 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what Michael Moore had to say during a recent web chat: "Doing a film on the corporate media is the most requested thing I get! But I can’t talk about the next film. It will take a year or two to do. The theme I referred to that exists in all my films is the economic system that we live under. It’s unfair, unjust, and not democratic." (message #124) "Let me be blunt. We Americans get some pathological kick out of beating up those who are less fortunate than ourselves. We do indeed punish the poor for being poor. We have structures in place that guarantee that they will never climb out of their poverty. It’s not an accident. And it is a very black mark on our soul." (message #365) [6] Moore already appears in The Corporation, which attacks the corporate media, so he's unlikely to trample the same ground. [7] Alternatively, Moore has lots of unseen footage of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit, because he dispatched a number of camera crews down there to film over a period of several weeks. So if one were to speculate, his next project might encompass this material in some way. smb 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge The Big One (film) into this article

The Big One article has sat around since 2004 and remains a stub. If it can't be made into an actual article after all this time, it isn't worth keeping as a separate page and should be merged into the section of this article that lists Moore's films. If that stub is actually made into an article it would be a different story. Noroton 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This was released in theaters as I recall, so should pass WP:N. It doesn't bear greatly on Moore's notability and looks like a passable stub with more content than we want here. Because it satisfies WP:N, I think the material really is better there than here. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree as far as notability goes. My point is that its an unreferenced article with no more information than a directory listing. It would disappoint any reader looking for information on the film. Ideally it should be added to, but that's obviously not happening. Noroton 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. I'm surprised how meaty the film synopsis on this article are. I agree with both of your proposals assuming no one expands to the point we wouldn't be comfortable keeping it all here. I might work on it in the next few days though; I liked this movie enough to put it on my watchlist, apparently. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Marge Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint into this article

Here's another article that's sat around as a stub since 2004. The argument for merging is the same as for The Big One (film) as proposed just above. There is no reason to have a separate Wikipedia page for nothing more than a stub. Wikipedia is not a directory.Noroton 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moore Web site

Under Wikipedia policy, the site needs to be removed while the attack on a Wikipedia member remains.

From WP:NPA:

Removal of text There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.

[edit] Off-wiki personal attacks Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

[edit] External links Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked.[2][3] As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

And I might add, it's also the decent thing to do. Not a small consideration when we have WP:CIVIL. Please consult your conscience. Noroton 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful edits while the war continues

{{editprotected|minor tidying of infobox, intro to more accurately reflect sources amongst other things.}}

Michael Moore
Michael moore.jpg
Born Michael Francis Moore
Height 182 cm (71 in)
Spouse(s) Kathleen Glynn (1991-present)

Michael Francis Moore (born 23 April 1954) is an American author and Academy Award-winning director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, two of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time.[1]

Moore is a self-described liberal[2] who has criticized globalization, large corporations, gun violence, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[3]

Chris Cunningham 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be highly difficult to fulfill this request at this time. The link in the info box is disputed and we administrators have gone on a back and forth discussion to keep the link. It was discouraged in the WP:ANI discussion to remove the link but the edit war has currently left the page with the linkless version. Any edit even if we refactor that request minus the link is a bit of a testy thing to do right now. Best just to let this article sit for the time being and fulfill the request maybe after a good 24-48 hours or so.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Great. Lock the page with the link removed, which is what Noroton wanted [8] but was denied. This user is breaking every rule in the house right now, ignoring consensus on Sicko controversies, which editors agreed should be trimmed and merged (and not expanded [9]), edit warring like a grand master, and absolutely nothing seems to be getting done about it. Nothing. smb 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Persian Poet Gal, the lack of consensus in a WP:ANI discussion does not trump WP:NPA, does it? Just to make sure everybody is on the same page here, I've reproduced the relevant text from WP:NPA just above in the section "Moore Web site". Please explain why we shouldn't just follow WP policy. And smb, thanks for the compliment. I like the sound of that: "edit warring like a grand master." Mmmmmm... Noroton 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this view that we should be overly sensitive to what outside sites are doing. We need to remain neutral. If we remove links the second anyone offsite says something bad about us, that gives them terrible leverage in editing disputes. They shouldn't be able to affect us so easily. There are many people who want links removed (say, Daniel Brandt), and if we are so quick to reward people by giving them what they want when they commit attacks on editors (which I am not so sure Michael Moore has done, by the way), then we are only going to get more attacks in the future. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing against WP:NPA policy or my interpretation of it? (I don't know how else you'd interpret it though.) Neutrality doesn't apply when decency is at stake. You don't take the median position between decency and indecency. Especially not when Wikipedia policy is all, totally, on the side of decency. I don't think that's being overly sensitive. I think it's just being decent. Not a huge humanitarian question. Just basic decency. Noroton 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems like a case of Dumb and Dumber... a dumb policy (against linking to so-called "attack sites") getting (ab)used in ever dumber ways. And your talk of "decency" reminds me of the FCC's crusade against bad words on the airwaves, yet another dumb policy being used in dumb ways. (As if there's any smart way to use a dumb policy.) *Dan T.* 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks here. THF's identity was never a secret, and Moore merely pointed out some potential COI issues. The edit link to his userpage was unnecessary, but I think it stemmed more from Moore's misunderstanding of the point of Wikipedia than really trying to form an attack against THF. Regardless, the edit link has been removed. It makes no sense not to link to Moore's site from his own article, especially given the really flimsy evidence you're trying to come up with for it. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. The article's not protected. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made the changes. Chris Cunningham 07:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deactivate the official website link?

The official website links in the PJ article were deactivated for the reasons stated here. Deactivating the official website links in this article seems like a reasonable solution while that site chooses to inject itself into Wikipedia by hosting Wikipedia commentary. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See ANI just now. Removing links because of disapproval of a site's current editorial policies is childish. There's ongoing discussion as to exactly what the policy should be in cases like this, but at this point consensus is to keep the links. Chris Cunningham 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
While the links may be kept, they should be deactivated by removing the brackets from around the relevant links in the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't see that this is semantically very different. What's more, if there's no consensus to delete, why would there be consensus to de-link? Chris Cunningham 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and I think this is childish. Moore's website is factual, no more, no less. That some of us don't like that it is factual and "casts light on those who edit Wikipedia" (who casted the light on themselves, I might add), makes no difference. There is no policy or guideline that supports removal. If people are going to edit on Wikipedia using their real names, real initials, and trumpeting their real-life work, then they should be prepared to have their work raised on outside websites. --David Shankbone 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no reason to remove or deactive the official website. Turtlescrubber 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to anyone that branding Michael Moore's official website an "attack page" and purging its links from the English Wikipedia will only draw additional attention to the matter (and to THF's identity) and possibly spark a new controversy? It isn't as though this will actually prevent anyone from finding Moore's website, so I can't imagine how it will help the situation. —David Levy 19:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that most of those who view Moore's website find it via Wikipedia. Removing links will only serve to inflame the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to protect this article

I'm somewhat of an outsider here, so excuse me if I come off as if I'm riding in with an agenda, but isn't it obvious to you folks that it's time to protect (or at least semi-protect) the article? I mean, practically every other edit is some jerk putting in juvenile jabs at Moore. The great majority of these are from anon IPs. If it were me, the solution would be pretty obvious; you ought to at least raise the stakes a little, put up at least token resistance. Don't you think there's a connection to the recent controversies inspired by Sicko and the Moore attack sites? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing agenda-ish in wanting to avoid vandalism. Feel free to request semiprot. Chris Cunningham 08:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have officially requested semi-protection for this article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Boy, that was quick: result =
+ ILike2BeAnonymous 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)