Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 7

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


Improving this Page

Michael Moore was born in Flint at St. Joseph Hospital

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaden002 (talkcontribs) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Davison, MI, the birthplace of Michael Moore. It is a suburb of Flint, however it is his birthplace, and it is its OWN CITY. Watch a documentary that isn't Moore endorsed. Michael Moore Hates America interviews the Mayor of Davison and has the proof that Moore was born in Davison. In fact, it's a city shame! People flocked to harass the city over the issue, so please go outside the box for a second and reference what you write. Here is a list of references:


Sincerely, Lemonhead414 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonhead414 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America" certainly must be an excellent source of unbiased information, and I see no reason to question any facts it might present. Coolgamer (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Uh, the info box to the right says he was morn in Michigan, and the first paragraph into the entry says he was born in Canada. Just saying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2003 Oscars

There doesn't appear to be any mention of his highly controversial acceptance speech at the 75th Academy Awards - which arguably propelled him into being a household name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Fair point. Perhaps this should be added on the Michael Moore Contraversy page though TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Summaries of Movies

Shouldn't this merely speak of movies only as part of his professional life and leave synopsis to the pages of the respective movies?--Dwarf Kirlston 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


This article requires cleanup and better organization--Dwarf Kirlston 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed was that the second part of the Bio is titled "drops out of school" rather than the more usual "early career" or whatever. This strikes me as being "culturally charged" language and its use as a subheading seems to detract from the impartiality of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Should we change documentary to doucdrama which would be more accurate. Ken Burns produces documentaries, without a political agenda or distorting of facts.Kirin4 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Turtlescrubber 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a reason, please. My point would be that in his recent docudrama Sicko he distorted the fact. Similar to what he did in Fairenheight 9-11.Kirin4 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What does Ken Burns have to do with this topic? Also, please keep a NPOV in this discussion.
Docudrama, is defined as combines elements of documentary and drama. It may consist entirely of actors performing recreations of documented events. The films do not use actors, but real people. So the description of documentary would be more appropriate. --Statsone 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I am using Ken Burns is a legitimate documnetarian which Moore is not. I don't see where I stated a POV. There are many things I could have said but didn't. My point is since Moore's films are are full of falsehoods documentary is not accurate.Kirin4 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
How about your comments including ...Moore's films are are full of falsehoods, ...without a political agenda or distorting of fact, ...Sicko he distorted the fact, and a legitimate documentation which Moore is not. --Statsone 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I googled this Does that satisfy you?Kirin4 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And? It is a blog full of comments. You started the section asking if the film should be called a documentary to doucdrama and use some comments on a blog to change the topic. The films, are made using real people and not actors. It is a documentary. Not a doucdrama . Pointing to a blog full of personal opinions serve no purpose. Please see Point --Statsone 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Point does not apply, I can quote books or the video Michael Moore hates America. What is acceptable to you?Kirin4 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic? Again, you are showing Point is all you are doing. --Statsone 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you are missing it, the question I put at the beginning of the thread was documentation the right term for Moore. We disagree, all you have been doing is making procedural accusations. Please stop making point accusations. 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As to your question, the answer should be no. Michael Moore makes documentaries, not docudramas. The difference was listed. You didn't reply to these 2 points. You keep bringing up POV, making false statements, etc. Please answer the question at hand:
Docudrama, is defined as combines elements of documentary and drama. It may consist entirely of actors performing recreations of documented events.
If you can show the films made by Moore use actors and not real people, then the discussion can proceed. If not, please stop trying to make a POINT --Statsone 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It can be demonstrated that Moore combines elements of documentary and drama. which is the standard called for. May implies, by definition, not necessarily. The fact that he does not use actors does not mean his films are documentaries.

There has to be a way that can be acceptable to describe Moore's film is an advocacy rather than a straight documentary. He does not present an accurate portrait in his latest film especially whitewashing the problems in the Cuba health care system. Can we put as advoacy documentary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirin4 (talkcontribs) 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you not stop? --Statsone 04:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When you stop obstructing a discussion. this is not a Moore worship page. I am making valid points you don't want to hear.Kirin4 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirin4: Please maintain a civil tone. --Pleasantville 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am, here is another example of Michael Moore not being an honest documentarian.Kirin4 12:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, well, while Kirin might have had a little trouble explaining why it should be a docudrama instead of a documentary, and could only quote blogs, how about all the commercials the big three were scrambling to present at the opening of Fahrenheit 9/11 because Moore ALTERED the footage so that they were no longer what was originally recorded (ex: "I'm not supporting that" edits down to "I support that"). Am I the only one that remembers those? While Moore claimed that he withdrew from the documentary ring for his movie, he also knew it had been so edited it no longer qualified.-- now, do I need to take the time to hunt down an internet site that has archived one of these commercials, or is public memory long enough? WynniFitz 07:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Public memory" is not a reliable source. Find a reliable source and it can be discussed. Chris Cunningham 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I hope Newsweek is sufficient, then. I'm still hunting for the spots shown on television. Last time I checked, distortion = docudrama, not documentary. Documentaries do not push political agendas. This one most blatantly did.WynniFitz 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your definition is slippery. So, too, the above Newsweek piece. Michael Isikoff failed to accurately quote from Moore's narration. In the film, he actually says: "...another group of people invest in you, your friends, and their related businesses $1.4 billion over a number of years...". (The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, Penguin Books) In addition, the source to which Moore refers on his website reads: "In all, at least $1.46 billion had made its way from the Saudis to the House of Bush and its allied companies and institutions." (House of Bush, House of Saud, Scribner). It's quite broad, though factually accurate. Not that any of this matters. Even if Moore erred in his film -- and I think we can agreed that he did, worst of all on the Unocal pipeline deal -- it still doesn't alter the fact that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary, and classed so by reliable, published sources. smb 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
ps. If you examine some of Isikoff's subsequent writing, you will find that he has become much more critical of the Saudi-Bush relationship (and he is not alone). smb 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Fahrenheit, or any of Moore's latest films are true documentaries, either. From Wiktionary, a documentary is: (of a film, book etc) Presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter. The key word here is "objectively". Again, from Wiktionary, Objectively means in an objective way. Objective is then defined as meaning:

1)Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality. 2)Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices. 3)Based on observed facts.

The argument is he fails on point 2 in that his work is influenced by emotions and prejudices. The lack of any material offering any sort of counter-view is evidence of this. I don't know if docudrama is correct, but he does not make "documentaries".Bigrafa (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with many times of the relevant project page. "Documentary" as defined by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is
"a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction." Rule 12
Moore literally makes hundreds of points in each work he produces, and he posts references (further reading, etc.) on his website to accompany each film. He is often accused of cutting corners, leaving viewers unfamiliar with his newsletters bemused as to his intended point, and of making errors. Some he corrects for the DVD release; others he rejects, instead pointing readers to his website. Right-wingers often accuse him of deliberate deceit. They even tried to have his Oscar revoked at one time - The Academy rejected their case. ~ smb 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wow

What happened to this page? It used to be somewhat decent. Now it's completely whitewashed. There's not even a link on the page to the Michael Moore (controversies) page [1]. I mean, I understand presenting someone in a kind light, but not even to mention the fact that he is the subject of extreme criticism, especially about movie-making ethics is just plain wrong. Further, it is completely fine to include summaries of daughter articles into main articles - so I can't even guess why all controversy was removed at all. Stanselmdoc 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a see also link to that article. The problem is that scant few Wikipedians are capable of phrasing sections which portray negative biographical information in a way which doesn't make it read like illiterate, point-pushing screed. (unsurprisingly, this is how most "controversies" sub-articles read.) Chris Cunningham 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I know. But that doesn't mean that controversy sections can't be written in an NPOV manner. There are lots of articles that have controversy sections that are written well. That's why I was hoping to improve upon the Michael Moore (controversies) page first, and then slowly introduce condensed versions of it within this article. Stanselmdoc 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally have a problem with that, but I do feel that Moore isn't half as controversial as the average wingnut thinks he is, and that we should try to avoid random cable TV-worthy incidents which won't stand the test of time (which is what the majority of "Moore controversies" are). Have a go if you'd like, but "fact X in Bowling for Columbine is disputed / was falsified / whatever" is about as well as anyone's done so far. Chris Cunningham 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"especially about movie-making ethics " that's because no intelligent people have a problem with "move-making ethics" - he has points of view which you can disagree with, but get over that - its not manipulation if you are not clever enough to understand what you see. --IceHunter 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this inapplicable?

In this edit the following is taken out of the article:

  • Moore was interviewed by Charlie Rose in the summer of 2004, and was repeatedly asked what he thought the real reasons were for President Bush's alarmingly aggressive tactics and why so many liberties and rights were being flagrantly disregarded. Despite receiving the question five or six times, Moore's answer was consistently: "I don't know". Michael Tsarion uses Moore as an example of faux opposition, i.e. creating your own rival to prevent having to face up to the real one. "That's when I knew he was working for them," comments Tsarion in the lecture "2012 - The Future of Mankind"<ref>Lecture given to the [[Granada Forum]], [[August 3]], [[2006]], video available at [[Google video]]</ref>

The accompanying edit comment from User:ILike2BeAnonymous is "Remove thinly-veiled jab at Moore from a not-too-reliable source, cloaked in citation." Is this attack on Moore inapplicable for the article? __meco 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No other contributors supporting ILike2BeAnonymous' opinion I have reinstated this text. __meco 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think nobody bothered "supporting" the opinion because the text in question is demented. Moore is secretly working for them? As in the Bush administration? This is a bizarre assertion by someone whose specialist subject appears to be the paranormal rather than politics. Chris Cunningham 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Other documentaries

On section 2.4 I added Michael Moore hates America which he is the focus of and appears in it was deleted. Please explain?Kirin4 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore Hates America is present under Critical Documentary Films. It's ninety-nine percent archive footage, in any case. Fleetingly sticking a camera in Moore's face for a film in which he does not wish to appear is not the same as, say, The Corporation or Blood in the Face or This Divided State, in which he had some direction. [2] smb 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Explanation: as explained above, it is not a documentary he appears in per say. It is listed in Critical Documentary Films where it belongs. To insist it be in the section of other documentaries is simply pushing POV --Statsone 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pets or Meat should be included. Although it only aired a few times on PBS, it has never been released, and its important to have as much information on the movie as possible. It is available online to watch [3] Flintmichigan 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier I posted this is not a Moore worship page. Why does anything critical of him get deleted?Kirin4 09:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please read what other post before posting yourself? This is not a worship page but it is a page, with a Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a site to force your views on others.
The film is already in Critical Documentary Films where it belongs. It is already listed. It also has its own page. It has not been deleted. It is present on the page and elsewhere.
Please stop point. This is wasting everyone's time. --Statsone 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You stop WP:point you just don't want it. I suggest you read Wikipedia 5 Pillars because you are breaking them. Please do not delete my edits without discussion.Kirin4 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are unconstructive, go against consensus and could be seen as personally damaging. You're lucky that people are even discussing this. Chris Cunningham 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Michael Moore Hates American and Celsius 411 removed from other appearances in documentaries? He is the focus of the former. 18:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags

Does anyone have a view on this? smb 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete the merge tags. Nothing has been written since August ( now in Archive) --Statsone 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Moore's works deserve their own articles, even less popular ones such as The Big One. I support removing the merge tags. Strobilus 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete done Gang14 07:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-documentary appearances

Is it worth listing the appearances Mike has made in shows/films that aren't documentaries. For example, he once guest voiced as himself in The Simpsons. TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You can watch Michael Moore on Oprah

You could, but would you want to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tall Terry (talkcontribs) 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I got this via an email. How I got on this list I don't know but I thought some of you would be interested in seeing all of this about his documentary 'Sicko' --CrohnieGalTalk 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Isn't there a criticism section in this article? I mean I can think of the that book "Micheal Moore Is A Stupid White Man" and that whole run in with Matt Stone and Trey Parker over the columbine film, just off the top of my head. And I don't even know anything about this guy! Ryan4314 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: Michael Moore controversies. Chris Cunningham 10:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well DUH, how stupid do I look now ay! lol I completely didn't see that! In fact I can't believe I didn't now I'm looking back over the article... It's probably coz I started by looking at the "contents" section first. Cheers Ryan4314 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Any chance we can move the link to the Michael Moore controversies article out of "See also" section. Give it a heading of it's own, only so that it can be seen from the contents list, with just few short sentences (probably resembling the first few sentences on Michael Moore controversies article) introducing the article, not actually about the articles content, so we can stay nicely within BLP???
I have a genuine reason for suggesting this, I was so shocked that I hadn't spotted it the first time round, that I emailed 2 of my friends, with a challenge to locate the link on the page. They didn't spot it at first either, lol not that this is in anyway conclusive, it just gives me reason to suspect that people might be missing this. Ryan4314 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That'd be assigning it undue weight. Ideally, this article would devote a paragraph to the attacks Moore receives from conservatives and the controversies article would be deleted. Until then, the controversies article is an idiot-trap which keeps this article relatively free from random insertions of contentious material, and we shouldn't really be encouraging people to expand it. But such is the way with Wikipedia biographies. Chris Cunningham 07:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm yea I see what you mean, it's just a shame we can't put it in the contents section. LOL that might even help direct the vandal traffic Ryan4314 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gap in Biography

The biography jumps straight from him working for Nader to 2004, not mentioing where he began film making, etc. I know his films are covered later, but needs mentioning for continuity in his bio. Epeeist smudge 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic ?

I think it´s impossible that he´s a Roman Catholic. He makes fun so much of religion in his book, that he´s certainly not a religious person at all. Mistico 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the article says he was brought up Roman Catholic. ButteredToast 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he´s a joker, so his claims to be a practicing Roman Catholic, can´t be taken very seriously. But he really claims to be a catholic, even if he doesn't seem to be that at all.Mistico 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, he supports abortion and gay marriage, like he already stated several times. I think this should be mentioned, so people could see what kind of Catholicism he follows. This entry would be incomplete without mentioning that. In his interview, and I invite people to read his own words, he says that he tries to be a practicing catholic, not that he is. It´s not the same, so I think it would be better if it appeared that he claims then that he´s really a practicing catholic.Mistico 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is all your particular point of view. Turtlescrubber 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"I'm actually a fairly conservative person. I live a very conservative lifestyle. I try to go to church most Sundays. I was raised Catholic, so I'm Catholic — sometimes a recovering Catholic. I've been with the same woman for the past 26 years." Bolding added. Turtlescrubber 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore, since he´s not a politically correct person at all, I´m pretty sure would like people to know that´s despite considering himself a catholic, he also disagrees with the Catholic Church doctrine about abortion and gay marriage. I ask people to quote his book "Stupid White Man". He´s also a well known liberal, and I can´t imagine him voting for the republicans, at least, for now. Mistico 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It´s tendentious to show him simply as a "catholic" and not saying that he as his own beliefs in some controversial issues. I don´t see why it´s not a NPOV.Mistico (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Moore is listed on the donor board at St. John's Catholic Church in his hometown of Davison, Michigan. Kevin mckague (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There you have it, verifiable evidence of his attachment to Roman Catholicism. If he was baptized and never excommunicated, he should be considered what he says he is. His point of views and actions are the result of a highly informed conscience, and that is a higher goal of Catholicism than holding a party line, especially if he feels that the policy has only been adopted to win enough votes to carry out policies that are less in line with his beliefs. The Metro Times ran a Moore column discussing the Republican Party misuse of the Pro-Life stance. MMetro (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I read one of his books (Dude, Where's My Country?) and I would not say that he "mocked" religion. He made fun of Bush's narrow fundamentalism, but that isn't quite the same thing. From what I've seen, he isn't an all-around religion-basher a la Bill Maher, and for the most part he doesn't pay much attention to the subject in his writings or films. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Could someone add this:

  • After only four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinsita's human rights abuses in Nicaragua. Moore stated that he would not run the article because Ronald Regan “could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.” [1] Bermen described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident.[2] Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger and Me.[3]

The article is locked down to me for some reason. Thanks. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at that, it let me edit it. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Biography Gaps

The biography section jumps over entire decades of Moore's life. If someone could add to that it would greatly improve the page.DiggyG 02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly skips some important points; there’s almost nothing about what the Flint/Michigan Voice was, even though it was ten years of his life, it doesn’t mention working for Ralph Nader, and then it very conspicuously skips everything up to 2004, although it does cover some things like his work on a subject-by-subject basis. It needs an account of how he got from one project to another during the 90s, which is in part given in the entry for TV Nation, as well as what sort of responses there were to him at the time. It could also use a detailed account of the political views he advocates: it currently says he has criticized gun ownership in the summary, but he did say [4] that he only opposes handguns and automatic weapons. Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Moore Zealots Stronghold

It´s really pathetic that some people want so desperately to show him as a "conservative Roman Catholic". He claims to be that, but he also supports abortion, gay marriage and steam cell research. Why these things aren't mentioned in the entry ? (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Should Michael Moore be in Category:Actor-politicians... the thing is... he has been an actor and he has also held elected office. My instinct is that he should be in the category because these categories apply to a person's entire life and not just the present but I wanted to throw it out there before doing it because I know it will be controversial.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on why they think it's unsuitable.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
He is not known as an actor. Check the category description. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK... I'll just add the politician category since he ran for and won elcted office.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Category:American socialists... interesting hypocrisy

While Moore's goals may align with socialist ones quite closely, I have never heard him nor a reliable source claim him to be a socialist. I'm confused... you guys leave Category:American socialists on the page which is completely unsourced (socialism isn't even mentioned anywhere else) but you have problems with categories pertaining to him being an actor and politician which are at least sourcable things he actually did. Please think about the categories on this page more carefully.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that category, what am I the category babysitter. Interesting arroganceTurtlescrubber (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting interesting.  : ) --Dr who1975 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike, Ralph & 2000

I hope somebody with the know how, will add a section on Moore's participation in the 2000 election (when he supported Green candidate Ralph Nader). GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Bush and Anti-Gore Video

Despite the fact that he´s one of the most outspoken people that say that Gore won the 2000 Presidential elections, he directed a strongly aimed anti-Bush and anti-Gore video for Rage Against the Machines, Testify. I think this should also be added to the controversies. But I agree that this page is too "politically correct". (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For it to be a bona-fied controversy, you have to cite a source. Did anybody even care that he directed this video?--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
How does a belief that Gore won the election contradict not supporting Gore during the election? There is no real connection between the two.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That video states that Bush and Gore are the same : "The two are in fact just one." He supported Nader back then, and it´s well known that most of Nader votes would have been to Gore. So, if back then he believed Gore was as bad as Bush, it should be stated that back then he was also anti-Gore. At least, he directed a video that puts Bush and Gore as equals. So, if he believed back then they were both as bad, it should be mencioned.Mistico (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He supported Nader and directed a video for him... but did Moore say "The two are in fact just one."... I know Nader said it and still stands by the statement. Can you source Moore saying it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You never seen the music video for Rage Against the Machine ? You can read about it in the link I give above. The video shows Bush and Gore as basically the same person, and at the end, their faces just become one. We can read the phrase "The two are in fact just one", then. He certainly wouldn´t have directed this video if he didn´t agreed with his message. I´m gonna try to find a link for the video at YouTube. I saw it several times at MTV Europe back then, but I didn´t knew who directed it.Mistico (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to see the video... I'm trusting you to give me the facts. He can indeed direct a video that he doesn't entirely agree with if he is supportive of the overall cause (i.e. electing Nader as President). Accroding to you, he directed a video but never proffessed it to be his opinion... thank you for answering my quiestion. --Dr who1975 (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you were talking about other people I probably would disagree, but since is this specific guy, I think you´re right (lol).22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistico (talkcontribs)

Support for Nader doesn't mean you can't believe that Al Gore or any other candidate won. Some Nader supporters think Bush won legitimately. Others think Gore won. The point is you can support a candidate and acknowledge that another person won. Coolgamer (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


The movie THIS DIVIDED STATE When filmmaker Michael Moore came to the Bush-Loving state of Utah just two weeks before the 2004 Presidential Election an explosion of controversy ripped a quiet, Mormon town apart. "THIS DIVIDED STATE" is a film that captures all the death threats, bribery and family values. --Brown Shoes22 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why "THIS DIVIDED STATE" is not listed in his published work list?--HATA A. K. (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood that the film was produced by Michael Moore.--HATA A. K. (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Moore controversies page needs to be merged

After reviewing the Wikipedia policies, it appears to me that it's not just a good idea to merge that page into this one, it's mandated by policy. Creating forks is a policy violation. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was he born?

This article says that he was born in Davison, Michigan. In the "Davison, Michigan" article it says that he was born in Flint.

It can't be both - either this article is incorrect or the "Davison, Michigan" article is incorrect.

Someone should change the articles to correct this. (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Encarta, "Moore was born in Davison, a suburb of Flint, Michigan." [5] smb (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There were no hospitals in Davison in the 1950's (unsure as if there are even any now), and while its minor semantics, Moore (as all babies were back then) was born at St. Joseph Hospital in downtown Flint 1954. This hospital is closed now and has been reborn as Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc, a nearby suburb. Flintmichigan (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintmichigan (talkcontribs) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemonhead414 posted the following on my talk page, so I moved it here:

Davison, MI, the birthplace of Michael Moore. It is a suburb of Flint, however it is his birthplace, and it is it's OWN CITY. Watch a documentary that isn't Moore endorsed. Michael Moore Hates America interviews the Mayor of Davison and has the proof that Moore was born in Davison. In fact it's a city shame! People flocked to harass the city over the issue, so please go outside the box for a second, and reference what you write. Here is a list of references:
Sincerely, Lemonhead414 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"Michael Moore Hates America interviews the Mayor of Davison and has the proof that Moore was born in Davison". You are in error. Mike Wilson interviewed Davison city manager Peter Auger. No birth certificate is produced. Auger instead says that Davison was Moore's "home town", not his birthplace, as you falsely claim. smb (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lemonhead, these are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards--with the exception of Encarta--but even that is only a tertiary source, which doesn't say where it got its information. On the other hand, the sources that say Flint don't look particularly reliable either. The better idea would be to add a note to the article that some sources say Flint, some say Davison and include examples of each. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. Also, does anyone know of a reliable source that confirms that there was even a hospital in Davison at the time of Moore's birth?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Because I'm tired of reading about this, I did some basic research in Lexis Nexis.

These three sources support the statement that Moore is "from" or "grew up" in Davison, Michigan, but they DO NOT support Davison as his birthplace:

  • "Michael Moore unhonored in home town". UPI NewsTrack (UPI). 2005-01-15.  - This source refers to Davison as Moore's "home town" and confirms he went to high school there, but it does not state he was born there.
  • Pullen, Doug (2007-10-04). "Michael Moore shows up at premiere of film on '60s radical". Newswire (Newhouse News Service).  - Another source confirms he graduated from Davison High School and refers to it as his "home town", no mention of birthplace.
  • Lemire, Christy (2007-03-07). "Documentary 'Manufacturing Dissent' questions Michael Moore's tactics". Entertainment News (The Associated Press).  - This source states: "They traveled to his childhood home of Davison, Mich., visited his high school and traced his early days in politics and journalism."

Oh, now I'm getting somewhere. These sources explicitly state that Moore was BORN in Flint, Michigan:

  • Schneider, Keith (2007-12-05). "Curtains Rise Again". The New York Times (The New York Times Company).  - This source states Moore was born in Flint and raised in Davison.
  • Monk, Katherine (2007-07-20). "Maverick or huckster?; Manufacturing Dissent". National Post (CanWest Global Communications).  - States: "Melnyk and Caine show us how Moore didn't actually grow up in Flint, Mich., as he tells us in Roger and Me (he was born there but raised in a neighbouring town)."
  • "Moore, Michael". Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2003.  - States: "Moore was born on April 23, 1954, in Flint, Mich."

I trust everyone is now satisfied that Moore was born in Flint, Michigan but spent his childhood in Davison. There is no conflict among these reliable sources; they do not contradict one another at all. --Laser brain (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

City boundaries have been redrawn, at the county hall, it is stated that he is native of Davison, not Flint. The hospital is/was located near the Flint/Davison border.

Brittanica is an encyclopedia, and is not considered a serious research source. It's not a primary source. If you do a search for Davison and, you find the Flint Journal saying he was born in Davison - shouldn't *that* be a definitive source?
  • Tribute to '60s radical is pure poetry "One provocateur from Davison paid tribute to another Tuesday night as Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore attended the U.S. premiere of "Twenty to Life: The Life and Times of John Sinclair" at the Flint Institute of Arts." (via Moore's website)
  • Rolling Stone personal interivew "At the moment, Moore is behind the wheel of his red Chrysler minivan, giving me a tour of Davison, the little town just outside Flint where he spent his childhood." (via Moore's website)
  • Associated Press "Davison, Michigan native and "Sicko" director Michael Moore jokes that Fidel Castro would be a "ratings grabber" at Sunday night's Academy Awards show." via - "Everything Michigan"
--David Shankbone 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
These do not say he was born in Davison. My three above say he was. But, as I said on your Talk page, I will setting for some statement in the article that acknowledges that different sources say different things. --Laser brain (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of reliable third party sources say Moore was born in Flint and grew up in Davidson, a suburb, including the New York Times. "...Flint-born filmmaker Michael Moore..." (Maychick, Diana. "An Automaker Runs Roughshod Over The American Dream") "Moore, the Flint-born provocateur who left Michigan 20 years ago..." (Berman, Laura. "If convicted of vote buying, Moore's punishment should well fit the crime") "Born in Flint and raised in Davison..." (Schneider, Keith. "Curtains Rise Again", New York Times) Dynablaster (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See Free Around USA

Free Events around USA to see projection of the film freely, promoted from Michael's web page.

This is important in my opinion, this is what we can find in the spanish version:

(Fjavier (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Another Documenatry that he was in

There is a documentary that Michael Moore was in, that is not listed in the article, It's called "The Drugging of Our Children", it was directed by alternative medicine proponent Gary Null, I can't edit the article because I registered recently and it is semi-protected, but if anyone feels like adding it the reference is :

Paglew (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of fakery

I'm just watching the rather subtle Moore-bashing documentary "Manufacturing Dissent". It claims that Moore faked a scene in his film "Roger & Me" about an alleged "Nightline" interview, which was cancelled because someone stole the TV truck ;-)

Has Moore ever responded to this criticism? I read he did sometime on some webpage, but can't find the link.

As for the point that Moore treated Charlton Heston unfairly and that Heston had only been at a Republican "get-out-the-vote" rally in Flint on Oct. 17, 2000, eight months after the shooting of Kayla Rolland on Feb. 29 (which seems to be correct) - CNN has it clearly that the NRA held a convention in Denver three weeks after the Columbine shooting (which had occured on April 20, 1999), albeit scaled back from three to one days because of protests, where Heston was present. So the famous "out of my cold, dead hands" scene may not be from that meeting, but Moore is essentially correct on the Columbine issue. He apparently isn`t on the second, or was there a "big gun show"? (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sickoposter.jpg

The image Image:Sickoposter.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Acting experience

I think that it should also mention that he made an appearance in EDtv, that was actually a very revolutionary movie when it comes to the evolution of entertainment, and he made a guest appearance in the TV interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradyc2227 (talkcontribs) 07:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New Moore movie?

According to the Michael Moore youtube page,there will be a new Michael Moore movie made about the economy. Can someone make a note of that? Permafry42 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The trailer has been released though there is no title, I have created this page temporarily. Katana Geldar 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a small section devoted to his new film on Overture Films. Dynablaster (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Rage Against The Machine Music Video

According to an interview with Moore and RATM's guitarist, Moore WAS arrested during the filming of the video, not threatened with arrest.

Hsxeric (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

So where does he live?

Where does this man live? Does he live in a modest home like the average American or does he live in an exclusive community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC) >

Controversy Section

This guy has made so many controversial films and there's only one topic under his controversy section. I'm sure that Barney has a longer controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. If South Park gets its own page for criticism and controversy, some of which reference Michael Moore, why the hell does Moore get the whitewash treatment? (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then provide some sources for consideration. This isn't that complicated.Cptnono (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I question the neutrality of this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1000% agree - he has been criticised many times for his movies not being proper documentaries because of being too one-sided as well as edited for content in a way that links unrelated events and speeches, removes important parts of interviews that completely change context of statements etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Find some sources and lets rework the section.Cptnono (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I also question the neutrality as there is no mention of Morre distorting facts and using people in his movies without permission.Tannim2 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Then get a source and lets add it. I think it is madly relevant but we need a source to start.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of critisism of his films on Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11 etc. Dynablaster (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, find some RS if you want it in.Cptnono (talk)
I wish people would stop whining and mention specific incidents with sources. Google is showing me too many unrelated hits to whittle down so if anyone can actually provide the first step we can have it included. If you want to just complain take it to a forum or blog about it.04:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm merely trying to point out that a heap of criticism already exists about his films on other articles, so there is no need to repeat that same information here. Criticism of his political views, on the other hand, should be worked into this article in a balanced manner. Dynablaster (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh oops, I read your comment incorrectly. I thought you were saying there is controversy not that it is in other articles. I think controversy should be mentioned but it doesn't need to go in depth. This is compounded if it is criticism repeated over several projects. I'm OK with single lines in related prose instead of a a brand new list in a subsection depending on what sources are available.Cptnono (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think general critiques of Michael Moore's style of filmmaking belong here; movie-specific critiques belong on the movie articles. He has produced enough films that a general arc of his style, and criticisms of it, can be found easily; however, breaking it down into the nuances of specific films belong on those articles. -->David Shankbone 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Criticism in the Media

The documentaries Manufacturing Dissent and Michael Moore Hates America sought to get an interview with Michael Moore to question his ethics, much similar to Moore's film, Roger & Me. Moore was unwilling to cooperate in both documentaries that sought an interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozac16 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide some independent reliable sources for that information? If so, it could be added to the article - otherwise it can't, I'm afraid. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why this isn't a fact. He was criticised in the movie. Check out the page: Manufacturing Dissent. The movie exists. What kind of independent source is required to determine the existence of a movie? Rod Hull & Emu (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Phantom was asking for a secondary source to the claim that Moore was unwilling to cooperate, not just that the films exist. But I too am suprised that Manufacturing Dissent isn't mentioned in this article since it discusses the filmmaker and not just separate films, it seems notable enough and got 52% at Rotten Tomatoes. From perusing the edit history here, I note the objection to 'promoting' this film above other similar ones [6]. But mentioning it doesn't necessarily promote it -- a line about it could easily be qualified by including countercriticism like that of John Pilger [7]-- far from being an impartial portrait of the filmmaker, Manufacturing Dissent "appears to have been timed to discredit, if not Sicko, then Moore himself", assailing him "with a blunderbuss of assertions and hearsay". Moore isn't afraid of critics, why should fans be? PrBeacon (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For Sicko is this acceptible source for criticsm I can give you sources for each of his docu dramas, i just want to make sure we can put a criticsm page up.Unicorn76 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Small parts about films

shouldn't this page include more on what he has done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmnmic27 (talkcontribs) 02:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Contoversies page

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONTROVERSIES PAGE FELLAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversies section on Moore's page just links to a page that redirects back to the original page... wut. ernasty10050 (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would stop whining and mention specific incidents with sources. Google is showing me too many unrelated hits to whittle down so if anyone can actually provide the first step we can have it included. If you want to just complain take it to a forum or blog about it.04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


How much is Moore worth? Where does he live? Why is it so hard to discover this information? Does he live in a hovel or a mansion? Does he give all his money to charity or does he invest it and make more money? How does this man live when he's not making films? (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

3 of the Top 5?

In the Introduction, it states he has made 3 of the top 5 grossing documentaries of all time. This should be changed to say 3 of the top 6. Earth (2009) has now moved into the 4th spot, pushing Bowling for Columbine to 6. The reference link on this point actually shows this information correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) He has made millions of dollars due to Capitalism and his movie saying capitalism is evil has to be seen by the public as a way to use capitalism to make him more money as his followers who watch his movies must clearly see that and him exploiting there lack of intelligents should be made public or at least pointed out. Any feedback on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paltenrate (talkcontribs) 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Some one should look into who has funded him all these years. I have a feeling it will be trial lawyers and rich people wanting to get richer.

Rutgers Hat?

I saw Michael Moore on Jay Leno tonight and was just wondering why he is frequently seen wearing a Rutgers hat (as he was tonight)? Does anyone know?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Echo to this question above. Saw him on Bill Maher (9/25/09) and was wondering the same about the Rutgers hat.

Well, I finally found the answer, here's a link: [[8]]. As a Rutgers student I like rutgers to get as much publicity as possible, although i have to say i am embarassed to see moore wearing a hat from my school.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request edit on Gustov section

Sorry, I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with "\{\{editsemiprotected\}\}" (without "\"). I haven't made 10 edits on Wikipedia. Anyway, I would like for the section on Gustov to be edited to say somewhere in the first sentence "jokingly," as I (call me stupid) did not realize that Moore was joking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidious1741 (talkcontribs) 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't agree with my edit idea, at least tell me why. Maybe it's supper obvious for everyone except me but it should have been obvious to me too, at least in my opinion. But if no one agrees at least say so. I wrote this about a week ago.--Sidious1741 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source saying it was tongue in cheek, a joke, or sarcasm? I assume it was but we need to have a verifiable source to get it in. I looked at a couple the other day and none said it was a joke. I assume there is one somewhere, though.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I see your point but the article says he put a "satirical" note on his website. I would assume that if the note is satirical that the whole thing would be too. Therefore, I think that satirical should be sooner in the paragraph or as you see it, taken out because it can't be cited.--Sidious1741 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Request edit on Bowling For Columbine description non NPOV

I'm a Wikipedia noob and I don't know how to use the template suggested. ;) Anyway, there was some non-neutral point of view in that section: that the movie was "was praised by some for illuminating a subject slighted by the mainstream media" implying that it did illuminate a subject that indeed is slighted by mainstream media, which is fine, but by critics "it was attacked by others who claim it is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations and suggested interpretations of events" implying that it was maliciously torn at by people who merely "claim" the movie is inaccurate and misleading, etc. Having more neutral/positive language for the supporters and harsh, strong words for the critics is definitely non [NPOV]. The second part of that sentence should be revised to "it was criticized by others* who argue the movie is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations and suggested interpretations of events". I asterisked the "others*" because there really should be a mention of Michael Wilson's movie Michael Moore Hates America as it is quite relevant. In any case, "others" seems to be a weasel word in both cases. Catanguy (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For a "noob" you actually hit the nail on the head regarding one of the style guidelines: While the word "claim" may be used appropriately, it can also be misused to cast doubt on an assertion. Editors should avoid this improper usage and instead choose a neutral alternative.... "Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit. - WP:CLAIM. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Add this and to next section to the article, please

Moore says that capitalism is "anti-Jesus" and "legalized greed".

This violates WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, and also please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after your post. :) A8UDI talk 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Michael Moore and 9/11

Moore appeared briefly in Alex Jones's 2005 film Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. Jones criticises Moore for not going into depth about 9/11 in his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and portraying Bush as an unassuming front man as opposed to an active conspirator in 9/11, concluding that while it may have not been his intention, Moore practically helped cover-up 9/11 instead of exposing the truth.

I am troubled by this entry because it suggests to readers that Michael Moore believes 9/11 was a US conspiracy, with both filmmakers merely disagreeing as to exact level of President Bush's participation and foreknowledge. Fahrenheit 9/11 has nothing to say about this topic because Moore does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. This needs to be made clear. Dynablaster (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shooting Michael Moore

It doesn't matter if he agreed to be shown in the film or not. That isn't a guideline or policy to my knowledge. Shooting Michael Moore features him. The subsection is titled "Appearances in other documentaries" and it is not the "Works" section (where it would not be appropriate. Furthermore Dynablaster assertion that it should go in a category is ridiculous since the category is a navigational tool and is viewed separately form the article. There are alternatives to including this material including expanding the prose. People have been critical on this talk page for the lack of criticism so maybe using this film as an inline citation would be appropriate instead. We could also retitle it "docs about Moore" but his appearance (agreed to or not) is clear. Until then, its inclusion in a list is appropriate. Before you start arguing that it should go in another article all together keep in mind that it is OK here as long as it is not given undue weight. Also, read WP:POVFORK since this appears to be a neutrality issue.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. This section is clearly defined by films in which Michael Moore agreed to appear, be interviewed, was himself interviewing other people, or otherwise had some direction. Shooting Michael Moore is about the movie director, yes, but he hardly features in it, apart from a fleeting shot of him moving along a sidewalk (the film is made up of stock footage, with the director narrating over clips of Moore's old films, trying to discredit them). Shooting Michael Moore is perfectly suited to Category:Films about Michael Moore. Dynablaster (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If the criteria is shoving a camera in Moore's face and saying "Remember me?" or "Are you a communist?", prompting the director to walk away, then we can add another 10 films to the list! Dynablaster (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Then add another ten films to the list. Please make sure they are sourced, though. I also do not see and definition for the list besides what you are applying. Please also keep in mind his Works section is separate so he can have very little role (or none meant even). We can modify it. This is an ever changing project. If it is an independent article it can also be added to the category but that has nothing to do with this article since it is a separate navigational piece. What is your resoning for not wanting inclusion. I have never seen the film so word your statement appropriately. Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


I have given the videos where his misandry can be seen 'from the horse's mouth'. I have also given the book where his misandrist writings can be found. The link I have given is from Glenn Sacks who is regularly published in top 100 newspapers, who is a frequent guest on radio and TV shows, and is often quoted in newspapers and magazines. He also sends out a weekly newsletter to 50,000 subscribers. What's more, reference to him was only used to show that there do exist some people who regard Michael Moore as misandrist (except myself, obviously). The actual misandrist statements did not come from Glenn's site, but straight from his mouth and his books. Given this, the section on Moore's misandry should stay. Wwmargera (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's wait whether other editors see it the same way. In the meantime we should engage in original research or overestimate one single columnist's opinion. Let's respect WP:NOR and WP:DUE. --Catgut (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Your link is to a blog, which cannot be used as a reliable source. As I explained to you at CfD, interpreting Moore's statements and labeling them "misandry" is original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, we can't use a blog for proper sourcing. Secondly, the blog in question never uses the word Misandry, which means that your use of the word is synthesis. Third, this section on misandry, even if properly sourced, would violate the undue weight policy as a fringe opinion and not entirely relevant considering that this is a biography page. But probably the most overriding concern is that this is a BLP article, wherein there is a higher level of scrutiny involving sourcing especially of content that is of a negative nature. I could see this as a possible libel issue. In short, lots of things wrong with this section. BrendanFrye (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will not put them in as instances of misandry. What if I just put in the statements without pointing out that some people consider them to be misandrist? Any objection to that? Wwmargera (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Or if I put them in a section called 'Views On Men'? Wwmargera (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. What is the significance of these quotes in the context of Moore's life? Is he known for his views concerning men? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How can his views on half of humanity - whether or not we classify them as misandry - not be significant to his life? He is known for his views regarding men, which is why Bill Maher called him on his show to talk on gender relation specifically. His views on men are certainly not something he is less known for than say the hurricane gustav controversy. And if I club them together with the rest of his political views, that is not even a new section. Wwmargera (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you read WP:UNDUE? "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
If Moore's views concerning gender relations are significant, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources that discuss them.
I agree with you that the section about Hurricane Gustav is nonsense that ought to be deleted. That the article already has some crap in it isn't a good reason to add more crap. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS says: The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet.
With this, the MSNBC feature I referenced should qualify as a reliable source. This should be sufficient to show significance. Wwmargera (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I take it you still haven't read WP:UNDUE, even though I quoted it above. I'll try again. "Discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
Assuming the video wasn't doctored, Moore said what he said. The issue is whether discussion of his views concerning men is significant to his biography. As I wrote, if his views concerning gender relations are significant, you should have no trouble finding secondary sources that discuss them. If other people aren't writing about Moore's views concerning men, by definition they're not significant. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I looked for secondary sources referencing this incident in and, and could not find any. I realize that WP is not a place to do original research. Hence, I will wait a few more years until his misandry is better addressed in public discourse before putting it in the article for this creature. Wwmargera (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion makes no sense. How can a man be a misandrist? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the comment that wins the debate methinks (not on an encyclopedic level, but on an intellectual level). I personally think it's idiotic to report only what "a whole bunch of people believe", which seems to be the policy around here. How about reporting on what logically makes sense? The problem here is plainly obvious, Wwmargera is not referring to the men when he says men. He's referring to *men* when he says men, as in the social construct that he (or she) personally understands it to be. This is a wholly subjective viewpoint. If Michael Moore makes statements that go against his worldview of what it means to be a man, that doesn't make Michael Moore a misandrist, all it means is that Michael Moore has different ideas of what it means to be a man. Logically yours, -- itistoday (Talk) 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dissent from Catholic teaching

I changed the section on Moore's Catholicism from "[Moore] has said he disagrees with church teaching on subjects such as abortion and gay marriage" to "dissents from Church teaching on crucial subjects such as abortion and gay marriage."

Moore not only disagrees with Church teaching, but DISSENTS. In the Catholic Church, there are some things that a Catholic cannot disagree upon and still be a Catholic in good standing. Abortion and gay "marriage" are two such teachings. Perhaps the strongest moral teaching of the Catholic Church is Her teaching that all abortion is wrong and the taking of an innocent human life is intrinsically evil. Generally, we refer to rejection of these crucial doctrines as "dissent."

Michael Moore can "disagree" all he wants, but the article needs to express that he DISSENTS from VERY IMPORTANT teachings of the Church.--Minimidgy (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular website. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a Red Herring. Wikipedia includes many articles on various religions and their teachings, I suppose you would want those removed. The fact is, the issue here deals with Moore's Catholicism. This part of the article no longer is in the secular realm because it deals with his religion. This part of the article should be expressed from the lens of Catholicism, which I have tried to do but you reverted it.--Minimidgy (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"This part of the article should be expressed from the lens of Catholicism". Sorry, this is Wikipedia, you must be looking for There is no reason to inject your pov into this article. And you shouldn't throw around "Strawmen" while misusing the phrase "Red Herring". BrendanFrye (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


According to the world-famous leftist journalist Christopher Hitchens, Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is extremely "dishonest and demagogic".[4][5]

Dave Kopel points out 59 lies in the movie in his article Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11; e.g., the first of the three parts "is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies", whereas the second part about the Patrict Act is mostly true.

Author Johan Norberg parallels Michael Moore to Ann Coulter.

Famous "leftist" journalist Christopher Hitchens? Thanks for destroying your credibility. As for Kopel, well, let's just say that it's no surprise. One would be hard pressed to find a more biased source. (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Criticism usually comes from the other side dummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talkcontribs) 03:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you go read the NPOV standards before making comments like that. Controversy sections are typically frowned upon. How about you draft some specifics that you want to be mentioned and where they should be added?Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the film "manufacturing dissent" or the discussion about michael moore telling lies or not? I think thats a point of enormous significance!Looks like someone deleted all criticicm or otherwise the article is just weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Source it.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Emily Schultz, Michael Moore: A Biography, Ecw Press, 2005. Pg 47-54.
  2. ^ Paul Mulshine. A Stupid White Man and a Smart One. Newark Star Ledger, March 3, 2003
  3. ^ Matt Labash. Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony. The Weekley Standard. June 8, 1998
  4. ^ Required reading, Johan Norberg, 22.6.2004
  5. ^ Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore, Christopher Hitchens, 21.6.2004

Omission In Entry

I was surprised to see that "Super Size Me" (2004) was not mentioned anywhere in this article; especially in the area where Mr. Moore's list of major documentaries is located. Perhaps it should be noted there. "Super Size Me," does, in fact, have a Wikipedia article all to itself. Super_Size_Me --Chrisbear68 (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Moore didn't make that one. PrBeacon (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Boy, is my face red! Stupid mistake to make-- thanks for pointing it out. --Chrisbear68 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Understandable enough, given the subject & style of Super Size Me as well as the title's similarities to Moore's early documentary Roger and Me and recent book Downsize This. PrBeacon (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:|talk]]) 03:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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. (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. (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... (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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 - (Born 1914).
Lots of other people named Michael Moore -
-- (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2010 (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 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. (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 (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. (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 (talk)

His first major film was "Roger & Me". And yet there is no reference to this in the introduction. This seems to be conspicuously missing. Yes, it is listed later, but this got him off the ground.-- (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated. Capitalism: A Love Story is now 10th on the highest list by the source quoted. Can someone with administration priviledges change the first paragraph? (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Rostz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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.[1][2][3][4][5]
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 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)
  1. ^ Moore, Michael (Sep. 11, 2010). "If the 'Mosque' Isn't Built, This Is No Longer America". Retrieved Sep. 23, 2010.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  2. ^ Moore, Michael (Sep. 11, 2010). "Build Islamic center on Ground Zero, says Moore". Retrieved Sep. 23, 2010.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  3. ^ The Ticker (Sep. 11, 2010). "Build Islamic center on Ground Zero, says Moore". CNN. Retrieved Sep. 23, 2010.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  4. ^ Sheppard, Noel (Sep. 18, 2010). "Michael Moore: Ground Zero McDonald's Killed More People Than 9/11 Hijackers". Newsbusters. Retrieved Sep. 23, 2010.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  5. ^ Korn, Pearl (Sep. 17, 2010). "Michael Moore's fundraising campaign for the "Ground Zero" mosque". The Huffington Post. Retrieved Sep. 23, 2010.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)

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.


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)

Source for Flint

Note 1 refers to his being from Flint because he says he is from Flint. This sort of circular reference should not be used on wikipedia as it is not a neutral source. (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. Say where he is from in the lead (although make mention of the area of Flint) then add a single line about him being made fun of for not really being "working class" in the body if that is what sources say.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That is not a helpful suggestion. Please see past discussions on this subject. Moore was born in St. Joseph Hospital (Flint) and grew up in Davidson (a suburb of Flint). This is supported by several references, including the New York Times. Wikispan (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Is is a very helpful suggestion. Where someone is born and where they grew up are totally two different things that both need to be addressed. For example, I was born in a town that is completely different than the one I was raised in since the hospital was in that city. Since Davidson is so much different than Flint it makes sense that people have pointed it out. And since some have pointed out tat he claims to be working class but grew up in a suburb then it means we might need to do it as well. We should not mirror their POV, of course.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The main body already includes a concise summary of his upbringing (Early life). Your comment "since Davidson is so much different than Flint" comes across as a clumsy attempt to drive a wedge between the two. The reality is that Davidson is a district of Flint. They are inseparable. Countless critical sources make the same mistake. But these sections―including the infobox―require high quality sources. I will dig out the New York Times reference when I get time. Several more all say the same thing. These have the benefit of dealing with the subject in a neutral manner. Wikispan (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

An American Carol

The 2008 movie An American Carol was basically a two hour long satire/criticism of Michael Moore, I think its well known enough and pertinent enough that it demands at least recognition of some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Moore linked to Rahm Emmanuel?

I'll simply re-ask the question posed by an IP user in 2004, visible in Archive 1 of this talk page: Is it true Moore's agent Ari Emmanuel is the brother of Illinois congressman Rahm Emmanuel? Of course Rahm Emmanuel is now the mayor of Chicago. I just heard Michael Rivero assert this information on his radio show dated May 13, 2011. We should attempt to address this relationship, starting by looking for reliable sources to document it should it happen to be correct. And if it is, I suggest this information should go into our article. No one responded to the question in 2004, btw. __meco (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 1 June 2011

He is from Davison not flint (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Davison is a suburb of Flint. Wikispan (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographically, I am from Midland, about 50 miles from Flint. My cultural upbringing is quite diverse from that of Flint. I doubt that distance is truly a factor. For all I know, Davidson is on the other side of the tracks from Flint, or 10,000 miles from it. You can't tell from the article. But it is called Davidson, and not Flint.-- (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Davison, not Davidson. Wikispan (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was curious about the relationship between Davison and Flint. I looked it up and it looks like Davison is an independent city ( How does one go about determining whether a city is a suburb of another city? BabyJonas (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources. The New York Times says he was born in Flint and raised in Davison, a suburb of Flint. Wikispan (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I see it. Good catch! BabyJonas (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore's Appearances

A recent edit removed the section on Michael Moore's appearances in other documentaries. I reverted the edit because many of his appearances were important as a representation of the issues he advocated for, their cultural and impact and the details they provide about Moore's career and impact on filmmaking and politics as well as his stance on various social and political issues. BabyJonas (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it is desirable to describe what the subject stands for? The Political views section is not fully developed and lists are always a poor substitute. Plus he didn't actually appear in some of these films (Michael Moore Hates America simply used stock footage). Wikispan (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of his appearances are fairly important as representative of his work and advocacy. Michael Moore Hates America too would be a fairly important part of his biography (seeing that the entire documentary is about him and the title mentions his name). But like you said, the list could be improved on. What would you rather do? Could we incorporate his appearances into the politics section or a filmmaking section? BabyJonas (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We ought to be providing descriptive content. The political views section needs fleshing out (more substance and detail) incorporating the most notable criticism. The guy has written numerous books and opinion pieces yet the focus always seems to be his filmography (in list form). The various categories already do a good job of highlighting the movies he has directed and subsequently appeared in. What this article lacks is flesh. Wikispan (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

There should be something about how he was able to create so many movies and have so much monetary success despite being diagnosed with a mild form of autism. He is certainly one of the most notable people with the disease, and it seems like it should be credited to him. Overcoming this handicapped to make propaganda films is a remarkable achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Is this true? (and by the way it isn't a disease). (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't there one? (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt he is a controversial figure. While he seems to take a lot of liberal or democratic positions, this article never describes the answer to "why"?. The tag controversial {{tl:controversial}} should absolutely be added to the main page. This needs a NPOV touch. -- (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I am a fan of Michael Moore, I created a "Controversy" section. Remember, this is supposed to be an objective source, and no valid criticism should be excluded. I added information about his alleged hypocrisy and provided links to the controversy sections to his major movies. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll start. Try this link for a easy summary: criticism + "michael moore"-- (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is some discussion about this here: [9]. Please join in! InverseHypercube (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but there is a LOT more to look at criticism + "michael moore", and NONE in the main article - it's as if he is not controversial at all, any such attempts to point out such controversy in the main article is being deflected away from the main page. This is not doing very good service to the readers. If "political views" are are going to be expressed by any non-politician, then there will be controversy. Moore's views are worth no more than those of any other citizen, yet he gets special treatment by his protectors. The point is that the main page needs to discuss some of the principal controversies associated with Moore, whether it be his films or his political stances. Anything else is just protectionism by the super-editors of wikipedia. WP "controversial" tag should be posted in the main page indefinitely until this is resolved. -- (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that most criticism is about his work rather than about himself; so this should be on those articles (which it; look at Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, for example). There are no "super-editors", and administrators have yet to be involved. Please, if you find good, sourced information then add it. I will add the "unbalanced" tag for now (the controversial tag is for talk pages, and is already here). InverseHypercube (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"Unbalanced" is appropriate. By "super-editors" I refer to those with additional priviliges not availalble to all users. I fail to distinguish criticism of his work and the positions he takes - what's the diff? The article is all about Moore, not just about his films. If it was just about his films, then the entire section on "political views" can be removed (which I would gladly like to see happen - it invites controversy). -- (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2011 (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 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have been vandalized here too, and request editprotection be removed. The content here is an invitation to controversy. If the political views are removed from the main article and stick to his filmmaking rather than his soapboxing, things would be a lot better.-- (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
A bit surprising that for a controversial figure like Moore, the criticism section is extremely skim... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't generally use "criticism" sections. Instead, neutrally-worded and well-sourced criticisms should be integrated into the article. --John (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Even Moore supporters agreed with me in the past (can't recall on which board but it was here on WP) that he thrives on controversy. The film counters his techniques and actually contradicts a few "facts" presented in his films, sourced by interviewing those involved in said films. Of course, one could always dig for more sources, but this article generally needs balance. Sadly, I'm encountering the "consensus gang" again, proving that policies such as WP:POLL might as well be pulled off the pages of Wikipedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course he thrives on controversy. The trick is to find decent sources that say so and give examples, without if possible relying on Fox or a movie that rubbishes him. Can you do that? The other trick is to weave it into the existing structure of the article, in a way that avoids WP:SYNTH. A standalone "Controversies" section is a terrible idea. --John (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with a separate section, should integrate it within the body.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

There has been much talk about a "controversies" section for Moore, but for some odd reason, none has come up. I think it is the liberals on wikipedia who just pay it lip service. A major controversy for Moore was when his claims about the Cuban healthcare system. John Stossel completely destroyed his claims, by several methods, including talking to Cubans who illegally taped the hospitals in Cuba and showed that they were completely run down. It was a major controversy. These videos are all available on YouTube. I think I will start referencing them and building a section if no one objects. There was also a book out showing Michael Moore's hypocrisy, and showed that Moore held Haliburton stock. You should see the controversy section on Rush Limbaugh's page. It is almost half the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talkcontribs) 23:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate place for detailed criticism of Sicko is the Sicko article, where there's already significant coverage. Rostz (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Moore is a jet-setting multimillionaire living a life of luxury, leisure and fame" writes Jeffrey T. Kuhner in The hypocrisy of Michael Moore (The Washington Times, February 10, 2011). "He … has misrepresented almost every facet of himself in order to forge a false 'little guy' persona. … For example, he claims to come from working-class roots in Flint, Mich. 'I think once you’re working class, you’re always working class,' the filmmaker said. The Moore’s family home, however, was not in Flint but in the nearby middle-class town of Davison. His father — contrary to Mr. Moore‘s claims — was not some low-level autoworker struggling to put food on the table. Instead, he worked at General Motors where he earned a comfortable salary, owned a bourgeois home, sent his four kids to private Catholic school and played golf nearly every day at a private club. Mr. Moore had a privileged upbringing." Asteriks (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

By others who have contributed to this article, he and his family now lives in the resort town of Traverse City, Michigan. To quote from the current article:

"Also in 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan." "Moore's net worth has been estimated at "8 figures"."[59] So how many figures is acceptable? How many of you wikipedia readers earn eight figures in income per year? He talks the talk but can no longer walk the walk.-- (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what the relevance here is other than a ad hominem attack. (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hypocracy is the theme. The main article cites it, and additional references tend to confirm it. He is no longer "working class", despite the image he tries to present.-- (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, wikipedia is definetly liberal biased. they critisize all the conservatives, but when a liberal comes up, they leave them alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This comment page is not about Wikipedia in general, but about the specific article. Please keep to the topic. -- (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that if Moore represents himself as a working-class bloke, but in fact was raised comfortably middle-class, he is materially misrepresenting himself. That's grounds for criticism, and should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Documentary style

Re: addition of criticism from Jesse Lerner. Is this person a notable film critic? From a web search he appears to be a media studies prof at a obscure college. As we already have criticism along the same lines from his biographer and a noted film critic, I'm not sure Mr. Lerner's opinion belongs here. The Interior (Talk) 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He is a documentary film maker who has written a book, has his own wiki article, and book was published by a University. I'd say its a better source than the 15 links to Moore's website/blog already in the article. If anything he is more credible than the critics as he is a peer of the subject.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether a peer is a good choice for a source of criticism can be debated, however there is another issue with the cite. You've quoted Mr. Lerner here, but he is only the editor of the work in question, and Mitchell Block appears to be the writer of the piece. Now from Block's WP page, it appears we have a second complication: Block and Moore have a history. I'm feeling less that this should be included. (as an aside, I don't really disagree with Mitchell's position on Moore's style here, however this is a very strong denunciation and should be sourced carefully) The Interior (Talk) 15:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, I fixed the ref and attributed Block. Yes, I see what you mean about Block. Perhaps the wording can be toned down for a more NPOV considering the source. I still think it is better than the polemic slam books used to criticize the subject.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That reads much better. The "liar" quote seemed to me a bit over the top; being manipulative in one's methods does not necessarily make one a liar. Re: peers and sources: this is a good example here of the danger in this. As a documentarian, Block may have an emotional response to someone he deems to be damaging the reputation of documentary film makers. Just some thoughts. The Interior (Talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting note, in that chapter, Block points out how some of his own documentaries (that he either filmed or produced) are "staged" or "fictional", but he identifies them as such. I was taken to the woodshed on an older article for a similar thing on a martial artist, about a detractor as a source. I was told that views by peers were to be expected in a biography.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I've trimmed this a bit. I've also lost the Pauline Kael quote, I felt it wasn't really that informative in terms of a discussion of style. I think the para is still a bit weighted to the detractor camp, would be nice to have one more quote defending his methods as well. That would balance it numerically, anyway. The Interior (Talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely, he's won awards and he's influential. I don't agree with his message or its delivery but can't deny the impact he's made on film and society.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We could expand upon Ebert's point that Moore is more a satirist than documentarian. British author S. F. Said discusses this angle of Moore's work here: Telegraph article]. (I've also changed the section header here, and in the article to reflect the contents The Interior (Talk) 06:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We should first describe Michael Moore's documentary style, then add notable criticism of his documentary style. This article is underdeveloped in a number of key aspects. Right now I can't avoid the feeling that editors are working backwards. Once we flesh out the article properly, adding criticism will be easy. Wikispan (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree, but I certainly don't have time nor energy for a full rewrite. I think this section is needed as the subject is a filmmaker, and we need to strike a balance between the politically-themed content and critical reception. Discussion of the critical reception of his body of work would move this back towards being an artist bio. Suggested structure for this section:
  • Para 1 - neutral explanation of Moore's documentary style and methods
  • Para 2 - Criticism of those methods. The existing para would cover this. (focus is on manipulative treatment of subjects, use of recreations, alteration of timelines)
  • Para 3 - Rebuttal by critics of above criticism. (In my mind, this would focus on the satirical nature of Moore's work, Ebert et al.) The Interior (Talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the page for 48 hours to stop the edit warring while y'all work this out. The current version is equal to the one prior to the start of edit warring, thus I kept the page where it is. Talk about the issue here, or on WP:NPOVN#Michael Moore, but there needs to be no edit warring while that discussion takes place. If the dispute is "solved" prior to the expiration of the dispute, leave me a message on my talk page and I will unprotect (or use WP:RFPP to request unprotection if I'm not around). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So...where's the discussion? You're not supposed to be all just waiting out the protection to get back to edit warring. Please discuss the disagreement y'all have about the Controversy section.
Hearfourmewesique pointed out to me that technically I didn't protect the pre-dispute version, even though that's what I said I was going to do--I didn't realize that it wasn't just Hearfourmewesique's additions that were removed, but the pre-existing Controversy section. As such, I have restored the pre-dispute version. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, thank you. As for discussing the issue on the talk page... I would like to have a fruitful discussion for once, not run amock like a headless chicken looking for multiple RS, just to have them all rejected as "undue". I will appreciate some guidance if possible. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How to incorporate criticism

I'm rebooting the discussion (per Qwyrxian's suggestion) so we can move forward. Reading through past discussions, the general objection against a instituting a standalone controversy section is that it rapidly becomes a dumping ground for low quality criticism ('X says Michael Moore is a hypocrite', 'X labelled Moore a propagandist', 'X has accused Moore of being fat'), often in list form. Nobody doubts that unfavourable judgments exist -- the question is how to incorporate them. A number of editors have expressed a desire to first expand Michael Moore's political views, allowing for notable criticism in context. Wikispan (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A little while ago I wrote something about the article on Richard Dawkins, another controversial figure. I think it applies here...
I think criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism. OK?
Obviously it's different stuff that people disagree about with Moore, but what's the real point of a criticism section, apart from adding obvious POV to the article? List what he claims. Describe his background accurately. Leave it to the readers to classify him. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Having not read the article, except to fix the edit-warring, let me provide a little clarity on criticism in general. Should an article have criticism of a person or xyr positions? Absolutely, as long as that criticism is well sourced and is of of due weight. Being somewhat aware of Moore's work, it seems likely to me that there is valid criticism that belongs in this article. Ideally, per WP:STRUCTURE (part of WP:NPOV), the criticism would be integrated with the rest of the article, rather than being in a stand-alone section. However, that's sometimes difficult to achieve, so many articles do have separate "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections. To point more specifically at HiLo48's point, it is a valid part of the "encyclopedic story" of Moore (probably, again, without looking at the details) to describe important criticism of his work. So, while you're write that a criticism section is almost always inappropriate, you're wrong to say that there shouldn't be criticism. In fact, leaving out criticism that forms an important part of a subject's story would be an NPOV violation. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but are you and I (and the rest of the world) ever going to fully agree about what's "important"? HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
We need to assess each criticism in accordance with due and undue weight. How many times has a particular criticism been made? Is it widely held? So forth. We certainly need to scrap the bulletin list in favour of a structure that gives Michael Moore a chance to reply. Wikispan (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that is that someone from one (somewhat extreme) side of the political divide, just as with someone on an extreme of the religion divide in my Dawkins example, is going to be criticised frequently by lots of people on the other side. So, "widely held", and "many times". That doesn't make the criticism reasonable, rational or in conformity with WP:DUE. It may just be Republican Party propaganda being dutifully repeated by the party's supporters. (Not taking sides here. That's just an example relevant to Moore.) It's just politics (or religion) playing itself out. Criticism that is "widely held", and stated "many times" isn't necessarily sound criticism. Wikipedia should avoid those games. Stick to describing Moore's position, and let the readers decide. There are articles about those more notable people who oppose Moore. They should be written in exactly the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No it shouldn't avoid this, because that way you do not let any criticism through, especially when there is so much of it. Let's address one point at a time – please, do not digress! – can everyone agree that presence of multiple reliable sources creates notability? Remember that we're not allowed to judge which of these sources are fit because they allegedly represent one side of the political spectrum, neutrality is neutrality. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
One side of the political spectrum is, by definition, not neutral. I would apply the same arguments to criticism of George W Bush by Democrat supporters. The inevitable massive volume of such criticism does not make that criticism more notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. If a particular criticism is notable, then we should expect to find it repeated by a broad range of reliable sources. Borrowing your example, negative sentiment of George Bush's handling of the Iraq War was never isolated to publications such as The Guardian and from individuals like Keith Olbermann -- the same criticisms were recurring in a sample of sources with different affiliations. Wikispan (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia could not care less whether the criticism is "reasonable" or "rational". All we care is whether or not it is WP:DUE (which is what I meant when I used the shorthand "important"). And, no, the criticism does not have to come from all sides of the political spectrum. That doesn't even make any sense, and is again an NPOV violation. I do agree that it needs to come from a variety of sources, or otherwise rise above being just one commentator making one negative comment. Hilo48, I'm afraid to say that your understanding of NPOV seems to be seriously at odds with the general community sense of the policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
By definition, notable criticism will most often be prevalent in a variety of reliable sources. If your entire criticism section is crafted using only sources within a narrow range (not widespread) then something is wrong. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources..." Wikispan (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, deciding how widespread any given criticism is requires editorial consensus. If a specific point was covered, for example, only by Fox television personalities, that would probably be too narrow. But it wouldn't be reasonable to say, for example, "All of those critics are right-wing, so that's not real criticism". Otherwise we'd never have any criticism in any article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we're making progress. We are in agreement that perfectly legitimate criticisms can originate entirely from narrow divides, and nowhere else, but what happens when an entire section is constructed in this manner? The reason this is important to someone like Michael Moore, is because virtually everything he does is assailed by elements of the right-wing press. It works both ways. Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin or Bill O'Reilly are frequently attacked by individuals who hold diametrically opposite views. This concern is what prompted my interest last year. (diff) Wikispan (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I still return to my basic point. A criticism section DOES change the POV of the article. Those who want one in an article inevitably want it to do just that. I still don't see why we need one. (And not just in this article.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Then start a site-wide discussion, at WP:NPOV or at a Village Pump, where you can try to change the site wide consensus on including criticism in articles. Again, I agree that it's better to integrate the criticism, but WP:STRUCTURE only makes that a suggestion, not mandatory. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I will. It's been useful getting feedback on this and other articles, just to see what individuals, possibly with strong feelings on a particular topic, thought about it. I just hope that those wanting to add criticism anywhere realise that what they are inevitably doing is adding a non NPOV to an article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a criticism section changes the article to include all POV, not just those endorsed by Moore. Everyone here is talking about low-level criticism (i.e. Moore is fat), which, of course, is not fit for inclusion. However, if enough sources point out that several persons, who were shown in his films, object to his techniques and claim to have been duped, that definitely merits inclusion. If enough sources present a legitimate analysis of Moore's public persona vs. his real-life one and all conclude that they do not match, that merits inclusion. There is no widespread consensus on Wikipedia that prohibits criticism sections or criticism in general. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course the last sentence is true. That doesn't mean it will be true forever. The basic problem is that allowing criticism opens the inevitably unsolvable problem of what IS allowable. You seem to be speaking reasonably, but I can assure you that many editors who take part in discussions on what criticism should be included don't act reasonably. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I just explained what my opinion of "allowable" is – please reread the two sentences before last, then I'd like your honest reply. Including as many aspects and angles as possible is an integral part of writing an encyclopedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty much in agreement with you on what should be "allowable". My point is that it's an almost unmanageable goal. Many editors here are unreasonable. They come to controversial topics like Moore, and G W Bush, and make big efforts to impose their POV on the articles. As someone who has tried to control such additions in the past, I would rather not allow any. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
So basically, you are saying that high quality editing is too hard to control so you better settle for an article that has a pretty dominant pro-Moore POV. This is a mirror image of what you – and me, and I'm sure many others – don't want. It's much more desirable to go the extra mile and try to form a reasonable consensus (that won't be pushed away as WP:UNDUE just because it's a different view) so the article can finally become a good-quality encyclopedic entry. An unreasonable mob does not justify surrendering. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only who questions the credibility of whoever it is that laid out these criticisms? Let's review them.

  • Moore portraying himself as working class is deceptive, and that he actually grew up in an well-to-do home.

Where does Moore portray himself as working class? He outright states that he grew up in a middle-class home and emphasizes this fact to highlight how the middle-class is diminishing/dead today.

  • While Moore criticizes racial disparity in Hollywood, Fahrenheit 9/11's crew was all white.

I can't verify as I haven't watched Fahrenheit 9/11 for a long time, but I do recall many of his other films featuring black people. So this is both preposterous and misleading. By the way, would I be considered a racist if all my friends were white? Come on...

  • While Moore claims to not own any stock, he and his wife's foundation owns stock in many large companies, including Halliburton.

This I don't know so I don't object.

  • While praising unions, Moore tried to dissuade his workers from joining them.[60]

I'll have to look into this as well, for now I don't object.

So how about we remove the baseless accusations above these two?-- (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How about you look into claims before refuting them? Besides, you never addressed the claims from Michael Moore Hates America. Oh, and "middle class" is much closer to working class than to the incredibly wealthy person he has been for a long time now, so quit trying to put lipstick on a pig. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, what did I miss about the first two? You didn't hear me refuting the second two as I don't have the information to refute or confirm them. What do I not understand about the absurdity of a misleading claim that someone is a hypocrite for criticizing the lack of roles for black people in hollywood only because he had an all-white for some but not all of his movies? This is as retarded as claiming anyone who doesn't have a black friend is racist.
Also, where is the evidence that Moore is an extremely wealthy man? He owns only one house, gets only a fraction of the profits his films make while the rest go to the production companies and most of his net profits are depleted by the special forces units he employs for security.
But the claim was not discussing Moore today, it was discussing what kind of home he grew up in. To the best of my knowledge, his dad was an assembly line worker and his mom was a homemaker. Sounds pretty middle-class to me, or at least it was in those days. These days, his family would be poverty stricken and living in an apartment.
My ass he grew up in a well-to-do home!-- (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Moore has a net worth of over $50 million, does that answer your question? Your analysis of his profit distribution is utterly irrelevant here. The main criticism is that he claims to detest capitalism and wealth while being wealthy himself, as shown by his net worth. Aside from Michael Moore Hates America, I can easily find other sources making this claim – how about CNN right here? I can easily find more upon demand. Finally, one's crew and one's friends is not the same by a long shot: if you are a Hollywood filmmaker who advocates diversity in Hollywod, you might as well practice what you preach and hire at least one non-white person... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Provide a source citing Moore's net wealth. The figure you provided is only sourced from smear sites and with poor grammar like this ("Why does has working-class guy") they hardly come across as credible sources. Moore never portrayed himself as working class nor did he grow up in either a working class home or a rich home. Sorry if I don't see an assembly line worker father and a housewife mother as an upper-class background.
About the all-white crew issue, I would like to see the exact quote of what Michael Moore said about Hollywood and diversity. Plenty of black people have been featured in his films. That his production crew was all white means nothing by itself and could be due to a variety of reasons. The computer store across my street has an all-white crew too, but rather than assume it was because the managers don't think black people are computer-literate I am more inclined to notice that with less than 5% of the population in my area being blacks and only 5 or 6 computer shops operating in the entire city, the biggest culprit just might be chance.-- (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is this back in the article? Moore is one of many figures mentioned in this obscure book. The allegations - at least one of which I know is clearly false off the top of my head - are presented as fact with zero rebutting material. This is a pretty egregious BLP violation. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel - I don't know why it slipped back in. I've removed it - nothing in the article hints at how they came by this private information. It's a wild estimate - and clearly does not belong in a WP:BLP. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Another approach to a criticism section.

Why not label notable criticisms in their own section? Eg, Moore's editing multiple segments into one piece that is out of context etc. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by their own section? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I wasn't clear. eg --Charleton Heston Speech Controversey-- Instead of having a generic criticsim section, each critique could stand on its own.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Could work as subheadings, but still need to be unified under one large ==Heading==. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You'll never see any real criticism in this piece. This has to be the most shockingly one-sided biography I've ever read in my life; if it doesn't make moore look good, his minions delete it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You want Wikipedia to be sued for libel/slander? Feel free to argue the WP:BLP guidelines.--The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
That is an absurd and patently false argument. There are plenty of reliable, third party criticisms of this person, however they never make it to the article because the sycophants delete them immediately and browbeat/block the editors in question. Then I guess they go and collect their $20 for preserving the image.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Where do I get my money? Do you have an address where I can send an invoice? Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you just show up with screen shots of posted diffs. That's what they tell me.  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Take your dispute up on WT:BLP if you don't like the guidelines. Whining about them here won't get you any traction.--The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is whining, new jack, but apparently some people can't take a joke if it hits too close to home.:)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If there's no prospect of change, and those involved are following the guidelines set out for them - then yes, it is indeed whining. So stop trolling, and take your points to WT:BLP, where you can argue them - and if successful, can get the guidelines changed. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, the guidelines are not being followed. I am not whining nor trolling, just commenting. So stop projecting. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I've told you where to take your complaint that WP:BLP guidelines are not being followed. Take it there, and stop trolling. Your "commenting" is not helpful, does not contribute to the issue at hand, and serves no purpose other than to stir up anger. That is, pretty much EXACTLY the definition of "trolling", regardless of your preference to call it "commenting". Once more, with feeling - take it up with WT:BLP. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
See also WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Also, do not use op/ed pieces as sources - they are notoriously unreliable and the issue has come up many times in the past. The New Yorker "profile" article is an op/ed piece. Take it up on WP:NPOVN if you believe you have a legitimate grievance. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Just speaking from a policy level, it is not true that you can't use Op/Ed pieces as sources. You can't use them as sources for facts in general, though you can if the person is a known expert on a particular subject (e.g., if Ben Bernanke writes an Op/Ed piece on the economy, and includes some specific (non-speculative numbers), they can be used). You can, though, always use Op/Ed pieces to cite a particular person's opinion. Yes, WP:UNDUE comes into play--if I, joe-schmoe internet user, got a letter to the editor published, that can't go in the article because my opinion doesn't count for jack. But if someone more important, related to the field, or related to the subject had an op/ed, then we can cite that Op/Ed to state, "Person X wrote, in an Op/Ed piece in the Cityville Times, that Person Y consistently does a terrible job of fact-checking," that would be okay. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The piece in question was a puff-piece on Moore, it was citing his former employer (owner of Mother Jones) firing him for "inadequate job performance:". Adam Hochschild, co founder of Mother Jones said that Moore was fired because of "inadequate job performance".[1] ".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Very contentious statement - especially since his former employer paid out. Certainly you can find a better source than a vitriolic op-ed piece by some obscure staff writer for the NYT. WP:BLP specifically states - "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." - as I see it, that article fits very well into this description. Also, WP:UNDUE - this episode covered is fairly insignificant in his career. If you REALLY think it's important, then present it in a less biased manner. See the Mother Jones (magazine) section on this subject for an example of neutral POV. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, you did not read the source as it was very pro-Moore and not vitriolic at all. And it wasn't the New York Times it was the New Yorker and he got a $50,000 settlement not the $2 million he wanted and I don't think the writer is obscure she's been published more times than you have. Here's the link:[10]. Reference is given on page 49 of the bio by Schultz as well. Now on the other hand, Moore gives 13 different accounts of why he no longer works there, depending on whom he is talking to.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if the article is pro or anti-Moore. My main concern is that it's a relatively trivial couple of months early in his career, and the whole incident does not deserve the focus you seem to want on it. Combined with that, the author isn't notable, so WP:UNDUE is further strengthened - minor note in his life, with a minor commentary from a minor author. Not EVERYTHING belongs in Wikipedia. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
You obviously prefer moore's self published writing to neutral third party sources. The paragraph in question is all about the event, except the real reason he was fired, are you delusional?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPA - this is the second time you're launching personal attacks. I asked you to stop it already. If you missed it before, here it is again: STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oscars speech

I'm curious why the Oscars speech incident doesn't get a mention. He describes it himself as one of the most significant moments of his life. I'm not interested in the subject enough to get in to what seems to be quite a vibrant debate, but if anyone's interested, here's a link to a self-penned article on the subject: — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talkcontribs) 09:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


  1. Moore's biography by Schulz states that Moore dropped out of Saint Paul's seminary after a year("dropped out" are the author's words). This is a book used throughout the article as a reliable source. Why was this addition removed? Moore did not graduate from Saint Paul's, he states variously that he left because he couldn't watch ball games; in his autobiography he pairs this with pulling pranks (he was only 13-14, afterall). If editors refuse to admit this verifiable fact into the encyclopedia, will the next edit state that Moore was ordained a priest?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
You didn't source it - no book title, author, ISBN. All you provided was. "but dropped out after one year.<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" - that's NOT a reference. What you quoting? Snoopy? --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It was sourced. Schultz is already used in the article, so an entire ref would be redundant. Wikipedia does not support Ibid so a Harvard style reference was used. Authorname, date, and page number. Try again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
From what I can see here, Mike did source it. If his formatting was off, fix it. The Interior (Talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Mike, if you feel strongly about that edit, the "Schulz" book is now a named ref. Glass, that was a lot of reverting with only a little discussion. Let's keep this collegial folks. The Interior (Talk) 03:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how it's my, or anyone else's job to hunt down references. If he wants them included, then it is HIS responsibility, NOT MINE, to include the reference. No source, it doesn't go in - that's Wiki policy. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Interior, I appreciate it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Reference was in there you just don't appear to understand how to read anything scholarly or maybe you just can't understand normal thought.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you're wrong again on wiki policy glAss, not everything requires a source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said - not my, or anyone else's job to hunt down references for stuff you want included. How hard is that to understand - "DO YOUR OWN WORK"? As for source - ya, actually it is - and more so with WP:BLP. I have no idea where you're getting your "no source required" policy guideline - quote your source. Oh, and stop with the juvenile insults - if you can't discuss in a civil manner, then stay off Wikipedia. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll say it again for the cheap seats, the reference was in deleted it, glass. Thank you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Glass, you should step back from this one. The information was sourced, very obviously to something already in the article. Yes, WP:BURDEN falls on the person adding the info, but the burden is to provide a source, not to format it properly. We have all sorts of tags you can use to mark improperly formatted refs, and if no fix is provided soon, you can take it out, but you can't remove sourced information simply because the formatting is wrong. In any event, the sourcing has been fixed, so everyone can be happy now, right? 04:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, we can add that he dropped out after a year to attend a secular school, then? P.S. my ref was formatted correctly, I'll note there is no consistency with citation templates throughout this piece.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't see what's contentious about this. Seminaries aren't for everyone, it doesn't reflect badly on a person. The Interior (Talk) 05:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." - as for the "source" provided - "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" does not meet the minimum bar of "source". How does a name and year count as a "source"? It isn't, and that's not my problem. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It's the last name of an author, year author's book was published and the pages of a book already cited in the article ,read up on Harvard sourcing. If that's your bullshit argument, how about I go in and delete every sentence in this article that doesn't have a source? Whgy haven't you done that? Because you're not about sourcing, you're dedicated to POV pushing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. Sourcing comment, why does this piece rely on self published sources like Michael Moore's website? I saw three citations this morning that are backed up in the Schultz bio, but instead, Moore is used. It would probably cause less edit warring if neutral third party published sources were used instead of his homepage. I know today's kids don't read books or know what a Harvard Citation is, but this has always been the standard on wiki, particularly with regard to BLP.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:CITE - book citations require the following elements:
  1. Author's name
  2. book title
  3. book volume (if applicable)
  4. city of publication (optional)
  5. name of publisher
  6. year of publication
  7. ISBN
Of the potential 7 identifying elements, you provided TWO. It's impossible to know if you're quoting Snoopy or Moore's bio.
If you STILL don't understand, then I suggest you take it up on the notice boards. Hopefully someone there can explain it to you. --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This is quickly becoming absurd. You guys need to disengage, this is going nowhere fast. Glass, there is a consensus of two editors who feel the sourcing was adequate. As Mike points out, WP has several citing styles. This article, mess that it is, has no set style. Let's please move on to something a bit more constructive. The Interior (Talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm kicking it over to WP:BLPN - I strongly disagree that it serves the purpose of a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talkcontribs) 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sourcing in a BLP is required to be as high a quality as possible - Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

brought from the external for discussion purposes only and not for reprinting - "Moore had attended a seminary for one year, when he was fourteen, but dropped out because he was forbidden to watch football. Moore would run for office at the age of eighteen, help open a youth crisis center when he was still little more than a youth himself, and run his own alternative newspaper for ten years" - Michael Moore - A biography by Emily Shultz - 2005 - Hardback published by ECW Press - 2006 paperback published by Satin publications - ISBN-10: 1905745036 ISBN-13: 978-1905745036 - page 8 - no idea if its an official with permission bio but I doubt it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Official or not, it's reliable as far as I can see. The reference information, however, is not clearly understandable to the casual reader, and Mike just revert-wars rather than fixing his reference. This is entirely unpleasant (repeated personal attacks from Mike), and it seems admins don't care about the quality of refs (how hard is it, really, to include that information?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talkcontribs) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Reference is FINALLY fixed! Egads what an effort! --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Now it's raggedy and looks like a bag of ass. I give up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


We should discuss his major books briefly here - they and one film are what he is chiefly known for I believe. Their place in a bestseller list, while worthy of mention (maybe in the book articles) should not be either all or the most important thing we mention in the author's biog. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

It's significant, it's reported in the media, it's relevant. That is a list of his "bestselling books", listed separately from the complete list of his written works. I fail to understand your complaint. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Interior - as per your revert, please explain your decision to have TWO REDUNDANT SECTIONS - "books" and "bibliography". You seem to be intent on making the article WORSE with the confusion the redundancy creates. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Usually in author bios, we list a bibliography without separating the books by how much they sold. We have mentioned he is a best-selling author, to play that up any more would be puffery. I think these titles should either be moved to the bibliography (perhaps with a note about bestseller status), or this section should be turned into a short prose description of his writing career. The current way we're doing it here is not how the MOS asks us to organize content. The Interior (Talk) 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
And I'd remind you that wiki editing is a process, sometimes we have to tinker about before things start improving. If my edit makes the article temporarily worse, it's not really a big deal, as long as we're working toward a better product. The Interior (Talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made this section into prose, and changed the heading to match the active tense phrasing in the other headings, i.e. Prouducing, Directing, Acting. The Interior (Talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems inconsistent to have a "bestseller" list for Moore, when no other author page I can see has such a list. I think it would be better to remove the section in entirety. Notable sales of a book can be footnoted in that section - but to give them their own section seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you checked out the changes? It's been reworked and moved. How do you feel about the new arrangement? The Interior (Talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Aah, sorry - missed the changes. I was poking around other author pages to see how it's done normally, and posted without looking at the history. I think it's better now. The whole "bestseller" section isn't anywhere else. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Archival procedure

This is specifically to Off2riorob - please read WP:ARCHIVE before continuing your deletion of posts on the talk page. There are established procedures for archival and deletion of this material. Your manner of removal does not comply with the established procedure. Once more, please stop until you have checked that what you do complies with established procedure. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sections that violate WP:BLP, that are just WP:SOAPBOXING, or are in violation of WP:NOTFORUM are acceptable at any time, and don't need to be archived. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The deletion involved 60k of text. Are you suggesting that it was all in violation of those sections? I don't disagree with removal of inflammatory, potentially libelous, and other such material. My position is that removing ALL of it was way over the top.--GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You have looked at the archive, right? The text was not deleted, it was archived manually which is fairly normal. Ravensfire (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Did I miss something? Where in this diff is an archival mentioned?
Also, if the issue is, as Qwyrxian states - WP:BLP violations - then why are they being archived instead of simply removed? WP:BLP states, "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." - yet Qwyrxian position is to archive it, not remove it. So which is it?
I'm also confused by WP:BLP. Qwyrxian's position is that the WP:BLP guidelines apply to the article AND the discussion page. I do not see this in WP:BLP. WP:BLP implies that it's restrictions apply to the article itself, not necessarily to the same extent with the discussion page (or how are we supposed to discuss - explain the removal of some gossip, for example - telepathically?) . Or is your interpretation that even raising a contentious issue on the discussion page carries the risk of being banned? How do you propose that people discuss contentious issues, if by Qwyrxian's position, we are not allowed to even put them on the discussion page?
Take a look at the edit comment of the original archive, especially the first word "arc". Also, see the archives listed at the top of the talk page. All in all, much drama about nothing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:BLP, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". See the details in WP:BLPTALK. So, we can have controversial stuff here, as long as it is being directly used to propose changes to the article and is at least potentially useful and sourced. So, for example, I can say "Person X was reported to have bribed a public official in Newspaper X; should we add that to the article?" If Newspaper X was, however, the National Enquirer, then unless better sources were presented soon, we should probably remove it from the talk page. If someone on the talk page says "Person Y is a big fat loser", then we should remove it immediately; we should do the same thing if someone says, "I heard that Person Z once got busted for prostitution, but I don't remember where, is that true"?
So, in summary, BLP does apply here, though more latitude exists. But truly harmful material must be removed, especially if it isn't being used to improve the article. We can certainly discuss the addition of a controversy section, for instance, but said discussion must focus on reliably sourced info, not on speculation or the general feeling that Moore deserves criticism because of his obvious badness (whatever form "badness" takes). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • - Please stop replacing stale resolved and historic discussions unless you want to add to those discussions. Its all in the archives and searchable if you want it. As this article and talkpage has historically seen BLP violations and complaints, lets keep it as clean as possible. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Slacker uprising

Gandydancer (talk · contribs), please explain why you persistently "trim" any possible hint at controversy in a controversial paragraph. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not tried to "trim" controversy; I have tried to comply with WP guidelines. Perhaps you need to review policy. I will revert your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Gandydancer. Please see WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NRA presidential aspirations

Michael Moore told Entertainment Weekly in October 2002 and The Guardian in November 2002 that he bought a life membership in the NRA so that he could convince 5 million new members to join and so outvote the existing 4 million members of the NRA. The 5 million were to vote him in as NRA president, replacing Charlton Heston.

Various observers have said that Moore's "plan" served him as a plot device in his film Bowling for Columbine but that as an actual plan it was never viable. That is why I do not think that Moore should be quoted in the first person to tell the reader in Wikipedia's voice that he for sure planned to become NRA president. What Moore says to the press and what he actually wanted may be two different things. Our text should introduce an element of doubt. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources that back up this claim, not telling the reader in Wikipedia's voice that Moore planned to do something because he said so will be calling him a liar, won't it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No, the way to look at it is that Moore is his own best promotional tool. He is a performance piece incarnate. He says things to stir the pot. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm the first to jump on that wagon, but we still need sources for this. By the way, do you want to help me build a real controversy section, as all previous attempts were rejected? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If you mean this group of edits bringing in the Mike Wilson film, I don't think it was written in a neutral tone, with "fallaciously erroneous conclusion" as the highlight. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The simple solution is for the article to say something like "Moore said that his plan was ...". There is no need to speculate about whether it really was his plan. But it ought to be said that the plan could not have worked, and Moore abandoned it. Roger (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a simple solution, and elegant. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Simple, elegant and accurate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Works for me as well. The Interior (Talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

The data box had Moore and Glynn married in 1991, but the text in this section had it in 1990. I checked a number of sources, including IMDB, the original source for the 1990 date, but most of them referred to Wikipedia for documentation. I finally found one that gave a month with the date. This appeared to be a more reliable source, thanks to that added info. Activist (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Conflict with Michael Moore's Alma Mater

There is an obvious inaccuracy in Michael Moore's wiki: Under his Alma Mater, it lists University of Michigan - Flint, then in his background, it clearly says he dropped out of college after his freshman year. Since by definition, your Alma Mater is a school from which you have graduated, and Moore dropped out after his freshman year, this reference to the University of Michigan-Flint as his Alma Mater should be deleted from his Wiki page. Stacker1960 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't shout (all caps), even in headers. I personally don't like using alma mater for a university from which one didn't graduate, but my personal preferences don't count. The definition of alma mater is attended or graduated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Wiki's own definition of Alma Mater: "it is often any school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated.[2]" -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that if I go to Harvard, take one class, then drop out, then I can list Harvard on my resume as my Alma Mater? Stacker1960 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding criticism: pointless?

This is a very unbalanced article, reading like a promotional fluff piece and omitting any negative information, like well-corroborated evidence of deceptive editing and distortion in Bowling for Columbine. I want to add such info to balance out the article, but I get the feeling it will be instantly deleted by rabid Moore fans. Should I even bother?

Dantès (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support it. We should always strive to represent views according to their prominence. He's "not the pope." (Braveheart) :) Even the Wikipedia article has a criticism section. How to: use good authoritative sources, please. Remember to write in a way that reasonably distances the voice of Wikipedia from the opinion by attributing the source and explaining their reason for criticism as neutrally as possible. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support it too (for what it's worth).Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Emily Schultz

Article says:

"Biographer Emily Schultz referred to Bowling for Columbine as a "fiction/documentary dichotomy", in particular claiming that the opening scene in which Moore opens a bank account and walks out with a shotgun was staged for the film.[2]"

What Emily Schultz actually wrote:

"Once the film saw release, critics attacked this fiction/documentary dichotomy, as they had with Roger & Me, claiming in particular that the opening scene -- in which Moore opens a bank account and walks out the same day with a shotgun -- was staged."

Needs rewriting. Suggestions? — ThePowerofX 12:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe substitute 'claiming' with *citing critics who had claimed* ? Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

So-called POV

This was labeled disruptive and POV, and removed by the user Bbb23:

On Fahrenheit 9/11: "Moore earned US$21.6 million off Fahrenheit 9/11 [3]

On Sicko: "Moore earned 50% of the profits, or US$17 millions, off this documentary[4]

Simply amazingly POVed by Bbb23 himself one would argue.

  • I think that one would assume directors to benefit financially from their films. Presumably, such figures aren't typically listed in Wiki pages, unless there's something particularly interesting in them. The mentions in this case, seem quite morbid and cynical. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Work at Buick Plant

The link that corroborates the claim that Moore worked at a Buick Plant is dead, and I can't find any other source that suggests he did so for more than a single day at most. It might be a tad misleading to suggest that he "worked at the local Buick plant", if his tenure wasn't any longer than a day. Any sources that suggest how long he held the position? SJCstudent (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ MacFarquhar, Larissa (February 16, 2004). "The Populist Michael Moore can make you cry". The New Yorker. Retrieved 5 October 2011. 
  2. ^ Schultz (2005) pp. 180-181.
  3. ^
  4. ^