Talk:Michael Moore

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Please note edits!

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. Timppeli 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Human 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. Timppeli 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [1] [2] [3] [4] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. Timppeli 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. Timppeli 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--RexMundane 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, fat good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. Human 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [5] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?
  • Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--RexMundane 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, respectfully, I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--RexMundane 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, this page is completely biased. If you want this site to rival Wikipedia in any way, shape or form you should probably remove the quotes around "documentary" when referring to "Sicko" (which by the way has won praise from conservatives as well as liberals. Not to mention under the picture it is captioned "Michael Moore, ranting". Hardly unbiased at all as you claim this site to be. Nor is it trustworth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobWW (talk)

Please Fix

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. Human 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding?

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. Flippin 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --Element 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

yet another reason for me not be a Republican the book "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David T.Hardy and Jason Clarke sounds just a little childish, once again "Micheal Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" nice

duh, it's actually a parody of Al Franken's literary contribution to civility in discourse, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Stupid Idiot and Moore's own ingenious expose Stupid White Men. Rob Smith 14:28, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Moore High School Photo

Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.

He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. Scorpio 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Why the second photo?

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!" --Rex Mundane 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary

I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? Brainslug 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --Deuteronomy 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
--Rex Mundane 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. Brainslug 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Default sort

Please add {{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}} to the article before the categories. The article is locked. Thanks. HeartOfGoldtalk 02:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I did, but wish I knew why we do this...--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

POlitics requires a minimum of brains?

I can conclude from this that RobS knows NOTHING about politics, and has never met an actual politician. --Gulik3 22:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Be careful with your accusations. Andy once ran for office. Arjen 22:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement. Categroizing Michael Moore as a "political person" is an insult to people who generally are informed, and are concerned about public policy, and public discourse. I'm not sure "satirist" would apply, and if so, not a very good one. "Comedian" might offend real comedians, too. Perhaps "film maker" or some such garbage. RobS 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Political people can be buffoons, too. Sometimes it seems like a job requirement. OTOH, I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't listed as a "Political Person", either. But I get the impressing Moore is informed and concerned--he just happens to think Conservatives are doing a terrible job. Oh, and he's fat, so there's no point in listening to him. --Gulik3 22:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Good point. Do we really want to elevate Limbaugh to a political person? OTOH, Al Franken is probably running for Senate; once he's a real candidate, he should qualify for awhile, unless he wins then he can enter the Pantheon with all our other failed icons. RobS 23:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

You guys want to see a real masterwork of deception, check out the efforts by the "editors" at WP who refuse to identify Moore as "left-wing" for fear that it may paint him in a negative fashion. This, despite Moore's own admission to being "left-wing". WP truly is a magical land where fantasy prevails over reality. A lot like Disneyland but without the fun. Scorpio 10:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

See also

That whole section should be removed. Maybe if you have seen some of his movies you wouldn't say that it is all based on "junk science". Also why is there a criticism section but no praise? Since his movies have gotten much more praise than criticism Ttwashere 20:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

  • First, welcome to CP! I pasted a welcome template on your talk page (which now exists) and hope you will read the links provided.
Second, I don't know who is "you", but I have indeed seen all of Moore's work. I would commend to you the posted reviews, not by people considered by anyone to be defenders of Conservative thought, for you to contemplate. In the real world, Moore hasn't gotten more professional praise than criticism. Quite the opposite. Here at CP, we do not strive for political correctness, and do not tolerate Liberal deceit. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:33, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
Ttwashere, I agree with TK. Liberal deceit is not tolerated and anyone here suggesting Moore is anything but a propragandist for Socialism, is deluding themselves. Moore is a liar. He uses the film medium to promote an agenda which is radical left-wing extremism. He distorts his information in his "documentaries" as well as any Nazi or Communist propagandist from the past. There are quite a few good sources for drawing this conclusion. Thank you. Scorpio 09:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I think Moore is just a greedy capitalist pig. Even limousine liberals need to be judged by thier works, moreso than the lies they advocate which they may or may not believe in themselves. The big probelm with deceit is, once a person gets well practiced in it, they become thier own biggest victim. RobS 13:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Greed certainly does create its' own idealogy, that's for sure. Scorpio 17:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, there was a "report", news item, last year I believe, or early in this one, where someone actually go hold of some of his (Moore's) financial information. It showed large sums sheltered in the Cayman's, and a rather large block of Haliburton stock! If you ever run across it, that would be a great addition to the article! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 13:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Excellant idea. For some reason Moore makes me think of Ken Ley, there's a lot of similiarities between these two rich scam artists who prey on an unsuspecting public to line their own pockets. RobS 14:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Once at a Beverly Hills eatery, where the price of a sandwich with fries approaches what I had to spend weekly as a student for food, I was shocked to have someone point him out to me. He was in Armani, and certainly not wearing a truckers hat, and did indeed leave in his Liberal Limousine! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Earnings

Why does the sentence under the section Earning says "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00." when the citation given states $168,070,886? Also, the usage of the word "bilk" is subjective. Even though his films are not proper "documentaries", it doesn't mean he defrauded the public. I'm removing the sentence. ATang 10:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

(A) Asked and answered on the page; (B) the sentence specifically says "worldwide," the chart specifically cites "US Gross;" (C) the link provided specifically references the same language, idea, and concept. (D) the term "bilked" is commonly understood to mean defraud, cheat, swindle, thwart, frustrate, or hoax.
Now, if you absolutely demand reputable and credible citations to support the claim, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00," that certainly is no large demand, and we'd being only too willing to do so. RobS 11:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
I asked essentially the same question (elsewhere) some time back so clearly it was confusing. I have now made a change to hopefully make the distinction more obvious. Philip J. Rayment 11:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
The earnings was a gross oversight on my part (missed US and worldwide). The definition you gave for "bilk" doesn't justify its use - how did Moore cheat the public that money? Even though Moore provided a very one-sided, often slanderous, and sometimes factually inaccurate story, that doesn't mean he bilked the public of the money. It is a Hollywood movie, where people pay for entertainment (if the public decides to blindly trust it as fact... then that's really their fault). Saying Moore bilked the public money is like saying the new Transformers bilked the public money because it didn't follow the original cartoon, or saying Live Free or Die Hard cheated the public because of its misrepresentation of certain technologies prominently displayed (i.e. The hovering capabilities and weapons of the F-35). ATang 11:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Ah ha. You make the misrepresentation "how did Moore cheat the public that money?" The text does not say that. The text specifically says, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public." Now let me please explain. Michael Moore's films are specifically inanimate objects, and not a person. Very recently, I made a bank deposit which included a counterfeit $20 bill. The $20 bill was confiscated, and I suffered the loss. It was not my intent to bilk the bank, and I was not prosecuted. But I personally was bilked out of $20--an inanimate object--not by the bank, and presumably not by the anonymous person who passed it to me who themselves likely did not know of its fraudulent origins. RobS 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
How did that semantic argument change my point? In fact, I listed two other 'films', which by the definition of whoever wrote the bilking sentence, bilked the public. The movies simply portrayed Moore's representation of the subject at hand, through the use of weasel words and sarcasm (as per his usual style). My original objection to the sentence is still that "the movie did not bilk the public of their money" because it's not a proper documentary. His failure to portray both sides of the story in Sicko (as an example) is used to convey Moore's viewpoint on the US Healthcare system. As he's the director, he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants.
I guess my point boils down to the question "If a movie is biased, is any money made because of it considered to be 'bilked'?" My answer is no. ATang 13:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh, so as the director, "he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants" extends to outright lies, slander, smear, and fraud? And this is "art," one would suppose? Hmmph, yah right. I'm an artist, too. And as an artist, I have every prerogative to present the facts in whatever way I want. RobS 16:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
An artist can present information in whatever way he wants, because the work is from the artist's point of view! You can't say the impressionist movement is "false" because it's not a real photographic depiction of objects, because that's not what the artists were trying to do! It is the job of the audience of determine whether it is fact or not. You're almost saying that The Day After Tomorrow is bilking the public money by presenting lies and slander. It is a motion picture that emphasizes on drama, and only a fool would start hoarding gasoline and heating equipment after seeing that movie. Moore's film is no different - he had to structure his film in a way that maximizes profit while conveying his viewpoints across to the audience. Dramatization (or slander/lies, one could say) is just an instrument used in a movie. Moore was trying to raise questions using his films, and that's exactly what he has done. Many of the points he raised was questionable, but, like I stated so many times before, he can write whatever he wants about whatever he wants - it's all fair game in Hollywood.
Even though most movies try to be factually accurate, certain creative liberties must exist - whether it is scenes (and facts) omitted, facts distorted, or anything else. (And mind you, YOU consider that "outright lies, slander, smear and fraud", but some do not - certainly not Moore.)
And let's not talk about "art" - I tried to avoid it earlier. I don't have too much respect for it so... yes, I do not expect "facts" in art. Do you believe that Jesus and his disciples actually sat in the exact order as depicted in The Last Supper by Da Vinci?ATang 11:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
"maximizes profit"
As Michael Moore's blood brother Gordon Gekko declared, "Greed is Good." Rob Smith 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
You seem to have a habit of dismissing most of my points and picking on a particular phrase that I used. Is that normal practice in your debates? Or should I consider that you concede the points I raised about artistic liberties in Hollywood?
The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth. The theory goes on to state that actions to benefit oneself, in a free market, can often result in benefit in others (as seen in basic examples of trade). Whether you classify that as "greed" is your problem. Would you say Warren Buffett is "greedy" throughout his career? Or Bill Gates?
I'm sorry but if there's a further lack of rational objections (read: intellectual response), I'm going to replace the word "bilk" in the article. "Bilk" includes a negative connotation that is subjective to the author, and its inclusion creates a bias in the article (not that you guys worry about it here in Conservapedia). ATang 10:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
using "artistic" and "Hollywood" in the same sentence is kinda oxymoronic, isn't it?
The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth.
IOW, self interest, or greed. This was Cain's problem, was it not, when he murdered Abel. So this idea is hardly "modern."
So you're argument is that commiting fraud & slander somehow benefits the free market and furthers economic progress. I may take a different view, of course, beleiving that to stop such things is why we have police, courts, and regulation. And of course morality cannot be legislated, so there is also a question of self-policing ethical standards. You seem to be arguing that slander & fraud somehow can be tolerated as artistic (or as Moore might argue journalistic) license. This is all debating what the meaning of is "is." That's fine with me, let's continue debating what the meaning of "bilked" is then, since there's a big gapping hole whether Moore's life's opus is "art" or "journalism." Right now, there seems to be a wide general concensus it is "schlock." Rob Smith 12:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Haha "artistic" and Hollywood! Now I agree that many of the junk that is regurgitated by Hollywood could hardly be seen as "artistic", but it is a medium for conveyance of ideas, and it fits my broad definition of "art". (Not that I care for "art")

I didn't mention that fraud and slander "benefits the free market". I wanted to state that Moore's movies merely fits within the constraints of the free market - benefit is subjective. I don't think that increasing a person's own wealth is greed - I have a job right now, and I need the money to pay for tuition. My parents have jobs to put food on the table - is that greed? When Cain murdered Abel, he went outside the constraints of the free market - and that's wrong. That's why there are, as you stated, police, courts and regulations to punish those who don't play by the rules of the free market.

Alright, to sum up - you believe that Moore is using lies and misinformation in the production of movies; I believe that he stretches the truth and use convenient omissions to bring across his point. You believe that he did his movies to bilk the public (with the intention of monetary gains, I think?); I believe that it is his prerogative to create a movie about anything - truth or fiction - in Hollywood (and yes, he wants money, but also to bring across his point as a far-left liberal). We're obviously not going to resolve this, and if I change the word it'll just come down to an edit war. How about a compromise? Something along the lines of "Moore's films have grossed over x dollars worldwide. Some critics have ..." <insert criticism & citation here>.

See, even when I write that down it becomes obvious that there is no way the original statement can stay in an encyclopedia article. Cite it, or cut it. Even citations that says he "bilked" the money would be an opinion piece, which is not acceptable in Conservapedia. Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public the money, the world "bilk" has no place in the article. ATang 12:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public
Again, you've returned to the fiction that the entry states Michael Moore, a person, "bilked" the public. It explicit does not. It states an inanimate object "Michael Moore's films" have bilked the public. What could me more clear? Rob Smith 16:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
I fail to see the distinction, and I think you're just being a nitpicker by focusing on an insignificant detail. If a person created an inanimate object which "bilked" the public, the author is held responsible. Even if you insist, the sentence could be reworded with "Moore's films", and you've still not addressed my points. This further proves that you're unwilling, or unable, to answer my concerns. ATang 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Per our rules, the CP Guidelines, Admin decisions on such matters are final, as they are the ones who set policy. Your objections, ATang, have been seriously considered and noted. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:53, 4 August 2007 (EDT)
May I ask what the serious consideration entails? Is the final decision that the article stays as it is? ATang 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Intro edit

I edited the intro to reflect our (or at least my) quest for accuracy.

The "Clinton was a pretty good president for a Republican" quote appears to be a myth, joke, or maybe it's simply inaccurate: Googling for the phrase (with quotation marks) gives FOUR sites: Brainyquote, Conservapedia, The Huffington Post (but merely because a reader's comment there used it) and a blog entry that showcases this article and CP (in a not quite positive light). So I removed it.

The second quote was fairly easy to source properly (and I'm puzzled why it hasn't been done so before). I expanded it to properly reflect his full reply - it shows better how he thinks of the US as a whole.

I also rephrased the lead-in since it sounded too much like a cheap shot and less like actual information. Also, the claim that his views can be best summed up with 1-2 carefully selected and cropped quotes (especially with one of the quotes being apparently fabricated) sounds dubious in itself. --MilesM 12:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia

Why is there a whole section on a Wikipedia controversy that is only peripherally related to Michael Moore? Daphnea 14:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Propaganda?

In the intro, the line "Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful liberal propaganda in contemporary American political discourse". This must surely be original research, and it is not sourced. Seems like scaretalk, should we remove this? I have seen some of his works and while I do not agree on all of his views I find he does make rather good points.

Moore in NRA?

Are you sure about this? It doesn't make sense that a liberal like Michael Moore would be in an organization that supports the right to bear arms.--Conlibtar 22:56, 2 March 2012 (EST)

If you generalize enough you'll exclude people from anything. Michael Moore is a lifetime member and owns a number of firearms. Ayzmo :) 23:55, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Personal tools