| Revision as of 18:46, 23 April 2008 editGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,046 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 24.89.246.75 identified as vandalism to last revision by Paglew. (TW)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:19, 13 December 2024 edit undo2600:1700:c3a1:73b0:1014:7557:80d4:315e (talk) →Flak as a control tactic: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| (780 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|1={{WPBiography|living=yes|class=start|priority=mid|filmbio-work-group=yes|listas=Moore, Michael}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Moore, Michael|1= |
|
|2={{WikiProject Media}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-priority=mid|filmbio-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Media|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Michigan|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|counter = 8 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Michael Moore/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
|
==Improving this Page== |
|
|
|
|
|
==wut== |
|
|
Uh, the info box to the right says he was morn in Michigan, and the first paragraph into the enty says he was born in Canada. Just saying... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===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?--] 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Cleanup=== |
|
|
This article requires cleanup and better organization--] 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 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Intro == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we chage documentry to doucdrama which would be more accurate. Ken Burns produces documentries, without a political agenda or distorting of facts.] 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No. ] 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.] 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: What does Ken Burns have to do with this topic? Also, please keep a ] in this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: ], 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. --] 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 documentry is not accurate.] 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: POV? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: 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 ''...is a legitimate documnetarian which Moore is not''. --] 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I googled this http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/category/clueless-wonders/michael-moore/ Does that satisfy you?] 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 ] --] 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Point does not apply, I can quote books or the video Michael Moore hates America. What is acceptible to you?] 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: What does this have to do with the topic? Again, you are showing ] is all you are doing. --] 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Again you are missing it, the question I put at the beggining of the thread was documentrian the right term for Moore. We disagree, all you have been doing is making procedural accusations. Please stip 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
::], 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 ] --] 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 accptible to describe Moore's film is an advocacy rathger than a straight documentary. He does not present an accurate potrait in his latest film especially whitewashing the problems in the Cuba healthcare system. Can we put as advoacy documentary? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: Can you not stop? --] 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.] 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Kirin4: Please maintain a civil tone. --] 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am,http://fundamentalsandfalsehoods.blogspot.com/2007/09/michael-moores-sicko-answer.html here is another example of Michael Moore not being an honest documentarian.] 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 Farenheit 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? ] 07:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: "Public memory" is not a ]. Find a reliable source and it can be discussed. ] 08:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Very well, I hope Newsweek is sufficient, then. I'm still hunting for the spots shown on television. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/ |
|
|
Last time I checked, distortion = docudrama, not documentary. Documentarys do not push political agendas. This one most blatantly did.] 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. ] 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). ] 22:14, 27 September 2007 (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 . 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. ] 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.) ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. --] 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is this inapplicable? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the following is taken out of the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
:* Moore was interviewed by ] 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". ] uses Moore as an examplar of ], 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"<nowiki><ref>Lecture given to the ], ], ], video available at ]</ref></nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying edit comment from ] 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? __] 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No other contributors supporting ILike2BeAnonymous' opinion I have reinstated this text. __] 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. ] 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Other documentries == |
|
|
On section 2.4 I added Michael Moore hates America which he is the focus of and appears in it was deleted. Please explain?] 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Michael Moore Hates America'' is present under ]. 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. ] 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Explaination: as explained above, it is not a documentary he appears in per say. It is listed in ] where it belongs. To insist it be in the section of other documentaries is simply pushing ] --] 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 ] 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier I posted this is not a Moore worship page. Why does anything critical of him get deleted?] 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 ]. Misplaced Pages is an ]. It is not a site to ] your views on others. |
|
|
|
|
|
: The film is already in ] 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 ]. This is wasting everyone's time. --] 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You stop ] you just don't want it. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages 5 Pillars because you are breaking them. Please do not delete my edits without discussion.] 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. ] 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is Michael Moore Hates American and Celsius 411 removed from other apperances in documentries? He is the focus of the former.] 18:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Merge tags== |
|
|
Does anyone have a view ]? ] 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Delete the merge tags. Nothing has been written since August ( now in Archive) --] 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. ] 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''Delete done''' ] 07:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== You can watch Michael Moore on Oprah == |
|
|
|
|
|
You could, but would you want to? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200709/tows_past_20070927.jhtml?promocode=HP51 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10266 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10291 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/program/tows_prog_whenwhere.jhtml |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.michaelmoore.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.sickotix.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
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' --]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism == |
|
|
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 ] and ] over the columbine film, just off the top of my head. And I don't even know anything about this guy! ] 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''See also:'' ]. ] 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 ] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Any chance we can move the link to the ] 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 ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages biographies. ] 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 ] 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Apparently, Michael Moore isn't too fond of fact-checking...and the sheer possibility of the inverse being true is a bit more daunting. If anything comes natural to this guy it is his keen ability to construe the truth. This can be concluded just by cross-examination via the CIA world factbook. I was able to confirm that the mortality rates mentioned in ], a film created in 2007, were taken COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT--- '''then''' meticulously pieced together amidst a bizarre array of technicolor movie clips circa 1950 with key phrases that cite, if not implicate, a sense of UNAMERICANISM.... I digress, touching back on the infant mortality rates of Detroit and El Salvador, put simply, in 2005 the infant mortality rate was 15.9 per 1,000 live births---How Moore deceives his gullible audience is by introducing an idea that in the "western world" we cannot compare to the success of El Salvador and how their babies fend against Darwinsim....then he changes his comparison to that of El Salvador to Detroit....oh really? Last I checked El Salvador was 25.1 per 1,000 births....curious isn't it?] (]) 08:15, 9 April 2008 (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. ] 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. ] 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, the article says he was <b>brought up</b> Roman Catholic. ] 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think he´s a joker, so his claims to be a practising 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.] 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Like it or no, he supports abortion and gay marriage, like he already stated several times. I think this should be mencioned, so people could see what kind of Catholicism he follows. This entry would be incomplete without mencioning that. In his interview, and I invite people to read his own words, he says that he tries to be a practising 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 practising catholic.] 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That is all your particular point of view. ] 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 <b>I'm Catholic</b> — sometimes a recovering Catholic. I've been with the same woman for the past 26 years." Bolding added. ] 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 ] and ]. 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. ] 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It´s tendencious 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Addition== |
|
|
Could someone add this: |
|
|
|
|
|
*After only four months at ], Moore was fired for refusing to print an article by ] that was critical of the ] human rights abuses in Nicaragua. Moore stated that he would not run the article because ] “could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.” <ref>Emily Schultz, ''Michael Moore: A Biography'', Ecw Press, 2005. Pg 47-54.</ref> Bermen described Moore as a ''"very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy"'' when asked about the incident.<ref>Paul Mulshine. A Stupid White Man and a Smart One. ], March 3, 2003</ref> Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, ].<ref>Matt Labash. ''Michael Moore, One-Trick Phony''. ]. June 8, 1998</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is locked down to me for some reason. Thanks. <font face="Times">]</font><small><sup>'']''</sup></small> 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Look at that, it let me edit it. <font face="Times">]</font><small><sup>'']''</sup></small> 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.] 02:45, 1 December 2007 (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 mencioned in the entry ? ] (]) 17:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Should Michael Moore be in ]... the thing is... he has been an actor and he has also held elected office. My instict is that he should be in the category because these categopries 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.--] (]) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nobody has commented on why they think it's unsuitable.--] (]) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::He is not known as an actor. Check the category description. ] (]) 05:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK... I'll just add the politician category since he ran for and won elcted office.--] (]) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Removed ]... 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 ] on the page which is completely unsourced (socialism isnt even mentioned anywhere else) but you have problems with categories pertaining to him being an actor annd politician which are at least sourcable things he actually did. Please think about the categories on this page more carefully.--] (]) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I didn't see that category, what am I the category babysitter. '''Interesting arrogance'''] (]) 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Interesting interesting. : ) --] (]) 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). ] (]) 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, ]. I think this should also be added to the controversies. But I agree that this page is too "politically correct".] (]) 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?--] (]) 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::How does a beleif that Gore won the election contradict not supporting Gore during the election? There is no real connection between the two.--] (]) 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.] (]) 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?--] (]) 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.] (]) 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. --] (]) 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)~ <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== THIS DIVIDED STATE == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. --] (]) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
can someone please remove the picture of Moore, it is very distrubing and people shouldnt open the page to see it ] (]) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: I loled. — <em>]</em><sup>(])</sup>, 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Michael Moore controversies page needs to be merged == |
|
|
|
|
|
After reviewing the Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:According to ], "Moore was born in Davison, a suburb of Flint, Michigan." ] (]) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (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: |
|
|
|
|
|
* - Proyecciones libres en los Estados Unidos de América patrocinadas por Michael Moore, desde el 15 de Abril al 24 de Mayo de 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
(] (]) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Flak as a control tactic== |
|
== Another Documenatry that he was in == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is balance the main issue here? For is not Michael Moore's real 'crime' that of beating the right-wing at their own game? So when he starts to get some hits on target, out comes the flak to shoot down him and his message. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
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 : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850665/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed. It seems the editors took their time in documenting criticism directed towards Moore by, their (editors') own account, people/entities who are on the right, while not putting forward anything by people who share the same opinion. |
|
] (]) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Further, let us not forget that the points or topics Moore presents are valid, regardless of what he uses to justify them. Regarding further stratification of the US social fabric into haves and have-nots, there is data to support this. Much has been written about the disappearance of the middle class (in part due to relocating solid (i.e., not WalMart part-time), well-paying jobs overseas) or the demise of US manufacturing prowess (which is exemplified by "Roger and Me"). The exponential growth of executive salary packages compared to rank and file employees is another point in this regard. |
|
|
:Regarding the issue of healthcare, just consider the outpouring of support for Mangione. Enough said!! And let us not forget that Americans are fair-minded by nature. So, the current backclash is not due to Mangione' looks, dashed youthful promise, or ... |
|
|
:Regarding the issue of the wars started by George W. Bush, again look at the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consider the trillions spent. The billions that special inspector general reports could not find. The intelligence info that was unheeded, the lies, Abu Ghoreib, and so-forth. And even more. |
|
|
:I did not see the editors mention the above. In sum, here is factual basis, if not direct documentation, for the assertions that Moore makes in his various movies about the foregoing. ] (]) 19:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
Is balance the main issue here? For is not Michael Moore's real 'crime' that of beating the right-wing at their own game? So when he starts to get some hits on target, out comes the flak to shoot down him and his message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.103.95 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
