Talk:Stupid White Men
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Vandalism
206.123.202.54 changed the title of this page into "Stupid Fat Men" as well as some details. I think I reversed most of it but watch out for future edits this person makes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.112.158 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] References? Neutrality?
I added an "unreferenced" flag to this page. Most of this article is a narrative of the troubles Moore had with publishing the book, but with no mention of the sources for any of that story, or for any of the (somewhat outlandish) quotes. Not quite up to encyclopedia standards.
Actually, in light of some other comments on this discussion page ("Most of the material in the article is based directly on the UK Edition's Introduction"), a NPOV flag might be more warranted. 68.33.214.51 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"To the chagrin of HarperCollins" Is this actually true? I would have thought HC would have been chargined if the book had incited riots and lawsuits against the publisher. They wanted a book that would sell well, they just didn't think they had one. Rich Farmbrough 10:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I edited it to "Despite HarperCollins' predictions". "To the chagrin" is patent nonsense - to say that company would be unhappy that one of its products sold well is beyond the realm of conspiracy theory. Last Malthusian 15:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of the material in the article is based directly on the UK Edition (ISBN 0141011904 )'s Introduction. Copyvio? Lee M 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Factual inaccuracies"
What are the "inaccuracies" in the book this article refers to?
I second that. It's important to back up a statement like that with examples to maintain some semblance of NPoV - 81.100.216.53 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I guess there are going to be bunches of anti-Moore sites, a link to them may suffice. But an unsubstantiated accusation like that cannot stand. --Orzetto 09:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- No idea of the validity of this site (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html), but it's anti-Stupid White Men and seems to know what it's talking about
- The whole book is "inaccuracy". Have you read it? Moore claims there are more girls born than boys (wich is false (Sex_ratio)). And the reasoning for that is that its "mother nature" wants to destroy man because of his sins... There are plenty more "inaccuracies".
Unfortunately, Michael Moore is not noted for much besides collecting a lot of money from dubious stories. He has not produced one single piece of "work" that did not have copious amounts of legitemate criticism.24.10.102.46 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal for A Prayer to Afflict the Comfortable
Fine with me. SP-KP 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone who read this book explain why the first prayer listed here makes any sense? If we are sufficiently old enough, there is a good chance of getting cancer so it's not something that being a person of establishment helps in avoiding. Also any member of House of Representatives should have a good medical coverage that give them the advantage in fighting cancer that "ordinary" people may not have. This is like saying "You have a great medical coverage so I hope you get sick to feel the pain of ordinary people who can't afford it!". It just doesn't make any sense. --Revth 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
