Talk:Michael & Me (documentary)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 An Issue of Bias? 2 External Link as Proof? 3 what the hell? 4 This article reads like a biased movie review 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelandme.png

[edit] An Issue of Bias?

Many critics believe Bowling for Columbine is anti-Second Amendment propaganda, ironically from a lifetime National Rifle Association member, that distorts facts and paints an inaccurate picture of guns and gunowners and exploits the victims of the tragic 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado. This should be presented as a view of the movie and not the author of the article. Maybe adding something like "The movie furthers the belief that..." etc.

Not even. The passage is not relevant to Michael & Me to begin with, and belongs in the Bowling for Columbine article. I deleted it.Nightscream 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the word "controversial" used to describe Larry elders,and Micheal Moore seems to be a POV to me. And really not needed. I think I will Delete it.--MadDogCrog 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link as Proof?

To finance the documentary, Larry Elder took out an equity loan on his home (Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Channel, August 26, 2005.) Evidence of this would be helpful but is not necessary.

Mr. Elder said so during his interview.GeorgeC 05:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what the hell?

"Larry Elder also uses Moore's "ambush style" of journalism against him"

Shouldnt there be first a consensus about if Moore uses the "Ambush style" to begin with??. At least re-writte the sentence, its POV as it is.

[edit] This article reads like a biased movie review

There are several examples of unsourced opinions that are stated as fact, such as "Michael Moore insists that there are too many guns in America"(2nd paragraph), ". . .and presents evidence showing that an armed society is a safer society" (3rd paragraph), "The DVD includes a humorous animation . . ." (5th paragraph). As I recall, Mr. Moore did not assert that there were too many guns in America in Bowling for Columbine, and he even remarked that Canadians own more guns per capita in spite of a lower homicide rate. Concerning the 2nd quote, it should read something like "presents evidence in hopes of showing that an armed society is a safer society", because it is a subjective judgment as to whether or not the evidence presented actually acheives what the filmmaker wants it to achieve. Concerning the last quote, it is also subjective to suggest that an animation is humorous, and a neutral word is necessary (farcical, perhaps?).

In its current state, this article seems like the work of a fan of the movie who did not take adequate measures to ensure the article was appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Braincandle 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelandme.png

Image:Michaelandme.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)