Talk:Michael Moore controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Moore controversies article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Micheal Moore hates america, The sub title of the movie

I would like to know why the sub title of this movie was that it tells the truth about a great nation, because it doesn't. after watching it i was wondering where this truth was. was it somwhere between the penn & teller clips, the interveiw with the army guy who had his hands blown off or somewhere in the interveiws with that documentary guy. And does micheal moore hate america or is he trying to show it's citizens that there goverment is racist & corrupt. And for that matter why is it that americans are so confinced that theirs is the greatest nation on earth or in history, what great things is it that they have done maybe it's just me but i don't see them. Yours Grimm MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.196.108 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

what great things - helped destory fascism, nazism, and communism, gave us great inventors (internet included), art, lifted the world economy after WWII. Its a broad list with much more and within each listed thing it seperates down. So yes its just you. --Xiahou 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Key word there was helped meaning with others so these others must be able to claim that they are the greatest nations on the planet too then, there have been other inventors from other countries so who decides what is the best inventions of the world. Destroy would mean that facism, nazism & communism don't exist any more, but they do still exist America didn't do a great job destroying these things. Lastly it's not just me that can't see america's self imposed greatness there are others. Your again Grimm MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) 18 March 2007.

OK, I agree with Grimm MD that the current U.S. administration leaves MUCH to be desired. However I can think of no other country in existence (and this includes my own) to which droves of people are risking everything to emigrate to on a daily basis, so there must be something to it or the exact opposite would be true. The neo-con revolution will be rolled over in the inevitable backlash that will follow it - as it always does in the U.S. when the political spectrum tilts too far in one direction or the other for any extended period of time. Then, hopefully, the U.S. will once again be in step with the rest of the civilised world and we can all be friends again. Just a thought from a well-meaning neighbour to the north who misses a 'common sense' U.S. CanadianMist 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my feelings my Canadian friend, I believe that Most of the recent administrations to go into office have pampered, spoilt & brainwashed their peolple at the expence of the rest of the world or at least some parts of it. "the old saying of if you can't beat them join them comes to mind". However it is my belief that America is dying & i believe it deserves to. When the baby boomers of the 50's & 60's retire there will be more claiming social security than there will be earning to cover that (there was supposed to be some set aside by Clinton however Dubya has been dipping into it) only way they will be able to cover it is by borrowing from friends, don't be to keen to make up. Yours Grimm MD

umm... 'the internet' was actually invented by an English guy, Tim Berners-Lee [1] Yyem 13:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Manufacturing Dissent

A lot of controversial movies made by Moore are chronicled in the new film Manufacturing Dissent. I think this film should probably get its own subsection based on the wealth of information it presents. This one article alone presents a dozen different points of controversy: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/Spotlight/2007/04/22/4102402-sun.html. Thecorch 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is listed among other critical films and doesn't need it's own section. If people are interested in learning more about the film and it's "revelations", they can click on the title and read the article written about it. Inoculatedcities 20:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversies

A lot of this text shouldn't be here since it doesn't discuss controversies. --Ryan Wise 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then. Have at it. Jasper23 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Menus

This information would be better under subgroups. However I don't know very much about the system, so someone else should do it. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) 22 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Merge?

Personally, I think this article should be cleaned up, have its sources checked, and be merged back into Michael Moore. - Crockspot 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that cleanup, sourcing and merging would be ideal. However, because of the edit wars this brings I think its much better if it has its own page.I mean there was an edit war over if he was from flint or not. I am open to the idea, just not very optimistic. I mean, he is being accused of being a government agent on this page too. Jasper23 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just finding that there are a lot of these living bio forks that are not categorized with the "Living people" category, so they are missed by the Living People Patrol's monitoring tool. Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan is another one that I just added the category to. Edit wars will get noticed more now. - Crockspot 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Good call. Jasper23 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The cleanups are obviously needed, source checking is vital but I want a better reason for a merger. The article is linked from Michael Moore and I think it deserves its own page. Its a whole list of claims people have made about his work, not per se about him; ergo: a different subject. I am not sure about Wiki's rules about this but there should be one somewhere. If someone experienced could jump in and save the day that would be greatly appreciated!. 85.223.108.141 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest this page is merged or deleted. Other controversy articles such as Controversies of Rudy Giuliani and Al Gore controversies have been merged. See WP:Content forking & WP:Criticism . Robneild (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LIVING PEOPLE!!

In case some recent editors who can't be bothered to sign in aren't aware, if it's not VERIFIABLE it shouldn't be in the article. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article contains the following paragraph:

--> Moore denied this on C-SPAN, with the statement "Michael Moore own Halliburton stock? See, that's like a great comedy line. I know it's not true - I mean, I've never owned a share of stock in my life. Anybody who knows me knows that, you know - who's gonna believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it - crazy people who tune in to the Fox News Channel." <--

After that, there are two citations that refer to the sentences *before* this one. They contain no reference to the aforementioned quote from C-SPAN. These two citations belong after the sentences which they are supporting. The C-SPAN paragraph needs its own separate citation.

I already made this revision once and it was undone. Why?

71.55.62.160 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments section

There is nothing in this section that verifies that these comments were contreversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] More information please

This page should really be re-done. If it were, it could be very interesting. Instead of just mentioning that there have been controveries or criticisms, discuss them in-depth. Someone should really talk about the media's and the public's reaction to him, list more of the actual criticisms, explain any real controversies, or perhaps even say his reactions to such criticisms and controversies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.244.167.249 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] ADHD-documentary by Gary Null

I came across this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3609599239524875493&q=The+Drugging+Of+Our+Children&hl=en documentary in which Michael Moore voices some strong opinions against the pharmaceutical companies regarding ADHD-medication. The documentary is made by Gary Null, who according to this Gary Null amongst other things claims that HIV and AIDS are unrelated... Have not found any criticism regarding Moores participation in such a project, anyone else have better luck? The footage of Moore seems to be shot specifically for the documentary, as the lighting on him is identical to the other interviewees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name (talk • contribs) 18 April 2007.

Until we have corraborating evidence it is best to leave it out of the main article. Mister Fax 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just saw the documentary, and it's seriously strange that no-one seems to have a problem with this. The documentary is the usual paranoid Scientology-inspired pseudo-scientific anti-psychaitry delusions, and Moore is sitting right there talking about how his family used to have great long family dinners, as if this has anything to do with anything else. What's the deal concerning referencin video clips? There are quite a few sites that speak of Moores involvement in the documentary, like here: http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html, featuring Mike blaming Columbine on medication instead of Bush this time. He is obviously joining the Scientologists on this one, and it should be included on this page. However, I'm a newbie, so I'll give you fellas a day to respond before editing the page. Cutting 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can this section please be less biased?

[edit] Defense

Francois Primeau's AMERICAN DISSIDENT: THE POLITICAL ART OF MICHAEL MOORE is the only extensive defense of Michael Moore's work to date. It fills the gap left by neo-conservative authors who wrote books bashing the controversial figure in the past, and puts into perspective the last 20 years of American history.

Besides being a thorough study of Michael Moore's stylistic orientations and most cherished themes, both in his feature films and television shows, it is also, and without a doubt, an effort to settle a few scores with the Right in America. Sustained by dozens of examples, the author vindicates Moore's work and methods by claiming that it is art, while deconstructing the failures of the Bush administration since 2001.

"American Dissident: The Political Art of Michael Moore" is as controversial as its subject matter. It is a lucid and ground-up analysis of Moore's project and, ultimately, a mandatory read for anyone interested in the mischievous doings of the great American patriot. (http://www.myspace.com/americandissident_book)


  • In response to the Peter Schweizer book: Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, ownership of even one share of public ly traded stock in the United States guarantees that the stock owner (or stock holder) can legally choose to attend any stock holder meetings scheduled by the company board of director and that the same stock owner can solicit to represent other stock owners by proxy vote during any company stock holder meeting that ownership votes are sought by the board of directors.

I can see what the author is trying to say, but in the absence of a quote by Michael Moore saying that that is why he owns the stock, I feel this point is not verifiable. I'm at work at the moment and struggle to log in, but I'm NatashaUK. I'll return to this and sign it when I can.212.56.97.238 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sequitor

"Stone, who is a gun-owner himself, expressed anger over what he saw as a misleading attempt by Moore to insinuate that he and Trey Parker had produced the animation, by playing these two completely separate segments consecutively[6] (the animation actually appears later on in the film)."

I haven't seen the film. Can anyone clear this up?--Heyitspeter 02:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After a story about a homicidal maniac who eats babies, we'll have a film segment about kittens!
(Several people with kittens sue)
Moore claims innocence.
That's about it, happens with every one of his films. Ronabop (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 20/20 and Wards

I attempted to verify this statement with a fact tag and was unable to find any references to it outside Wikipedia. Moving to talk.

"However, videos smuggled out of Cuba, later seen on another ABC News program, 20/20, show that the hospital wards Moore visited in the movie were really reserved for upper class citizens. The videos show that health care for lower class citizens in Cuba is much worse, with inexperienced medical professionals and appalling conditions in hospitals.[citation needed] -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian Angel?

There is nothing about that: http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1635/P50/

[edit] Renewed request to merge page

This page is a blatant violation of the Wikipedia policy on content forking. This isn't just me making a general argument trying to persuade other editors. This is a policy. We can't defeat the policies just because there are special arguments regarding Michael Moore. It has to be merged. In all honesty, I can't help but think that if such an article was made about other subjectives, the creator of the article might be warned for vandalisism or serious NPOV violations. Chicken Wing (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leak of Sicko

"Although Sicko was scheduled to be released on June 29, 2007, the film was leaked onto the Internet in June 2007.[24] Moore, who previously expressed his support for Internet downloading, denies leaking the video himself and an investigation has been held as to the source of the Internet leak."

Support of downloading (free distribution or copying) is not the same thing as support of pre-release leaking. I believe the article excerpt I quoted has to be rewritten to avoid making that assumption. --Sonjaaa (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)