Talk:Michael Moore

/Archive1 - Archived talk through Oct 2005.

POV Flag

The tone of this article is not relevant to an encyclopedic text. --Sigorni 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Specific citations are needed. Thanks. --NightMonkey 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism in general reads like a laundry list of personal vendetta. A POV warning seems necessary when an overwhelming amount of it comes from questionable sources. Does it matter that the authors of (clearly biased) Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man devoted a chapter to the opinion that Moore has Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Especially when the following clause states neither of them have training in psychology? The item about Moore calling 9/11 victims "scardey-cats" is backed by an external link to rightwingnews.com, which in turn seemingly quotes an article from The Guardian, however it no longer exists on The Guardian's server. Even if it had, it could only amount to hearsay, and shouldn't be given much gravity. --24.31.29.171 08:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the bit about "scared cats". BTW It was the Independent not the Guardian. If no-one objects in 24 hours I'm going to pull the POV tag. AlistairMcMillan 11:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote the POV tag stays. Two overly long sections give the article a strong anti-Moore bias. The "Controversies" section needs to be greatly edited down and the "Depictions" section, which seems completely unneccesary anyway, goes on and on and on. Until these two sections are either rewritten to a shorter length or eliminated altogether (which is what I feel should happen with "Depictions"), the POV flag should remain.200.122.158.40 21:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specifically point to the POV content in the Controversy section? I'm a fan of the guy but he attracts a hell of a lot of controversy, it would be a mistake to not mention that here. And we have depictions sections on other famous people, what is wrong with noting them for Moore? And where exactly is the POV in that section? AlistairMcMillan 08:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I ask myself, "Self, how could you POV push in Wikipedia, while still keeping within technical NPOV boundaries?". Since I've watched more than a few POV skirmishes over the years, one way that seems quite popular is to over-source, and over-detail, one side of an argument. So, for example, if the article is about Foo, a pro-Foo POV pusher might see that there are 10 sentences neutral or opposed to Foo, and then write 20 well-sourced sentences in favor of Foo. The neutral, pro-, and anti-Foo pushers are then compelled to do the same, just to keep an article reasonably balanced, eventually creating an article of rather severe bloat, which then has the controversy section split off into a separate entry, just to keep the parent article at least somewhat encyclopedic. So maybe the solution is to split out controversies and depictions into their own articles? Ronabop 09:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions

I feel that the depictions section is unnecessary and unhelpful. It doesn't tell us anything about him, his ideas or legitimate criticism of him. The fact that he was mocked on various television shows is irrelevant and can be said of almost any celebrity. It is one element that I feel gives an unnecessary negative POV and is atypical for an encyclopedia. Bill Clinton's page doesn't contain a description of every Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at him. Can someone explain why these "depictions" belong on Michael Moore's page?

I've removed the depictions. I am willing to leave them in if someone can explain why it is necessary and/or relevant.

It tells us how he is seen by other people for a start. It also tells us that he is willing to poke fun at himself, since he was involved in a number of them himself. And the Clinton argument doesn't work because during his time in office he was probably in skits in every Saturday Night Live. AlistairMcMillan 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared in ONE of them himself. And my point is that any famous person is going to be mocked at one point or another (the more famous they are, the more they are depicted). It doesn't offer us any actual, legitimate information. And almost always, the depictions are in a mocking tone and present the person in a negative light (regardless of whether or not that's how the public views them). 143.195.180.203 06:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope he appeared in two of them: Simpsons and the Oscar LOTR parody. What is your point about the tone of the depictions? Because they are not all positive we should pull that section? Anyway the section does tell us a lot about him: (1) he is popular enough to be depicted all over the place, (2) he has pissed off enough people for them to take the time to depict him in a negative light, (3) he has enough of a sense of humour that he can poke fun at himself. AlistairMcMillan 18:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he was involved in two of them. My mistake. Here's my suggestion: We leave in both the Oscar parody and the Simpsons appearance, because he was a part of them. Also, we leave in the Team America part because it was a result of a specific conflict the creators of the film had with him. I feel the other three should be removed. MadTV makes fun of anyone and everyone and is not the result of any legitimate criticism. Neither the Dead Ringers reference and Arrested Development depiction give us any helpful information. Also, if we agree to this, I think that Depictions should no longer be a sub-section of criticism. BTChicago 17:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to my proposed edits?BTChicago 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You still haven't explained why we shouldn't list them here. What is wrong with listing depictions? What is wrong with listing depictions that aren't positive? AlistairMcMillan 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am a fan of Michael Moore's work. But I still think it is interesting to see how other people see him, even if they don't like him. AlistairMcMillan 00:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All famous people get made fun of on MadTV and similar shows. That doesn't tell us anything about actual opinions of Moore. It simply shows that he's famous enough to be made fun of on television. However, it's clearly established through other information that he's well-known. My desire is not to remove anything that paints him in a negative light. My desire is to remove anything that's irrelevant. I want to leave on the Team America depiction, despite the fact that it is probably the most negative. The reason I want to leave it there is because it (a) shows actual criticism of his political stance and (b) the depiction was a result of an issue the creators had with Bowling for Columbine. I also agree that the fact that he's willing to make fun of himself shows us something about him. I've looked at about 20 other celebrities, both controversial and not controversial and none of them have "depictions" section. Can you refer me to someone with a section devoted to how other people have depicted them, so I can have an idea about why it belongs there? We know how people see him based on other sections? If we care so much about what random people think, are we going to have a quotes section and include anything anyone has ever said about him? Of course not. We have legitimate criticism and references that tell us something about him. I feel the depictions section should be the same. BTChicago 01:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Firstly aside from Lucas and Spielberg can you name another film director that has been made fun of on shows like MadTV, Simpsons, whatever? And assuming you can think of other directors (I can't think of any aside from Lucas, Spielberg and Moore), how many of them are documentary film directors? AlistairMcMillan 01:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stone. Mocked for JFK, Platoon, etc. Columbus, mocked for the HP films, Home Alone, etc. If you want a documentary filmmaker who has been seriously mocked, check out Leni Riefenstahl Ronabop 15:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davison Hall of Fame

I pulled this paragraph:

In 2005, Moore's home town Davison, MI was so opposed to Moore and his work that they decided to close the Davison Hall of Fame to avoid having to allow Michael Moore in. This sparked support for Moore, usually resulting in a number of 'City of Michael Moore' signs in Davison. The City has voiced dissent of these signs, and some residents have replaced them with "Davison City Limit" signs.

Does anyone have to a source or two to back this up? As far as I can find, what happened was the nine-member induction committee, that was supposed to be choosing more people to add to the Davison High School Hall of Fame decided to shut down the process for 2005 because they were against accepting Moore but people kept nominating him. [1] [2] Aside from ourselves and people who are mirroring our content, there don't seem to be any sources for people putting signs up in Davison. AlistairMcMillan 11:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Kevin McKague, from Davison, Michigan, and can provide some insight into this issue. Early in 2005, Ryan Eashoo, a Davison High School graduate, nominated Michael Moore to the Davison High School Hall of Fame. A few of the members of the nomination committee to the hall objected to the nomination, so they did indeed close the hall. I then decided to go to the Davison city council, and propose that "Hometown of Michael Moore" be added to the city limits signs. The council very politely listened to my case, but never brought up the issue for a vote. If it had, the issue was likely to fail, given the then known views of the various council members. After that, somebody placed green bumper stickers (to match the green of the already existing city signs stating "City of Flags" (our city's motto), to cover the word "flags" with "Michael Moore". The stickers were torn down after a few days, replaced several times, but always removed again. A picture of the altered "City of Michael Moore" sign can be found on the homepage of NewsFromDavison.blogspot.com: [3]

Thanks for throwing some light on this. Do you know of any online media that reported this issue in detail? Wikipedia has strict rules about information being sourced. AlistairMcMillan 19:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links on the story from the Flint Journal "kevin%20mckague"+"michael%20moore"%20AND%20date(1/1/2005%20to%208/5/2005)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/2005%20to%208/5/2005)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no and "ryan%20eashoo"%20"michael%20moore"%20AND%20date(1/1/2005%20to%208/1/2005)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/2005%20to%208/1/2005)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no. Unfortunately, the articles are only available after paying a fee. There was an article on Wonkette.com [4]about the sign campaign.

Bill O'Reilly spoke out on the issue, and believe it or not, came out on Mike's side. Here is the transcript: [5] (The transcript writer spells Davison "Davidson")

Films

Shouldn't the last paragraph in the films section be listed under "criticism?"

You're right. Done. Please remember to sign comments with four tildes, like so... ~~~~ AlistairMcMillan 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minutemen

This section his some blatant errors and needs to be edited/removed:

A recent controversy surrounds Michael Moore's public comments about the Iraq insurgency and terrorists. In a memo released on his personal website, Moore said "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy'. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?" The Minutemen were a group of elite militia in the 18th century that participated in the American Revolution as well as other conflicts in pre-Revolution America on the side of the British.

As a resident of Lexington, MA, I can tell you that the Minutemen were not a group of "elite militia" nor did they "participate on the side of the British." I don't want to go into a lengthy account of local history, but suffice to say the minutemen were not "elite" by any standards. They were a volunteer militia who were formed in preparation for a hostile response by the British. They fought against the British in what most consider to be the first battle of the Revolutionary war, the Battle of Lexington. The minutemen did not fight any battles beyond the Revolutionary war. Some members were incorporated into the U. S. army after the war, but the idea of the Minuntemen was to protect their home towns from the British. Mr. Moore may be trying to suggest the the revolutionaries in Iraq are not so different from the "Patriots" we hold in high esteem here in our own country, but this paragrpah distorts that intention.

JSnyder 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism/POV

Come on, people, I'm as big a Moore-hater as the next... heck, I'm a regular on Moorewatch. But please stop with spamming the article with incorrectly-placed diatribes against Moore and liberals in general. All it does is make us look bad. We need to keep Moore's article as factual and neutral as any while still presenting all credible information, just as any other figure would be on Wikipedia. -RannXXV 07:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8BitJake

First of all, you need to take a good long read of Wikipedia's actual definition of vandalism. You sling the term around far more often than is actually appropriate. Secondly, you cannot keep deleting things simply because you don't want to believe them, and with no evidence that you have done any checking at all to see whether they are true. Both the fact that Moore is from Davison and lives in New York, and that a tax shelter he and his wife are the sole beneficiaries of owns Halliburton stock, are available in a number of places.
The sections you removed were poorly formatted and sourced, but the solution is not deleting them simply because they are negative. People here who disagree with Moore have done their best to be neutral, reversing vandalism, removing blatant anti-Moore POV from the article... you are not returning that courtesy. -RannXXV 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"But please stop with spamming the article with incorrectly-placed diatribes against Moore and liberals in general. All it does is make us look bad. We need to keep Moore's article as factual and neutral as any while still presenting all credible information, just as any other figure would be on Wikipedia"

They made wild claims and offered no links or research to back up their claims. If you have negative things to say you better back it up with rock solid indisputable research. If you want it in you are going to need to prove it. That is basic basic journalism. --8bitJake 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make childish additions to things I have posted on the talk page, as it could be considered vandalism. You also do nothing to address the fact that the claims could in fact have been sourced, rather than simply removed. This is not a debate, it is a Wikipedia article. You are approaching this from a standpoint of "You only get to include this if I can't find a way to remove it", when the standpoint should be "Can this be sourced?" Removals should at least be mentioned on the talk page, and without you turning it into a you vs. us mentality. -RannXXV 01:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using a whole section to personally attack me and express just how much you hate me is pretty immature but I am not really shocked. I think it adds to an Us Vs Them attitude that I just am not interest in. "Come on, people, I'm as big a Moore-hater as the next... heck, I'm a regular on Moorewatch" --8bitJake 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with you is obviously pointless. -RannXXV 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Come on, people, I'm as big a Moore-hater as the next... heck, I'm a regular on Moorewatch." I have some doubts of your neutrality on the topic of Mr Moore. --8bitJake 19:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moore on Moore

Gamaliel tagged this section POV. I figure I should make an attempt at trying to stir discussion on it before removal, as I can imagine using his words against him is controversial, but it's typically bad form to put a POV tag on a section and not discuss it. --badlydrawnjeff 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got distracted by something else. The whole section is an exercise in "gotcha", pulling out quotes from obscure articles and speeches in an attempt to contradict some straw man Moore's opponents have created. The whole thing should probably go, but I figured discussion would be better than potentially starting a revert war. Gamaliel 21:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a part of the controversy that surrounds him, IE, what people see as a contradiction between the image he puts forth and the life he leads. If one were to start disqualifying such things merely because they are "an exercise in 'gotcha'", why not remove the entire criticism section? While it could be viewed as "using his words against him", when I wrote the section I intended it to be an expression of the criticism of him as hypocritical. -RannXXV 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear difference between referencing sourced, published criticism and playing gotcha with quotes in a section which doesn't appear to reference any preexisting criticism besides the Peter Schweizer book. Gamaliel 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's only really your opinion that it's "playing gotcha". There is a clear feeling by many that Moore's public persona is at odds with the way he lives. This makes it a valid note of criticism. Just because it makes him look bad does not make it any less factual, valid, or a part of the section it is put in, that being, the criticism section. A great deal of the criticism of Moore involves his (apparent) hypocrisy, and this is highlighted by quotes of his.

Saying it's POV just because it uses his own words to highlight the criticisms of hypocrisy is reminiscent of one of the courtroom scenes in the movie Liar, Liar. "Your honor, objection!" "On what grounds?" "... It makes my case look REALLY bad!"

All of the criticisms involved in this section are sourced. Any of them would turn up a number of posts on sites such as Moorewatch and Moorelies, so they are an obvious bone of contention. If you want me to source the criticisms themselves as well as the sources of Moore's quotes, I can do that, and provide them from posts that have been around for quite some time. However, all that would likely lead to is someone else saying "You've littered the article with links to an anti-Moore site, that's POV." -RannXXV 02:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an encyclopedia section such as "Bush's Claims about Himself", contrasting Bush's "claims" to be a regular guy from Texas with his long history as a privileged Ivy-League Massachusetts / Connecticut kid (etc. etc.)... it wouldn't belong in the Bush article, because it's not an encyclopedic writing style. In addition, much of this section is duplicating material already found in the article, and checking the sources provided, some things are being taken horribly out of context. Ronabop 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even were this discussion about Bush, Bush has never outright claimed to just be a "regular guy" from Texas and does not lie about his attendance to Ivy League Schools; even then, his Wikipedia article notes the "Bushisms", which have far less actual bearing on him. If it were a large bone of contention among people and was regularly posted about that his public persona and private behavior seemed to differ, then it would be notable... and in fact I believe it is noted. And could you possibly explain where in the article each of these things are duplicated, and what context these quotes by Moore were not placed in that could change their meaning? -RannXXV 06:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I believe this argument could be made about the section: Moore has said these things and done these things. This cannot be factually disputed as multiple sources and legal documents back up that he has spoken these words and taken these actions (the tax shelters, where he was born, his statements). If they are removed from the article, it will not change that these are facts, it will simply mean that the information has been removed from Wikipedia.
What I am getting at is, the section is essentially simply a statement of facts. Moore claims to be from Flint. This is a fact, as backed up from his own postings and statements. Moore is actually from Davison. This is also a fact, as backed up from official records. Critics of Moore consider this and other statements and actions of his to be hypocritical. This is a fact, as backed up by numerous forum posts which criticize him for it.
If there is a more neutral way to state these facts without removing the actual facts themselves, such as Moore's own statements and the fact that people criticize him for them, then I am for it. However, they are facts of the criticism and controversy, and thus should not be removed wholecloth or dismissed as POV.
Ronabop feels that some of the quotes have been removed from important context. I am honestly unaware of any additional context they could be placed in that would change their meaning, other than suppositional or placating statements such as "He was only joking" or "He didn't mean it like it sounded". If anyone is aware of additional context in which these could be placed that would clarify the matter, then I honestly encourage you to step up and help make it clear.
Above, 8bitJake attempted to take a quote of my own out of context and use it against me. (An odd tactic, as it was directly above and available for all to read.) I will make it very clear that I despise Moore and all that I see him as standing for... intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy, and distortion. This is precisely why I feel that all available information should be put in this article, both good and bad. I want this article to conform to the exact same standards of quality and neutrality that any other article would. This is why I have added a section on criticisms, and also why I have removed vandalism from the article repeatedly. The information I have on him is mostly negative, as that is my interest, but that in no way means I wish to stop the addition of factual, positive information as well... far from it. The article should be as thorough, complete, and neutral as possible, so that people can judge for themselves.
I believe the neutrality policy puts it thus: Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. That is how I feel the article should be approached. Lay out in exact terms what he has done and said, and since he is a controversial figure, include the controversy that surrounds him.
Sorry that I'm being long-winded... quite frankly, it's late, I'm bored, and just getting some thoughts on the whole matter out, heh. But I looked up everything I added before I placed it in, and did so in a way I considered to be whole. (The speech that the last two quotations come from is even highly praising of Moore, and thus it seems unlikely that what he said would have been distorted.) If anyone has calm, rational debate on this, I welcome it. (Just, please, no "It's right-wing POV! Fox news! War criminal!") -RannXXV 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My use of your quote was hardly out of context. It is just hard to consider your neutrality on the subject after you state your hatred for Mr. Moore. --8bitJake 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, Jake. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the section, although it might be able to use a trim. It's not so long that it's overwhelming, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, when are we actually going to get rid of this section 'Moore's claims about himself', which is clearly not appropriate in an online encyclopedia which claims to be independent and impartial? Please remember that our aim is for Wikipedia to be taken seriously as a source of information - not a platform for everyone's views about a certain subject/issue/person. The crediblity of Wikipedia has been publicly questioned recently - please let's look at the larger picture and stop bickering.Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that it needs to be cleaned up, not removed. WP's credibility hit dealt with an unchecked vandal, it doesn't apply to this daily-maintenence article or to this section. The information is verifiable and valuable, it just needs to be cleaned up and trimmed down. In fact, I'll try to do it right now and see if it works out. --badlydrawnjeff 01:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Country skills?

this is vandalism, right? i mean, the typo just tips it off.

-sparsefarce

Well, a typo doesn't mean it's vandalism. (Unless it had been spelled "Cross Cuntry skills", maybe.) But it does seem rather nonsensical and pointless... maybe it's referring to his promotional tours? But I'd say go ahead and remove it, probably, if you think it's vandalism. -RannXXV 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning old issues and posts on this page

So what exactly is the protocol for requesting a cleaning of old issues and discussions from a Discussion page like this? The length of this page is getting pretty wild. --8bitJake 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --badlydrawnjeff 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Home

I think the section about Moore's home should be better worded. There is no evidence that he uses 'various' tax shelters, and even the one about his home is misleading: it should just say exactly what we see in the New York Times article, that Moore transferred ownership of his apartment to a corporation, presumably for tax reasons. No one knows the details; in fact, he has publicly stated that he overpays his taxes. If no one comes up with anything better, I will change it myself in a few days. CoolGuy 22:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact relevant wording from the NYT article:

In December, Mr. Moore and his wife, Kathleen Glynn, transferred the deed of an apartment they own on the Upper West Side to a corporation named after Hex Raitliffe, a character in one of Mr. Moody’s novels. Papers were filed with the New York Department of State on Dec. 3 to create Hex Raitliffe L.L.C., and on Dec. 22, ownership of the couple’s condo was transferred to the corporation. It is not uncommon for condo owners to place their property under a corporate name, often for tax reasons.

Thus, yes, it's fair to say that this was due to tax reasons, unless you want to get into speculation regarding other possible reasons. "Various" appears to be accurate as he a) doesn't have to pay tax on the property as he can file as a "renter," and b) having the LLC allows for other tax write-offs that aren't available to individual/married filers, including the dividend cuts.

If anything, this section should be expanded to demonstrate these benefits to Moore, the same benefits he spends time deriding publically, before getting trimmed down further. --badlydrawnjeff 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I criticize American overdependence on gasoline, does that mean I can never drive a car again? This is nuts. Unless Moore has criticized this particular type of tax writeoff, I don't see what relevance this has at all. And none of this has anything to do with Flint. Gamaliel 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, if you're driving a car that's not good on gasoline, yet sit there and pontificate on the evils of overdependence, it is hypocritical. The amount Moore rails about the rich and their share, it's entirely relevant. --badlydrawnjeff 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Flint reference repeatedly being added to a paragraph about a New York City tax shelter? The fact that he's from Flint, or the vicinity thereof, and repeatedly mentions that does not mean he's a hypocrite if he moves away, and Flint is not even mentioned once in the NYTimes real estate article or the blog in the commented out section. Thus not only is this irrelevant, it's unsourced original research. Gamaliel 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lot of cries of "original research", mostly as an excuse when someone wants to delete something. Their idea of original research seems to be, "Well, you looked it up on the web, that means you researched it, and since it wasn't in there originally, that makes it original research!"

The Flint and New York items are linked because Moore has continued to maintain that he is from Flint. (He would not be a hypocrite if he simply moved away. The hypocrisy deals with the fact that he has moved away but still attempts to claim the "street cred" of living in a poor place.) As the section is about perceived hypocrisies, it is relevant. -RannXXV 04:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I do not wish to delete criticism of Moore. I think such sections are important and necessary parts of WP articles. I wish to delete "gotcha" strawman criticism like this nonsense. If you want to criticise Moore for pretending to be from a town slightly poorer than the town he is actually from, fine, go ahead. I believe that Bill O'Reilly has claimed a similar thing about where he grew up. But what does that have to do with where he lives now? Must someone who claims "street cred" remain on the street for the rest of his life? Gamaliel 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you come back to the whole "gotcha" thing. You have repeatedly failed to address the fact that these are oft-raised criticisms of Moore, and are all based on widely-accessible facts. Whether or not they are perceived by you to be attacks is irrelevant due to their factual nature. Most of your arguments have centered around a defense of Moore, and protesting that you dislike the criticism the article states. The criticism will still remain whether it is removed from this article, all the section is doing is, like everything else, pointing out that it exists. -RannXXV 07:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to wish away criticism if it exists. The particular half sentence is currently unsourced, and it really doesn't matter what you think my motives are for pointing that out. What matters is that if criticism goes in the article, it must represent preexisting, notable criticism and not stuff we assume is probably floating out there in cyberspace. And assuming it exists, we must present it in a NPOV manner that doesn't serve to set up and knock down strawmen like the current version of the paragraph and doesn't stick unrelated criticism together to present an unsourced, POV argument. What you or I feel is irrelevant, but the fact this unsourced criticism is utterly unrelated to the rest of the paragraph is quite relevant. Gamaliel 08:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He still hasn't corrected his website blurbs, nor has he done anything to correct recent general perception. --badlydrawnjeff 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M. Moore Fan

I saw F-9/11. I know Congressman John Tanner, who was caught in the film, personally. He says that 80% of the films content in 100% correct. So that info comes straight from the floor of the House of Representatives. I enjoyed F-9/11 and brought out things that had crossed my mind.--Bumpusmills1 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]