Talk:Michael Moore

Eagle Scout Project?

I've heard previously that his eagle scout project was itself a documentary, but I've had a hard time finding good sources to cite for this (or sources on what its content was). While eagle scout projects are not often wikipedia-level content it seems that his project might be an exception as it is work of a similar type to what he is known for as a professional. Can anyone find anything we can include on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:C201:2463:8860:68E2:CBFB:364C (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits 21 June 2019

FFS, there is no need to make everything political. The LEDE serves to identify the subject of the article and to summarize the key points of the article. Unless a person's profession is politics, we do not need to discuss the subject's political bent in the lede. John from Idegon (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

one sided article

Reading this, I can only come to the conclusion that Michael Moore never had anyone saying anything negative about him. Nothing controversial about the man, noting his particular editing skills to show his point there would be at least one or two possible points that I know of that could be inserted. As it stands, this is at best a Michael Moore bio, at worst advertising for his documentaries and his viewpoints. I think wiki should be a tad more balanced than this. 178.232.8.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Even the bits that do criticize Moore in some way give way more weight to his rebuttals than to the criticism itself.--v/r - TP 13:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If either of you think that criticism should be added, feel free to post what you're referring to and any documentation, here. I'd agree that it reads like a simple biography without critical excess...that's because this is supposed to mimic a classical encyclopedic entry, not a political diatribe. Things like racial opinions and gender opinions are not relevant to a historical placement of the person, unless there are some particular actions or lies that these opinions informed. So, unless you have some example of Moore ignoring facts (which should be put into the Wiki entries for the works, themselves, not littering his bio as well), or in Moore committing some actual act that reveals a motivation that you're accusing him of; unless you have something actually said or done (and not just something one person has claimed), it's irrelevant to this particular article. Court proceedings? Multiple witnesses/accusers? Please do tell. This is the place to work it out.Bainst (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-white racism and sexism

Moore's anti-white racism and misandry should be covered in the article: www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/12/24/michael-moore-white-guys-who-voted-for-trump-are-not-good-people-be-afraid-of-them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailsoctet (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources would be needed for that information. Breitbart is an unreliable, deprecated source per WP:RSP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart frames it one way or another, that's hardly relevant. Breitbart may not be a reliable source for how they attempt to frame his words for their own narrative. However the source of that quote is not Breitbart, but a Rolling Stone interview. 46.97.170.211 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Then provide a source for that....but referring to the subject of this article as a racist without reliable secondary sources is a WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again. John from Idegon (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not racism or sexism to say that a subgroup of white males (the ones who voted for Trump) are scary. Notice that Rolling Stone did not label Moore's comment as racism or sexism. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Planet of the Humans

Hi, it seems that since the time the “{{Update|release of controversial 'Planet of the Humans' and its rocky reception|date=April 2020}}” tag was attached to the article, editors have done a pretty good job spelling out the criticisms and/or controversies and substantiating with citations, which IMHO seems to address the concerns of the tag, so am proposing tentatively removing the tag. In any case, since Michael Moore was executive producer of the film, not the director, it seems to me that either the article on Planet of the Humans or Jeff Gibbs would be logically the more appropriate/relevant place to discuss the controversies related to the film in expanded detail. —PowerPCG5 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

dispute:Moore statement that Trump may be faking Covid-19: is a conspiracy theory

I will explain why I believe it is inappropriate to characterize Moore's statement as a conspiracy theory:

• The term implies that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. The president is known for making false statements, for pressuring his physicians to make false statements about his condition, etc. The president is willing to spin things to serve his needs.
• There's no need for a conspiracy. Trump might only need to direct one or two people to report him as having been diagnosed with Covid-19. These people may actually be sympathetic to Trump, or maybe they are just following the orders of their president. This would not be a conspiracy to fool the public, it would be the "leader of the free world" asking for their cooperation.
• Moore disclaims this as fact per se, stating merely that the possibility "has to be considered". He's not disputing that it may be a "wild and crazy idea", and this admission removes it from being properly characterized as a conspiracy theory.

Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory; Moore raising the possibility of Trump faking Covid-19 is not.

The news stories properly describe the theory, but they exercise some "journalistic license" when calling it a conspiracy theory. We must abide by our own WP:NPOV requirement and use neutral language when characterizing Moore's hypothesis. Fabrickator (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how they are using "journalistic license"? They are reporting the facts. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the "factual" aspects of the story are accurate, i.e. Moore actually did suggest that Trump might be lying about having Covid-19. In an effort to quickly convey that there is considerable doubt about Moore's speculation, the journalist uses the phrase "conspiracy theory".

This is not factual, it is a distortion of the truth, in this case, done for convenience. Conspiracy theories are actually presented as truth, while Moore presents this as speculation or an actual (perhaps improbable) theory, and he explicitly states this. Persons who are promoting a conspiracy theory assert their claims are most definitely true, there's some kind of vague group of people trying to hide the truth. Here we know exactly who is purportedly trying to hide the truth, that would be POTUS, and naturally, he needs the assistance of people who will act at his direction. And Moore is clear that this is speculation. Hence, not a conspiracy theory. Fabrickator (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Furthermore, it has no place in the lead and I'm removing it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, where did you get the weird idea that you could demand your edit not be removed? Gandydancer (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not a demand, but a polite request to prevent an edit war breaking out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

excessive citations for claim of Moore being left-wing

The lede contains a claim that Moore is left-wing, which doesn't seem likely to be highly contested. Also, there is a citation in the article for a claim regarding Moore's "left-wing populism". But the two dozen citations added to the lede seem to be a case of citation overkill. Thoughts? Fabrickator (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It has been challenged for years, thus the large amount of RSs to back the edit. I think the WP:OVERKILL is for inline citations. When it is bundled in one, it does not create clutter. The Kingfisher (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

While I realize that some of the rationale for avoiding excessive citations is addressed by "bundling", and I understand that somebody might strengthen their case by adding an extra source or two, you've gone past the point of reasonable editing practices. But I'll leave this to somebody else to handle the edit warring, and just add you to my "deep end" list. Fabrickator (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

How deep is your list? The Kingfisher (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)