Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 3

More on Flint
This Flint/Davison argument is nonsense. Flint is the fourth biggest city in Michigan with a population over 100,000. Davison is a tiny little city with a population of just over 5,000. This could be something as simple as Moore saying he is from Flint because people are more likely to have heard of the bloody place. I live in Burnside, a small town on the outskirts of Glasgow. If people ask me where I'm from, unless they are from Glasgow and have a chance of being familiar with Burnside, I'm most likely to say Glasgow. Does that make me a liar?

If someone had asked Moore, "Are you from Davison?" and he had denied it and said he was from Flint then this would be a story. But he hasn't and it isn't. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So your argument is that, even though he claims to be from Flint and has an e-mail handle that suggests he's from Flint, that since no one's been able to actually ask him about Flint or being from Davison, that it's not notable? Given the amount of criticism about his lack of addressing the Flint/Davison area, I don't think you're able to say it's "non-notable."  The fact that it continues to be a point of contention amongst Moore critics seems to indicate otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that is a point of contention means nothing. Just because people repeat something incessantly doesn't mean it has any basis in fact.


 * My argument is that people who live in the tiny little town of Davison may identify themselves as being from Flint, just because it is the big famous town right next door. My argument is that it may just be easier to say you are from Flint (where by the way Moore did work and study before moving to LA), than say you are from Davison and then have to explain where Davison is from.  AlistairMcMillan 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you've failed to grasp what Wikipedia is actually about, Alistair. The article on Michael Moore is not about making him look good. It is about presenting a realistic picture of him, and as he is such a controversial figure, that includes the controversy.
 * Also... you're still deleting comments on this talk page you don't like. This is not a good way to bolster your case, and instead makes you look like just another fan here to defend Moore from criticism, even if it's simply the notation of criticisms that already exist. -RannXXV 17:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you, so please don't try to tell me how Wikipedia works. (2) I haven't deleted anyones comments. (3) Wikipedia is not for repeating nonsense arguments from sites like MooreWatch. AlistairMcMillan 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from USA Today, not Moorewatch. Interestingly enough, you're the one who wants to add the Moorewatch links, not me.  The argument is not nonsense, it is approached in a couple books that are referenced in this article, as well as publications like the National Review and the Sydney Morning Herald, and the continued mistake that he's from Flint is passed off in the BBC and other media.  The differences between Flint and Davison are fairly clear, and it's certainly an image thing.  Unless you can give some sort of significant reason instead of an insulting "nonsense arguments" statement, the criticism should stay. --badlydrawnjeff 20:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something but where does the USA Today article say Moore is lying about where he came from? Did you even read the USA Today article, which clearly states "Davison, Mich., a suburb of Flint"? AlistairMcMillan 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) USA Today is being honest, which is more than a lot of the media can say about it. 2) If someone has asked him, and you can point out where he's been approached by it, then you'll see my protests on the matter disappear.  The economic and situational differences, combined with Moore's patent dishonesty in most other areas he delves in, makes it an extremely important note to add in.  I'm not from Worcester, Massachusetts, but from a suburb.  If the city went down the crapper and I started acting like I was from there to act as if I was deeply affected by it, then I'd be dishonest and duplicitous as well.  Just because you THINK it's a non-issue does not mean that it is, in actuality, a non-issue.  You may not be bothered by it, but many published authors and columnists and even bloggers are.  I'm sorry you're struggling to grasp that. --badlydrawnjeff 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted a non-discussed alteration of the section as it was POV. While some of the revision had merit, for the most part it removed vital information and included a defense, making it a POV addition. -RannXXV 22:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DAVISON IS A SUBURB OF FLINT. Are you guys so blinded by your dislike for Moore that you can't understand that?  If someone asked him where he was from and he said "Michigan" would that be a lie too?  How about all those times he has said he is American?  The bastard.  How can anyone stand for such duplicity?  Why don't we cover that in this article? AlistairMcMillan 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because being shrill and defensive worked so well for 8BitJake, Alistair. -RannXXV 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And ignoring questions works so much better. AlistairMcMillan 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Alistair is now having friends remove the portion of the article despite a lack of consensus on the subject. -RannXXV 02:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you aren't implying that something improper is going on simply because other editors prefer AM's version over yours. After all, that's how we reach consensus, people agreeing to prefer a particular version. Gamaliel 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's tough to reach consensus when people "concur" with a version that's reflect by an editor's view that an issue is actually a "non-issue" (in the face of evidence) and accusations that editors are "blinded by (their) dislike of Moore." --badlydrawnjeff 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "in the face of evidence" Would you care to point out this evidence please?  There is nothing that proves Moore is being duplicitous.  Moore is from Davison, which is a suburb of Flint.  Flint is a large well-known city (fourth largest in Michigan according to our own page on Flint), while Davison is a tiny city that is pretty much unknown (aside from census data, the only information on our page on Davison is that Moore was born there and who the city is named after).  No one has pointed to anything that proves that Moore isn't just taking the obvious route of naming Flint because people will known where the hell that is.  Like I said earlier, if I tell people I'm from Burnside then I have to explain where Burnside is (even about half the people in Glasgogw don't know where Burnside is), if I just tell them I'm from Glasgow they pretty much all know (even people in foreign countries like the US).


 * This IS a non-issue. No-one aside from sites that devote themselves to attacking Moore mention this issue.  If Moore went around denying he was from Davison, it would be an issue.  But he doesn't, so it ain't. AlistairMcMillan 03:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You claim it's a non-issue. You know full well that Moore critics cite this as an issue, and I have provided examples above (National Review, Sydney Morning Herald, etc).  Given Moore's penchant for misleading and outright false statements, it's a perfectly valid criticism that he's likely doing it not for simplicity's sake, but because, you know, it makes for a better story.  It's all it's about.  You call it a non-issue, but it's obvious that it is not.  If you can find an interview with Moore where he addresses the Davison issue because someone asked him about it, then you'll see my protest disappear. --badlydrawnjeff 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it too inconvenient that he went to college in Flint? That he published a magazine called the "Flint Voice"? That his father worked for 30 years in a Flint GM factory?I was raised in an unicorparated farm area, outside of the City of Tucson, but I considered myself a Tucsonan. Then I moved to Chamblee, GA, which most Atlantans would consider to be part of Metro Atlanta. Now I'm in Portland, OR... but am I really? Or am I in Rose City? Tigard? The partisans, it seem, are unhappy with Moore claiming Flint as his hometown, and even though Moore is on record that his *high school* was in Davidson, and he was first elected to public office in *Davidson*, yet he still considers *Flint* to be his hometown. I guess I better never tell the attack dogs I was a Tucsonan, they'll call me dishonest, and insinuate that I'm playing fast and loose with the facts. I'll have to say something like "I consider Tucson to be my hometown, even though I wasn't raised in the city limits, and my father worked there most of his life, and it's where I went to college"... Sheesh. If you want to add in facts about his high school and college experiences [] being in various parts of the flint metro area, fine.... but it's not exactly a controversy, so much as a paper tiger. Ronabop 06:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Given Moore's penchant for misleading and outright false statements..." Well it's good to see you are approaching this from an NPOV position.  BTW Where exactly did you cite the National Review or Sydney Morning Herald articles that cover this issue?  Either I missed the links or you forgot to include them. AlistairMcMillan 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly approaching this article from one. My personal issues with Moore are entirely different beasts, and if I wanted to make this article reflect what I felt it should really say, it'd look extremely different. --badlydrawnjeff 13:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay found the SMH link by searching Google myself, but I couldn't find any article on NR that covers this issue. AlistairMcMillan 07:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

While we're here, could someone explain something to me. Moore's father and grandfather worked in GM factories, right? Are factory workers considered middle-class in the US, because they aren't in the UK? AlistairMcMillan 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry bout that. . Also, typically, yes, but it's not entirely clear-cut from area to area.  The US is big enough where the cost of living can swing rather wildly from one area to another. --badlydrawnjeff 13:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that it? That article doesn't say anything about the issue except these five words "it ain't Flint, but Davison".  That would be a source to prove that he is from Davison not Flint.  However it is not a source to back up the claim that Moore is deliberately lying about his origins. AlistairMcMillan 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-written again. I still think this is a nonsense argument and would rather it wasn't mentioned at all. AlistairMcMillan 21:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You've yet again rewritten it in an entirely defensive, POV manner. You're rewriting it for the specific purpose of defending him rather than noting the criticism in an impartial manner, and again without consensus. REVERTED. -RannXXV 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all have you actually read the USA Today and Sunday Morning Herald articles? Do you realize that the USA Today article doesn't cover this issue at all? Not even in the slightest. All it does is say he is from Davison, which no-one is disputing and is already covered elsewhere on this page.

Secondly do you understand NPOV? If someone accuses Moore of lying, we can say that someone is accusing Moore of lying but we can't just say Moore is lying.

Thirdly I'm re-writing it to attempt to reach a compromise. I think the argument is stupid for reasons I have explained above. Again I ask, when I say I am from Glasgow (when I am actually from a suburb of Glasgow called Burnside) does that make me a liar? I would just delete the paragraph totally, but since I know you and Badlydrawnjeff will just revert again, I'm trying to work towards a version we can both accept. AlistairMcMillan 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I surely hope, given your recent spate of edits on the article, that you're not attempting to lecture anyone on NPOV. As for the third, if you make a career out of discussing the downfalls of Glasgow, present yourself as from Glasgow, sign off your edits as "Alistair, the Guy from Glasgow," and use a AMcGlasgow e-mail handle, yet you're not from Glasgow, yes, it is a cause for some criticism.  If you have a track record like Moore's, perhaps it goes further than criticism.  I'm glad you've finally come around to actually trying to find a workable version, but there's still a ways to go when the lectures come out. --badlydrawnjeff 02:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You institute your edits without discussing them. You also display intellectual dishonesty... the article did not say he was lying, it said his critics found his statements and reality at odds. (You yourself are thus lying, or at the very least being deceptive.) I could more ask if it is you who understands NPOV, since every time you do one of these rewrites or have one of your friends/meatpuppets do them for you, you downplay the criticism and push a defense of Moore in its place. -RannXXV 01:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW Any chance of an apology for the accusation that "you're still deleting comments on this talk page you don't like"? Or do you have no problem with making false accusations? AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, I apologize for mixing you up with a different shrill, insipid Michael moore defender. -RannXXV 01:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, apologize for one insult with another. WP:NPA AlistairMcMillan 01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What, because you've been the soul of politeness, rationality, and consideration? You've been behaving like a child towards me since the start, just because you didn't come out and say a directly insulting word doesn't mean you haven't been using personal attacks. -RannXXV 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So I've been personally attacking, but there is no evidence? I'm ungenious. WA-HA-HA-HA!!! AlistairMcMillan 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Would suggest adding the word "Flint" so that the first sentence of Early Life reads: "...and grew up in a Flint suburb called Davison...." The way it stands now, it is a touch ambiguous. This is not a judgment on the issue at hand, but more a clarity issue. Applejuicefool 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is going on?! What is he a rapper now? Is he being accused of frontin? Does any of this affect his credibility?? no. why does it matter? he says he's from flint cause davidson is a suburb of flint and people know where that is. Anytime anyone askes for a clearer answer he gives it. The reality of what happened to Flint is uncompromised. And I think the fact that people in his family worked for GM gives him a right to act upset. If you want to call someone a liar I dont think its justified here. --Matt D 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The end of the Flint issue
I've sent the following e-mail to Michael Moore via the e-mail address provided on his home page:

"This may seem like a bizarre e-mail but I want to finally put to sleep a ridiculous and trivial issue that your opponents are using to defame you and which is ruining the Wikipedia article on you due to childish arguments amongst otherwise intelligent people.

The issue is that you spent most of your childhood life not in the actual city of Flint but in a suburb of Flint, Davidson. The article has been prevented from being edited until this issue is resolved.

What I’m asking is that you put a small article on your website detailing the fact that you lived in a suburb of Flint and not the actual city (Include the fact that went to high school in flint, published the flint voice and that many of your close family members worked at auto plants in Flint). Your opponents on the site claim that as soon as you say you’re from Davidson and that you only claimed to be from Flint because most people wouldn’t know where the hell Davidson is they will remove the article. If they don’t remove the article then it will be clear who the real hypocrites are.

George Miller."

If he writes such an article can you please stop arguing about this ridiculous issue. simpsons_contributor 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Hi, here from RfC. I hope I can help unify those involved in this dispute by suggesting, gently but firmly, that none of you is in the right here. Both versions of Flint v. Davison are POV, albeit one aggressively, one defensively. Neither will do. And as for "no-one has established whether Moore did or did not have a middle-class upbringing," well, I can cite a piece in Vanity Fair, March 2005, p. 247 which states clearly he was. "However, he actually grew up, as few of his fans know, in nearby Davison, a mostly white, middle-class community." The article goes on to give evidence of Moore's father's middle-classness. That said, the issue is not: Michael Moore is/is not a huge liar. The issue is whether he has, or is widely believed (regardless of how sketchy the circles may be) to have misrepresented his origins, explicitly or tacitly. I think that there is ample evidence that people believe Moore has deliberately allowed people to believe something about himself that isn't true. Whether they are justified in this belief is something for Wikipedia readers to decide, not Wikipedia editors. IronDuke 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about this article? Can you quote the parts that say his family was middle class?  I'm genuinely curious. AlistairMcMillan 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why I'm not objecting to the rewrite as such. As noted, parts of others of Alistair's edits have had merit and been acceptable. However, he always turns them around into essentially trying to defend Moore, and in fact grows more and more defensive as edits continue, rather than attempting to reach any sort of middle ground or consensus. -RannXXV 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the article in question. The part where it says that his father sent three children to school more or less indicates that he was middle class (for an American, anyway). Whether that ends up being solidly middle-class or lower-middle class, I cannot say. IronDuke 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the part where it says he was an assembly line worker? Working class kids go to college too you know.  AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Assembly line workers made good money in the 50's. And Moore, apparently, came from a two-income home. And they lived in a middle-class suburb. And three kids went to college. I guess it's possible they were somehow secretly poor, but I very much doubt it. And there's this: "Michael Moore was born on April 23, 1954 in Davison, Michigan, a lily-white middle class suburb 10 miles east of Flint. His father Frank assembled AC spark plugs, and his mother was a clerk-secretary, for General Motors (GM) in Flint. For a few decades following World War II, America's global power (relative to war-shattered Europe and Japan) and the benefits provided to employees by GM and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union made life pleasant. Moore's parents enjoyed ample income, free medical and dental care, four weeks of paid vacation each year, and had two cars in their well-to-do Davison home. Moore's Irish-American father had spent workday afternoons playing golf. After he retired at age 53 with a full pension, he enjoyed a life of ease, golf and volunteer work at the local Roman Catholic church." IronDuke 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah cause that site ain't biased. :)  And none of their information is sourced.  Wonderful.  AlistairMcMillan 04:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I REALLY think we need to include the part where he killed his school principal. AlistairMcMillan 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said before it was wrongfully removed, I think Alistair can be written off as a troll due to his sarcastic and snide comments, continuous institution of edits on subjects consensus has not been reached on, and refusal to compromise. I think this is compounded by the fact that his friend/meatpuppet Gamaliel removed this comment previously. -RannXXV 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From IronDuke's source at thediscovernetwork.org, "At 18 Moore ran for city school board on a simple platform: "Fire the Principal." He won. The Principal, who had been kind to Moore as a child, resigned and died soon thereafter of a heart attack." Sorry doesn't that imply he was responsible for the principal's death? AlistairMcMillan 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling other editors names is not helpful or productive in any way and is a violation of No personal attacks. Let's try to keep this civil, shall we? Gamaliel 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rann, please read Civility and Assume good faith. Your restoration and expansion of your personal attack does not get us any closer to a solution. Imagine if AM had accused you of being a "meatpuppet" of Badlydrawnjeff just because the two of you agree.  What would you think of that? Consider your comments from that perspective. Gamaliel 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should direct your friend to them as well, as he has consistently acted more as if he is trying to win an argument than as if he is trying to reach a consensus, from the very start. And I refer to you as a meatpuppet because you consistently take actions that augment what he is trying to do when doing them himself might be inconvenient, such as making changes to the disputed section for him (to help him avoid the 3RR) or deleting comments about him that might damage his credibility. -RannXXV 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * AM and I happen to concur on what we feel is a proper NPOV way of presenting this information. Note that I first complained about this section on December 21, a full 10 days before AM's first comment on the matter, so you could just as well call him my meatpuppet.  Regardless, I have no interest in his credibility; my interests are in WP policies such as No personal attacks and in insuring this talk page is productive and does not degenerate into an insult fest.  Your comments are not productive in any way and do not bring us any closer to a solution.  Let's focus on issues and not personalities. Gamaliel 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's odd that you claim that you're here to promote NPOV and don't want personalities to get involved, yet when AM becomes snide, sarcastic, rude, and unproductive, you are curiously silent, and instead show him support, and choose only to censure those on the other side of the argument from yourself. If this is a display of how Wikipedia administrators handle themselves, I am not impressed by their process for choosing them. -RannXXV 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel that AM has acted inappropriately, feel free to report his specific behavior to myself or another administrator of your choosing. You are not, however, free to retaliate by escalating matters with namecalling.  Gamaliel 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Is some of the confusion and contention arising out of how people are defining "middle class" and "working class" and "poor" in various contexts? From the (now) above-mocked source: 'Moore and his two younger sisters "were raised in what amounted to a mini-welfare state, where powerful unions took care of most of their members' basic needs, right down to prescription eyeglasses,"'... this seems to indicate that they weren't so wealthy as to even afford the simple luxury of private health care, which I would say is definitely a low-middle-to-lower class situation. Some sources seem to think Davison was wealthy, some working class, etc. But getting back to the original point, can we find citations where Moore is actually misrepresenting the wealth of his roots, rather than people claiming misrepresentation? And if there are no sources that we can find where Moore is actively saying something like "I grew up poor in a dirt shack", shouldn't the article note the strawman attack of claiming that Moore is representing himself in a way that he never actually has? Ronabop 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the problem there don't seem to be any sources that go anywhere near really proving whether Moore has a middle-class or working-class background. There are lots of sources where people accuse Moore of mis-representing his background, but no way to know whether they are basing that on fact or just supposition.  Everyone just seems to be making the lead that since Davison on average has a higher standard of living (our own pages on Davison and Flint prove that) that Moore must have too. AlistairMcMillan 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:RFC, Michael Moore is from Davison, not Flint, and the fact that he claims to be from a place where he is not, for apparently political reasons, is worth noting. MSTCrow 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats all shiney and stuff, but could you provide a source that proves he does this? BTW You are aware that Davison is a suburb of Flint right? AlistairMcMillan 08:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man, various internet sites, etc. I think you're being insincere. MSTCrow 09:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm just glad we finally have someone who is really willing to debate the real issues here. Thank you sir.  I guess all those people were wrong, Wikipedia really does work. AlistairMcMillan 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Where was Moore born?
Hey uhm, does anyone happen to know which hospital Moore was born in? Cause Davison doesn't seem to have any. AlistairMcMillan 12:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And here is a 2004 Rolling Stone interview posted on his own site that says "At the moment, Moore is behind the wheel of his red Chrysler minivan, giving me a tour of Davison, the little town just outside Flint where he spent his childhood." Isn't he supposed to be going around creating the illusion that he grew up in some Flint slum?  Not very smart taking a Rolling Stone reporter to the place where he actually grew up.  Unless it is part of some devious plan... AlistairMcMillan 12:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cease trolling this discussion page. -RannXXV 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Some peoples' intellectual dishonesty truly knows no bounds. People clearly dispute that Moore is from Flint, so the removal was completely against consensus. The argument is a red herring of the like that Moore would use himself, in that since it could be twisted to be partially true, it obviously is completely true. Moore is not from Flint. I don't care if Davison is a suburb of Flint, that does not mean they are a single entity. I am from Arlington, which is a suburb of Dallas, but that does not mean I am from Dallas, and I would be lying if I said I was. Moore is not from Flint. There, it's denied that he's from Flint, care to try and come up with some other reason for hiding criticisms of him? -RannXXV 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know which hospital Moore was born in? Do you know if there are any hospitals in Davison?  Could you please try to back up your edits with evidence instead of just sticking to Moorewatch talking points? AlistairMcMillan 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So the hospital you're born in is what defines where you're from, rather than where you grew up? Funny, I've never heard that definition before. And could you please try to reach some sort of consensus before pushing intellectually dishonest POV edits? (Oh, and before you start claiming personal attacks or some such, it would only be a personal attack if I were not being literally true in what I said. If I were, for example, to call you an asshole, that would be a personal attack, as you are not literally a sphincter involved in the excresion of waste materials. However, as you are being very literally intellectually dishonest, that is not an attack but a statement of fact.) -RannXXV 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, this is really too much. I don't care about your interpretation of WP:NPA, this is nothing more than a roundabout way of calling someone an asshole.  This is your second warning.  If you continue to disrupt this page by insulting others and violate WP:NPA, you will be blocked. Gamaliel 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocking someone you're involved in an argument with? Funny, I seem to recall that Alistair was in some hot water over the same thing after taking a glance at his talk page. And your interpretation of what I said is your own, I was merely offering up an example. But you, too, are intellectually dishonest, so I'm not surprised. -RannXXV 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content. Comment on content, not on contributors, then the dispute will be resolved a lot faster and everybody can go their separate ways to other articles. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore was born in St. Joseph's hospital in Flint, Michigan. He said this in a speech given in November when he accepted an award at Mott Community College in Flint. I was at the award presentation, and the speech is available here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e112305_moore.rm (real player required) from C-Span. During the interview, he also talks about being from Davison. The hospital was torn down a few years ago. He grew up in Davison, a very short distance from Flint. It is not at all unusual or disengeuous for one who lives in a suburb to state he is from the larger community when describing himself to outsiders. I for one, grew up in Novi, Michigan. Do you know where that is? Probably not, which is why, when visiting other states or countries, I introduce myself as one who comes from Detroit. Does that make me a liar? Surely those opposed to Michael Moore's political viewpoint can find something better to argue about than where he is from. ---Kevin McKague, Davison, MI

Page Protection
As Alistair and his friends cannot act in accordance with consensus and continue to "move the goalposts" as they see fit to meet their own personal requirements to remove the notations of criticism, I have reverted it to the last version before the removal and requested a page protection. -RannXXV 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore was born in St. Joseph's hospital in Flint, Michigan. He grew up in Davison, a very short distance from Flint. It is not at all unusual or disengeuous for one who lives in a suburb to state he is from the larger community when describing himself to outsiders. I for one, grew up in Novi, Michigan. Do you know where that is? Probably not, which is why, when visiting other states or countries, I introduce myself as one who comes from Detroit. Does that make me a liar? Surely those opposed to Michael Moore's political viewpoint can find something better to argue about than where he is from.


 * Does that make me a liar?
 * Yes. -RannXXV 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as soon as this article is unprotected, I need to remove the link in the fan site section listing for "News From Davison, Michigan". I have retired the site, so the link no longer works. Perhaps somebody with the power to do so will do that for me? User:Kevin mckague/ KevinMcKague

A couple of thoughts...
"Depictions of Moore" is a dumb-ass idea. There's already a "criticisms" section. A section of "people who make fun of Michael Moore and how they did it" is redundant, silly, and very un-encyclopaedic.

On the other side of the scale, all of Moore's detractors are not necessarily conservative. The sprinking of "conservative critics" throughout the document leads the reader to believe that all criticisms levelled at Moore are by definition partisan, when they really aren't.


 * Agreed, on both counts. I think the depictions of Moore should probably remain, as it's notable that some people have decided to mock him, but if multiple people said it should come out, I wouldn't shed a tear. (I think the exception might be the one in Team America, as that exists due to a specific disagreement between Moore and other prominent creators of media. It's noteworthy in that it was a response to Parker and Stone feeling that they were wronged, but as a footnote.) Also, the whole thing of "conservative critics" really doesn't fit well... it's as someone I know once said of a report about the shooter of Larry Flynt that described the attacker as a "right-wing extremist": "How do they know? They never caught the guy, they don't even have any real suspects." In fact, the Bowling for Columbine article notes criticisms of Moore from both Conservative and Liberal sources. -RannXXV 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This section should stay, as notable pop culture appearances are worth mentioning. We should be careful not to let it degenerate into a laundry list of every time Moore is mentioned on TV, and perhaps some of the less important references (Family Guy and Dead Ringers perhaps) can be removed. Gamaliel 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the depictions are irrelevant. Pop culture appearances are significant, but I agree that every time he gets made fun of on TV does not constitute an encyclopedia reference. MadTV, Arrested Development, etc. should go. BTChicago 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected
...please work out your differences here, and remember that assertions must be sourced. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So, which is it?
In all honesty, which? I am trying to be calm here, though I know my temper has gotten the better of me somewhat in the face of what I perceive as intellectual dishonesty and threats to abuse power. But truthfully, I'm wondering, because we've seen several arguments from the pro-Moore "Take the whole thing out!" people on this page. The second argument seems to be used when the first one is argued against. Neither make much sense, to my mind. Saying that a suburb is the same thing as the city which it is connected to seems almost ridiculous, as if saying that a child is not at all a separate entity from its parents and the two were interchangable. For example, I'm from Arlington, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. Now, probably not that many people have heard of Arlington, but would it be right for me to say I'm from Dallas? After all, Dallas carries with it a certain image in peoples' minds and might change the way they looked at me, whereas they might otherwise say "Arlington? Where's that?" So if I were to claim to be from the "big city" when I'm not, I would be influencing others' perceptions with a falsehood... I'm not FROM Dallas, I'm just from NEAR Dallas. The other argument just borders on the ridiculous, claiming that Moore can truthfully claim to be from Flint just because he might (and no evidence has been given to support this) have been born in a hospital there. If someone was born in a hospital in Canada where their parents were on vacation and then immediately went back with them to live the rest of their lives in Oklahoma, would they then be a Canadian? All this aside... I notice that the entire section seems to have disappeared, not just this disputed passage. -RannXXV 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Davison is a suburb of Flint, therefore, Moore can claim to be from Flint truthfully.
 * Moore may have been born in a hospital in Flint, and thus it is truthful for him to say he is from there.


 * Good points, Rann. I think you miss one argument, though:
 * Moore has never claimed to "be" from Flint in the sense of having grown up there, therefore no controversy exists.
 * I think what's being missed by the people who do not want this Davison v. Flint information in the article is that they want to take issue with the claims themselves, rather than the existence of the claims. This is frequent on WP. For example, if an article stated "Many people believe that the Houston Texans are a horrible football team," some editors might jump on that, saying "The Houston Texans are great and you have no real proof they're not." The Houston Texans may indeed be great, but what is at issue is the perception of the Houston Texans, and they are perceived to be a cruddy football team. Just so in this article. People believe (perhaps wrongly) that Moore implies that he is from Flint (although it could be argued that he in fact is from Flint). What's important here is not whether Moore is a hypocritical gasbag or the truthiest truth teller who ever lived: what matters is that there is a palpable controversy, and the article should reflect that. Having said that, the whole controversy section is a bit bloated and unfocused. When the dust settles, someone should go over it for clarity. IronDuke 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Davison in Flint's Metropolitan Statistical Area? This is the silliest RfC I've seen in a while. I vote to keep the page protected until both sides of this "debate" promise not to relax and take Yoga or Tai Chi or something. &mdash;James S. 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I just had a nice yummy gardenburger and a good two-handed sword workout (not into yoga, sorry), and thought to myself: "Self, how far apart are these two places, *really*?" Well, guess what.... we can pretty much trash the supposedly "credible" sources acting as if Davison was some "distant" or "removed" or "separate" or even "bedroom" community. It seems that those sources are the ones blatantly fabricating data and manipulating perceptions to grind an axe. See: http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=Flint,+MI Guess what: Davison is a whopping 3-5 *minutes* going east on I-69 from Downtown flint. Not 15 minutes, not 30 minutes, not an isolated suburb... it's just as much Flint as Burton, Grand Blanc, Clayton, and Mt Morris are. It barely even qualifies as a suburb, it's more like a local neighborhood of Flint, as it's legal border is a whopping 2 miles from Flint's legal border.. For comparison, Rann, Arlington is at *least* (on a good day) 15-20 minutes from downtown Dallas (going east on the 30), right? I do agree that's a totally different thing, as you're passing through other city zones (Grand Prarie), just to get *near* to the Dallas downtown. Anyways, addressing IronDuke's point, maybe what we need to do is point out that yes, some people have tried to make a "controversy" out of it, and here are some independantly sourced facts about it, showing how the controversy *itself* may be a misleading fabrication, rather than Moore's statements. Ronabop 07:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because that's not POV at all. But I expect it from an intellectually dishonest liar. Because it doesn't matter if it's ten minutes or a half step from Flint. It has a different name, it's a different place. -RannXXV 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC
This entire debate is incredibly silly. I'll illustrate by example. Another nationally known and controversial public figure spent his formative years in Michigan. When he moved to New York City as a young man he went by the nickname "Detroit Red." Actually he had never lived in Detroit. He had lived in Lansing and had attended a nearly all-white school. Later he stated this publicly in his autobiography with the comment that he told people he was from the nearest big city because Detroit is better known than Lansing. No one attempted to raise that as an issue to challenge his clout. This other public figure was Malcolm X. Of course name the suburb where Michael Moore grew up. Name it and move on. It's trivial. Durova 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is purely just my own opinion, but I'd figure it's just for ease of reference. I'm technically from Pasadena, Texas, a suburb of Houston, but nobody knows where Pasadena is, so for ease of reference I usually just tell people I'm from Houston. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But, as I've said to others, you didn't build your career on the ills of Houston. You don't claim to be from Houston in order to present yourself as an aggrieved party.  There's no question that a) Moore has done that, and b) that his lack of addressing the situation, even as a throwaway, has become a sticking point. --badlydrawnjeff 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's sort of interesting I guess, but not really material to the article unless you can cite published criticism from someone else. If that's possible, I don't see why it can't be included if it's properly cited.  If there's no such criticism, it's not really appropriate for the article.  (I don't know personally, it could well exist, I've just never looked for it.) &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The people who want to make this into an issue bear the burden of establishing any widespread challenge to this longstanding custom. It seems to exist only among the political opponents of Michael Moore.  As such it's an example of the Irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy and sub-encyclopedic. Durova 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are numerous books, newspapers, magazines, and websites that have discussed or mentioned the "Moore isn't from Flint" connection. I'm honestly not even sure why this is still a question as to whether it truly exists as a criticism. --badlydrawnjeff 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you provide a few sources? That would be helpful. THanks. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnotes 7 and 8 above. They've been posted here already. --badlydrawnjeff 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You did read my response to 8 above right? It doesn't cover the issue at all. AlistairMcMillan 20:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It mentions it, much like many others. --badlydrawnjeff 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you mind listing some of these "many others"? AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be asserting is that argumentum ad populum negates the Irrelevant conclusion fallacy. Two logically flawed arguments are as irrelevant as one.  Demonstrate instead that the custom is in general decline: that people from surburbs no longer claim origin from the parent metropolis or that anyone other than Michael Moore has faced criticism on this basis. Durova 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, when did a criticism have to be published to be notable? As well, published criticisms were noted in the sections (which Gamaliel removed completely as well as the debated section, to get his preferred version in under the page protection I'd already announced). But also, does criticism have to now be published in a magazine or newspaper before it's considered notable? Moore's apparent tendency to misrepresent himself has been noted in blog posts by people on both sides of the aisle, therefore it's a criticism. Whether it's considered valid or not is not the issue, but rather that it is a widely spread point of contention.

But in the end, I suppose it doesn't matter. Some people have made it clear that they prefer to remove notations of criticism and, rather than argue that it is not suitable to the article, simply make arguments that it is invalid and should not be included. This intellectually dishonest behavior proves that they don't have much of a leg to stand on, and people will still be able to find the truth eventually, at websites other than Wikipedia. -RannXXV 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To your question about "when a criticism has to be published to be notable," that's Wikipedia's policy. Read Verifiability and Cite sources. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your statement. Are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?  I followed a request for comment about a specific matter.  If he has misrepresented his background in some sort of substantive way than that could be encyclopedic and worthy of discussion.  I might as well mention (since it's on my user page and germane to some of Moore's work) that I'm a war veteran.  I found Farenheit 9/11 very hard to watch although - with a well developed sense of irony - some of my friends in the service and I had enjoyed Bowling for Columbine in the gun mount.  I'm neutral about Moore and his politics. Durova 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

well if you look at the film bowling for columbine at the start of the picture, you will hear the man himself saying I was born and raised in flint michigan. I do however respect both your views on the arguments and believe you are right. I just wanted to add my thoughts. --Alexstorer 21:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Alexstorer

Is this an attempt by someone at giving out Michael Moore's full home address so that people can harass and stalk him? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, where the answer is no. I'd also oppose any attempts to do so, but I doubt that's anyone's intent here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
I read the two sources Jeff referenced (thanks for pointing me upwards). One is a link to Michael Moore's site, which obviously is not going to contain criticism of himself. The second contains one throwaway quote from a random Man on the Street griping about his being from a community 13 miles away. We're going to need more than that to hang a criticism on. Can you provide it? This really needs more sourcing. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what is funny. I'm the one opposing this paragraph and also it seems the only one capable of backing up the Flint/Davison "controversy" with sources.  Ain't that grand.


 * As far as I know, David Hardy (who runs mooreexposed.com) and Jason Clark (who runs moorelies.com) first brought up the issue in their book "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" on page 18: "In fact, Moore was born and raised in Davison, Michigan, and attended Davison High School. While Davison is near Flint, proximity doesn't translate to similarity between the two towns.  Davison is the wealthy, white 'bedroom town' of the area, largely inhabited by management, not labor, Davison's median household income is one and a half times that of Flint's, and its median house value is just over twice that of Flint's, Davison's 2000 unemployment rate was a minus 4.6 percent, a third that of Flint's, and it's poverty rate was half the national average.  Davison is also lily-white to a staggering degree: African-Americans make up only one-half of one percent of its population."  If you check the sources listed at the back of their book you'll see the "fact" that he was born in Davison is pulled from the Michael Moore FAQ.  Which funnily enough says Moore was born in Flint in section 1.1 and born in Davison in 1.6.  Big points for consistency to them.
 * The issue was also covered on MooreWatch.com. But they are just repeating the stuff in Hardy and Clark's book, with no research to back up what they are saying.
 * The issue was also covered in the Australian Sunday Morning Herald (as linked above). Again though they are just repeating "facts" from the book.
 * And that seems to be about it. Everyone else who mentions this issue seems to get it from one of these three sources.
 * AlistairMcMillan 04:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also for what its worth, which may be nothing at all, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Moore spent at least some of life in Flint. In a small apartment above a laundrette or something like that.  I seem to remember that his family only moved to Davison after his sisters were born.  Unfortunately I can't remember where I read that, and I've been looking all week without being able to locate that information.  I know without a source to back that up it is worthless here, but I'm hoping maybe someone else might know a source... Kevin maybe?  AlistairMcMillan 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe people still argue about this. I have checked with my sources, and they say that Mike spent the first few years of his life on the east side of Flint, where he attended St. Mary's church, after being born in the old St. Joseph's (since demolished) hospital in Flint.  I'm still working on on-line sources which can be cited.  Mike referred to this Davison/Flint "controversy" in his acceptance speech for the first annual Paul Wellstone award given at Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan.  C-Span covered the event, and a RealPlayer clip is available [rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e112305_moore.rm here].   Kevin mckague
 * Darn...I'm still working on how to make links. Just cut and paste that rtsp... link to see the video.   Kevin, Davison, MI

Quote section
Uhm, why do we have the same quote listed twice? Ronabop 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the shorter version. Ronabop 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You've made the big time
I noticed this while I was browsing. Lamest edit wars ever Durova 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed.
 * Well, the criticism can be sourced, it seems to me that it should be included, although it shouldn't take up a whole lot of space, since most of it seems to be stemming from that book. A line or two at most I'd say. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have to disagree. This controversy was cooked up by a bunch of people who are blatantly opposed to Moore.  Their argument is (1) badly sourced and (2) nonsense.  Moore has stated quite clearly a number of times that he came from Davison, he has never tried to hide it.  The people who originated the argument (Hardy and Clark) actually use one of his statements to prove that he grew up in Davison, so how can they then argue that he is trying to hide the fact that he grew up in Davison?  AlistairMcMillan 15:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV allows for a multitude of sourced viewpoints regardless of whether they may or may not be true; Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth (read Verifiability. We as editors don't pass judgment on whether a criticism is "nonsense" or not (or true or not). A rebuttal can also be added. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We are obligated to report multiple sourced points of view, but we're not obligated to record and preserve every minor anti-Moore talking point. Gamaliel 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, it doesn't have to be a significant part of the article. A line or two would suffice. (BTW, I agree that every little criticism doesn't need to be in here. But someone thought this was appropriate for inclusion, enough so to edit war over it, so I'm trying to find a solution palatable to all. Include it, but not much of it.) &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say published criticism with a) a basis in reality and b) isn't a blatant ad-hom (i.e. "Moore is fat.") has a place. Demeaning them as "anti-Moore talking points" isn't exactly a worthwhile criticism of them.  --badlydrawnjeff 17:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that 100% percent. Unfortunately this argument doesn't have a basis in reality.  The whole idea is that Moore is lying about his origins to somehow profit form the illusion that he grew up poor.  Except the only reason the people accusing him of this supposed deception know that he lived in Davison is because he has gone around telling people himself (check the sources at the back of the Hardy/Clark book for yourself if you don't believe me).  And even if he did go around lying about living in Davison (which he clearly doesn't) the fact that he grew up in Davison doesn't prove either way whether he grew up poor or middle-class.  The whole argument is basically jumping to conclusion based on bad logic and no evidence. AlistairMcMillan 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, assuming my test is agreed to, it isn't a blatant ad hom, and it does have a basis in reality because he does claim to be from Flint, likely for the purposes of making a point given what we know about democraphics. I mean, we can keep running around and around in circles on this, but it's a published, verifiable, and real criticism.  What else do you need? This isn't "Michael Moore is obese," or "Michael Moore eats children."  --badlydrawnjeff 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Moore sometimes says he is from Flint and sometimes says Davison. Unfortunately no one has established why.  No one has even established how much of his childhood he spent in Davison.  We don't even have a definitive source on where he was born.  And as a number of editors have pointed out, he could be saying "Flint" instead of "Davison" for completely innocent reasons .  AlistairMcMillan 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, as noted otherwise and as the section noted at one stage of this stalemate, the section could easily read something similar "Moore's critics note that he claims to be from Flint, going as far as to use it in his handle and sign e-mails that he's from Flint. The critics note that Davison, his actual childhood hometown, is a middle class community as opposed to the lower class of Flint.  Those who reject this criticism note Moore's inconsistency in discussing his hometown, as well as indicate Davison's proximity to Flint."  It'd need to be fleshed out a little better, but what's the problem with this, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, it's probably best to forget it. If they were really just interested in being honest about this one criticism, they wouldn't have just flat-out removed the entire section about criticisms of Moore's hypocrisy, including his contradictions about his feelings on big business and taxes. They want the criticism hushed up or hidden entirely, hoping for an out of sight, out of mind approach. It's okay. As a Moore supporter said further down, "it reflects more on them", and the truth will out. -RannXXV 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is the whole problem - the world isn't divided into MM "supporters" and MM "critics". Calling me a MM supporter is as ridiculous as calling me a Marxist because I think Groucho's quite funny. MM made F9/11 and Bush got voted in with a big majority. Don't get so agitated about this guy. Camillus (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of lightening the mood I'd like to invite you to a new humor page. Talk page highlights Regards, Durova 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this controversy for some time, and the amount of arguing over this small point is astounding. Personally, I quite like Moore, but I wouldn't say I take him very seriously; I also read P.J. O'Rourke, and I don't take him too seriously either. I think most readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether a criticism has significance or not. If anti-Moore critics want to harp on about this, then let them, IMO it reflects more on them than on him. One sentence should cover it. I've said what I want to say, and will not be returning to add any more to this already overflowing storm-in-a-tea-cup. Camillus (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Camillus. I'll people perfectly honest:  I can't stand Michael Moore.  In addition to suffering from the worst case of white guilt in history, he's fat and ugly.  But even I could  care less where he said he was from as opposed to where he actually came from.  You're fighting over scraps while the main course is being served.  Lawyer2b 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. - This reminds me of the great debate they had in The Name of the Rose, namely, "Did Christ own the clothes he wore?" Lawyer2b 04:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Category
I propose that Category:Michael Moore be created, since there are already two subcategories (books and films by him) and any related articles can be placed there. Paul 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC) OK, I created the category...someone ought to remove the other categories here and put them on the category page. Paul 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can an admin please put this article in Category:Michael Moore? Thanks Paul 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected
Discussions have slowed, so I have unprotected the article. Please avoid edit warring; continue to work toward a consensus. Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 17:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to put this behind us...
...and let those who have a legitimate issue (i.e., "it's nonsense" is, uh, nonsense) with a sourced, realistic version of this speak now or forever hold their peace:
 * "Moore's critics note that he claims to be from Flint, going as far as to use it in his handle and sign e-mails that he's from Flint (source). The critics note that Davison, his actual childhood hometown, is a middle class community as opposed to the lower class of Flint(source). However, those who reject this criticism note Moore's inconsistency in discussing his hometown(sources), as well as indicate Davison's proximity to Flint(source)."

Final thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just watched Farenheit 9/11 last night. Moore refers to Flint as "my hometown." He also does this many times in Columbine. IronDuke 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From: "The Official Farenheit 9/11 reader", ISBN 0-7432-7292-7pp 91: (Referring to recruiting soldiers) "(Places like)... my Hometown of Flint, Michigan". I read the whole script tonight, Flint is mentioned 5 times by my count, with Moore referring to it as his hometown that one time, and other references in the move referring to other area residents. The later "Mall" scene stated that the recruiters avoided the wealthier Genessee Valley Mall (SW of Flint, characterized by Moore as "in the suburbs", so he does think Flint has suburbs), and instead went to "the other mall" (identified from the movie as Courtland Center, a mall in between Davison and Downtown flint)... sure, it's a lot of WP:NOR, but it was more detail than I looked up before.

Anyways, here's my attempt:
 * "Moore's critics note that he claims to be from Flint, going as far as to use it in his handle and sign e-mails that he's from Flint (source). The critics note that Davison, his childhood neighborhood, is a middle class community as opposed to the lower class of larger Flint(source). However, those who reject this criticism note Moore's inconsistency in discussing his hometown(sources), as well as indicate Davison's proximity to Flint(source), and Moore's college and adult years in Flint(already sourced in artcle?)" Ronabop 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my attempt:


 * In their 2005 book "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man", authors Hardy and Clarke, accuse Moore of lying when he identifies Flint, Michigan as his home town in his books and films. They instead identify his birth place and hometown as Davison, Michigan.  They go on to point out that Davison is "the wealthy, white bedroom town of the area, largely inhabited by management, not labour", listing statistics about finances of the Davison's occupants compared to Flint and also pointing out that almost all occupants of Davison are white.  Critics of the book point to the fact that the book is badly sourced (the FAQ that Hardy and Clarke used as the source of Moore's birthplace conflicts with itself, saying Moore was born in Flint then saying he was born in Davison a few paragraphs later), that little-known Davison is considered a suburb of Flint (which has been made famous by Moore's work) so residents of Davison might commonly identify themselves as being from Flint and that Moore has never denied growing up in Davison (in fact, Hardy and Clarke use Moore's own statements about growing up in Davison as their source for the fact he grew up in Davison).

AlistairMcMillan 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are two problems with the version above. The first is that the critics of Hardy and Clarke need to be sourced, otherwise we're starting to get into original research territory. The second is harder to untangle, but comes up on WP a lot in controversial issues: You start with an article about an individual, then have a section of criticism of that individual, and then there's often a desire to insert criticism of the critics. I wouldn't say it's automatically out of turn to do that, but where does it end? Can we have critics of the critics of the critics? After a while, the article becomes more like a well-sourced talk page. IronDuke 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No one else? --badlydrawnjeff 13:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here's what I don't understand about this debate. I'm from Pittsburgh, PA. I was born in Pittsburgh proper, and, except for my last three years of high school, I lived in Pittsburgh proper for a total of 21 years before moving to California. I think that many people who were born and lived in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, when venturing out of the Greater Pittsburgh area, just say they are from Pittsburgh, instead of the little nearby hamlet they might have been actually born in. I would have no problem with people from the Greater Pittsburgh area saying that they were from "Pittsburgh", and wouldn't think of them as "liars" at all, and not many other Pittsburghers would have a problem with that, either, I believe. People from the suburbs might legitimately feel that they identifiy with the City of Pittsburgh as their home town, without having to say "I'm from Sharpsburg/Wilkinsburg/Blawnox/etc." and get blank stares when outside the Pittsburgh area. Why can't people from Davidson be given the same treatment? What if Moore indeed lived in Davidson, but every chance he got he went to Flint to hang out/work? I mean, what's the big deal? Why is this even noteable? Must every critic of a public figure have their criticism noted here, no matter how petty? Can you imagine this level of coverage for this criticism in any other respected encyclopedia? Thanks for reading this rant. :) --NightMonkey 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, as we've noted above, you don't make a career about criticizing your nearby city, nor do you make class an issue in your work. The criticism stems from the belief that he's being deliberately dishonest - not a poor belief given Moore's track record.  --badlydrawnjeff 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an exaggeration to say that Moore's career is based on criticizing Flint (actually it is also incorrect, he doesn't criticize Flint, he criticizes the effect that other people's actions have had on Flint). It is also incorrect to say class is a major issue in his work.  And I'll ask again, how can he be accused of being dishonest about growing up in Davison when the only reason people know he is from Davison is because he talks about it?  AlistairMcMillan 01:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * People know he's from Davison because they looked it up. We've established he says he's from Flint. Except that here is where you say that Davison IS Flint and it all goes around in a big circle again. -RannXXV 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They know he is from Davison because they found articles or interviews or whatever where he talks about being from Davison.  If you don't believe me check the sources that Hardy and Clarke list in their book.  They know he went to Davison High School because he has talked about going to Davison High School.  AlistairMcMillan 12:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd, AM. What's your explanation for the reversion? It's been established that it's not a strawman, that there's plenty of reason to keep it here, and at least 4 people have piped up providing information on it. Exactly what makes you think that your reversion is with merit considering the discussion above and the attempt I've made to reach some sort of consensus version? --badlydrawnjeff 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right this is absurd. We are not going to include every single anti-Moore talking point.  Wikipedia simply is not big enough for every anti-Moore rant.  Rann added a bunch of stuff.  The stuff about his alleged Haliburton stocks is still here.  The stuff about his New York tax haven is still here.  Consensus has to be actually reached before you can say consensus has been reached, I saw a bunch (three?) people suggestion paragraphs on this topic, none seemed to receive any support.  AlistairMcMillan 22:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The support seems to be to add it in, simply questioning how to add it. Your protective, POV version was never as much as commented positively on, nor could you be bothered to comment on any of the issues IronDuke brought up with yours.  It's a shame that you feel the need to edit war over this yet again, and it's too bad that you feel the need to censor perfectly legitimate criticisms for the sake of your own POV. If you're interested in consensus, start acting like it instead of edit warring and causing this page to continually go into protection.  You of all people shouldn't be playing these games.  --badlydrawnjeff 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop talking about me and concentrate on the issue at hand. This "issue" only sees play with people who are already heavily biased against Moore.  No one else even gives it the time of day.  All the allegation that we list under controversy were covered outside the right-wing papers/websites/whatever.  This issue, which was started based on very bad evidence (just how difficult is it to get someone's birth certificate in the states) has only been covered by media that are already heavily biased against Moore. AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue at hand at this point is your refusal to accept the consensus of editors with an opinion regarding this issue and your refusal to accept the established fact that this is an issue from Moore's critics. Verify that this is a non-issue that isn't a legitimate criticism, and then maybe you'll have a point.  But, since you haven't been able to do that since this began, and choose to edit war instead, I won't hold my breath. --badlydrawnjeff 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus means agreement. I don't see any group of people agreeing to anything.  You suggested a version, Ronabop suggested a version, I suggested a version.  A bunch of people left comments. No consensus.  And I do accept it is a criticism from Moore's critics, I could hardly deny it when I've produced more actual information and sources about this criticism than anyone else here.  However the criticism has to reach a certain level of notability... like being picked up in the regular media or something.  The only people who take this seriously are the people who leap gleefully on any Moore criticism.  That doesn't make it notable. AlistairMcMillan 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that the information belongs there. So you should have been editing with that in mind, not some wholesale removal.  If it's verifiable and real, then it belongs.  Period.  Quit playing games.  --badlydrawnjeff 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you do me a really big favour? Would you mind going into the page history and finding the particular edit where that consensus was reached?  Because I'm just not seeing it.  Thanks in advance.  AlistairMcMillan 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you're actually willing to work on this article, then we'll talk. --badlydrawnjeff 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If he never denied his was raised in Davison, there is no deception and thus no controversy. Since he says he was born in Flint and raised in Davison and he was in fact born in Flint and raised in Davison. Just put that in his biography and leave it at that. If you want to mention that he is a big fat liar because he plays off being from Flint when he really grew up 2 minutes from Flint to satisfy the 5 people in the world who actually think that, I have a compromise. We let them edit that in but then we also have to edit George W. Bush's Bio to call him a big fat liar because he plays off being from West Texas when he was in fact born in New Haven, Conn.

Sources:

I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, DC, is close to California. -- As quoted by the Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000

Let me see if I can put this into English, or Texan. -- Remarks at Albers Manufacturing, O'Fallon, Missouri, Mar. 18, 2002

http://joecasaletto.com/jokes/gwbush/gwbushquotes.htm

Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me. -- President Discusses Transforming Health Care for Americans with Health IT, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html

I'm sure there are thousands of others we will have to go back and call big fat liars too but my agenda is to malign Dubya whereas their agenda is to malign Moore. Gnuorder 20:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected...
...again. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Time zone error
" The show was performed around midday local time, which due to the time difference made it a late-night show in the UK." can't be right. Midday in New York is 5pm in the UK. Merchbow 03:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Extra sourcing for the "disputed" section
Among the books I have sitting at my desk right now:


 * Page 40, Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say, Not As I Do, he writes the following:


 * "As recently as 2003, [Moore] wrote in the Los Angeles Times that after the Oscars he was 'heading home to Flint.' But he hadn't lived in Flint in over 14 years...Moore explained 'I think it's just a function of growing up in Flint.'  On his website, he lists himself as a 'Flint Native.'  Even his e-mail address carries the mantle: mmflint@aol.com.  In reality,  however,  Moore's family was not in urban, blue-collar, mostly black Flint, but in the nearby white middle class town of Davison.  Nor was his father just a regular working stiff trying to make ends meet under the oppressive system of corporate capitalism.  Moore's father owned his home outright, had two cars, put all four of his children through private Catholic school, and sent three kids to college.  He worked for General Motors from six until two and played golf every afternoon at a private club.  He had four weeks of vacation and retired comfortably at age 53."


 * For the record, the source on this is an article from the New Yorker, a two-parter in 2004 entitled "The Populist" by Larissa MacFarquhar. This section actually kills two birds with one stone concerning the middle class thing, and shows that there is more than one published book recently that addresses the criticism that one person seems hellbent on keeping out of the article.  I'll continue:


 * Page 17-18, Clarke and Hardy's Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man:


 * "'Ben [Hamper] and I both grew up in Flint, Michigan, the sons of factory workers,' he writes in the introduction to Hamper's book Rivethead. Roger & Me constantly hearkens back to Moore's life in Flint.  His speaker's bureau describes him as 'born in Flint,' his website calls him a 'Flint native,' and his production company's website (as of the time of printing - bdj) informs us that 'Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan, where his father and most of his relatives worked in the automobile factories'...In fact, Moore was born and raised in Davison, Michigan, and attended Davison High School.  While Davison is near Flint, proximity doesn't translate to similarity between the two towns.  Davison is the wealthy, white 'bedroom town' of the area, largely inhabited by management, not labor.  Davison's median household income is one and a half times that of Flint's, and its median house value is just over twice that of Flint's."


 * The intro to the book is here, the speaker's bureau is here. The "notes and sources" area of the book also has a paragraph containing the following:


 * "There is some question about whether Moore resided in Flint at all. I spoke to one of Moore's high school classmates.  Moore went to school in Davison, Michigan - 25 miles east of Flint.  'Growing up in Davison and telling the world you are from Flint is like growing up in Bloomfield Hills and saying you are from Detroit,' Moore's classmate said. 'It just doesn't cut it.'"

There is absolutely no excuse for us not to have the information there, so I'm adding it back in. It is overwhelmingly sourced, and even moreso now. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that the two books, while they share a criticism, use different sources to reach these conclusions. To remove one is to act as if one is cribbing off the other, which is false. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, the SMH doesn't seem to have any information in it that wasn't gleaned from the Clarke/Hardy book, so I don't really think it belongs. There are only three paragraphs mentioning the Davison/Flint issue and they don't say anything new.  And if Shweizer sourced all his info from Larissa's article for the New Yorker, then list that as a source, instead of someone who is just repeating her work.  Also please note where Larissa sourced her information... Michael Moore.  There he goes again trying to hide that he grew up in Davison by going around telling people... the nefarious bastard. AlistairMcMillan 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument is pointless anyway, Alistair. It's not whether the criticism is valid in your eyes, it's whether it's a criticism, period. But this has been explained to you several times, so I don't expect it to get through this time, either. -RannXXV 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, so much for civility. It doesn't matter "Whether it's a criticism, period", as we are not obligated to report every single criticism of an article's subject.  We must weigh the encyclopedic value of each item we include, and certainly validily is a perfectly, well, valid criteria.  Gamaliel 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusing
I don't think the following paragraph is very clear...

Moore also attended the 2004 Republican National Convention, where he was criticized (and promptly booed by the audience) in a speech by Senator John McCain as "a disingenuous film-maker".

Is this saying that Michael Moore was booed or John McCain was booed?

Read it this way: "Moore also attended the 2004 Republican National Convention, where he was criticized in a speech by Senator John McCain as "a disingenuous film maker."   The other part is just added information.

Antiwar template
I'm removing the template. It doesnt link here and it pushes the picture down too far. If there was a large section on his antiwar activities that would be a good place to readd it. Plus he is significant far beyond the antiwar movement. Savidan 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I put it on, and I agree. There's been some discussion at the template page and we're no longer putting it on articles on individuals, mostly. It was an experiment which failed.  Kalkin 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Moore's birthplace
According to a post above Moore said in [rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e112305_moore.rm this speech] (real player file) that he was born in this hospital in Flint. Unless any evidence is provided to the contrary, I don't see why we shouldn't rely on this source. Gamaliel 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At 16:29... "I was born about 500 feet from here in, unfortunately what is now a parking lot, St. Joe's Hospital." AlistairMcMillan 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is another link about the hospital in question. http://www.flint.lib.mi.us/timeline/civics-buildings-01-00/stjoseph.html AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems like alot of discussion on this subject has already accured, I think the best way is to clarify it completly. Wich should make both sides happy. so as of now it reads" Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan, and grew up in the suburb of Davison" now it shall read 'Michael Moore was born at St. Joseph Hospital in Flint, Michigan, and grew up in the city of Davison, a suburb of Flint.--MadDogCrog 04:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

hollywood and nytimes
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=103383&mod=bio

I'm not a big fan of NYTimes, but I'm assuming their sources are correct, maybe someone should check with them to confirm their citing that Moore is from Davison.

http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/fulldetail/id/1117492 another source CFM865 22:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the conflict comes from a semantic issue - most smaller suburbs don't have a hospital, so you're born in the nearby city. For instance, I'm in Millbury, MA, but there's no hospital here, and I was born in Worcester, the big city north of here.  So I live and grew up in Millbury, but was technically born in Worcester. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "...technically born in Worcester..."??? This is getting surreal.  You either were born there or not.  AlistairMcMillan 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ...which is why it's a semantic issue. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Congresspeople and Iraq
Just as a note, Moore claimed that "Not a single member of Congress" wanted to "volunteer" their child to go to Iraq. In what was likely a bout of selective questioning, given Moore's record, there are, in fact, seven members of Congress with kids in Iraq, including Joseph Biden and Duncan Hunter. While a nephew isn't a child, Moore was also criticized by Rep. Mark Kennedy, who was in the film as one of them, even though he offered to help Moore out. Finally, and somewhat off-topic, Moore did ask Republican Rep. Michael N. Castle as well as offer him as an example in the film. The problem? Castle has no kids. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Deliberately misquoting people things of context is a foolish game to play. Here's the first piece of dialog in question from the movie: "Especially when, out of the 535 members of congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq" (p 125, "The Official Farenheit 9/11 Reader"). Volunteer is not the word used, enlisted is, and Moore notes how many are actually in Iraq. The next several references in the movie (on pp 126-127 of the same text) all have both pieces as part of the question, enlisting, and actually going to Iraq. Now, lets take a look at your first source, which you claimed stated "there are, in fact, seven members of Congress with kids in Iraq". The source itself most distinctly does not say this. It actually states "Of the 535 members of Congress, at least seven have a great personal interest: They have children in the military who already are participating in the war or could be called to do so.". Not seven enlisted soldiers in Iraq, but seven in the military. Now, your second reference, to Biden, well, it's even more bizarre, because that text has him specifically saying: "I don't have a son in the Gulf." Your third reference is no better , as it states his son "is now at Camp Pendleton in California awaiting orders...". That's a long, long, way from actually being deployed in Iraq, especially for a Congressman's son... (and the article notes he's likely being deployed to Kuwait, which, as you may know, is not actually part of Iraq). So, how exactly is Moore being misleading, here? He's not asking them to have their kids sign up for a champagne squadron job, he's asking them to actually send their kids directly into real combat. Ronabop 08:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right: I should have said "Kids in the military."  I apologise for my misstatement, and the criticism still stands regardless of my error. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Deliberately misquoting people things of context is a foolish game to play. And yet... Moore and those who support him play it so well. I guess they're really exceptional fools. -RannXXV 04:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On all sides, those who play fast and loose with the actual facts and context draw my ire. :) As a personal opinion, one should carefully watch the difference between stated "facts", and how that factual information is then characterized. In this case, people who didn't pay attention to the facts, either way, may have been duped into thinking that Moore was making a statement about sons of governmental officials not being in the military... loose-minded (or crafty?) propogandists on the right apparently thought Moore was stating that there were no children of congress serving, maybe some on the left thought so as well. People who have watched Moore for a long time know to watch him like *any* *other* standard-bearer of politics, be it Moore, or Franken, or Coulter, or Limbaugh, or a sitting US president. The pundits deliver (as a job) sound bites, and silly rhetoric, and even blatantly misleading drivel, which is often a far cry from delivering good, verifiable, reliable, information. Most of them wouldn't last a week on wikipedia, where we actually check facts, and try for NPOV. :) Ronabop 09:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, see, he was making exactly that statement. That was a rather large meme at the time - people are "sending our children off to war" while not having to send their own.  It was why Rangel introduced the draft bill, it's where the moronic "Draft Jenna and Barbara" nonsense came from, etc.  His intent was entirely clear. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that he showed shrub on champagne duty before showing actual soldiers, I think it was pretty clear that he (Moore) knew the difference between front-line combat and "drafting Jenna and Barbara" to serve somewhere in Germany, Japan, etc. Ronabop 11:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael Moore's statement was intentionally misleading. The fact is that the children of most wealthy or influential people are not *enlisted*, but that does not mean they are not in the military.  Most are commissioned officers.  Many Americans would not be aware of the difference.  Moore wanted Americans to confuse 'enlisted' with 'serving in the military'.
 * Do you think americans are that stupId? They cannot tell the difference between the two? Ronabop 11:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering his quotes on the subject, Moore certainly does. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Moore's target audience certainly is that stupid. You've been proving that quite well, O ye of yipping about "champagne duty" and using the term "shrub" to describe our President. By the way, when you use something as a title or name for someone, it needs to be capitalized... even most of your fellow moonbats manage to call him The Shrub. -RannXXV 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering conservatives seemed to be confused about Moore's statements, I frankly can't tell whose ignorance Moore might have affected more. The term "champagne duty" dates back to when Moore was in diapers, and "shrub", as you may or may not know, is not actually a proper title. I might guess moonbats (Moonbats?) may have a decent grip on the matter, but as in all things political, I guess confusion runs rampant among the ignorant. *shrug* Oh, and this isn't a US wikipedia, he is not *our* President, he is a USA president. Ronabop 10:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Kopel and Hitchens
I don't think it's fair to lump the Moore criticisms given by Kopel and Hitchens in the same breath in the controversy section. The articles said to have a similar, caustic tone, but they are in fact quite different. Only one of the listed rebuttals even mentions Kopel's list; a specious list by an independent writer. Triphook 07:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it silly that the links to the rebuttals of the rebuttals are featured in the same breath. They belong in the articles on the authors. It looks like the supporters of Moore got desperate.

Photograph
Would it not be possible to find a more handsome picture of Michael for his article?


 * Yes, but not a more accurate one. -RannXXV 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

edits on April 13, 2006
Regarding the back and forth editing that this article seems to be getting, here are my suggestions.

1. views of/opinions on/views on ... doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of style

2. I think the word "alleged" should remain when talking about links between Bush and the bin Laden family, in the interest of not tilting the article too much in one direction.

3. By the same token, the section on Moore's entry in Goldberg's book (which I haven't read, BTW), could say something along the lines of "Moore was listed as #1 without further justification for his position or inclusion on the list".

--Tachikoma 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum to #3--after skimming through the whole article and seeing that the Moore/Goldberg content was listed under "Controversy and criticism", it's probably not necessary to explain Moore's ranking on the list, seeing that it is a criticism section. Alternatively, something could be added that "supporters of Moore point out that there was no explanation why Moore was ranked #1" or whatever. --Tachikoma 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section is tilted towards recent films
The criticism section consists almost entirely of the mostly political controversy over his most recent films. However, he was a highly controversial documentarian (with some even questioning the label "documentarian") long before that; the debate has been going on since Roger & Me. Essentially the debate is over the implications of his style: He depicts some scenes that are reenactments or dramatizations along with real footage, and some allege that by doing so he is fabricating a documentary. One of the large controversies in Roger & Me, for example, was over whether the "stockholder meeting" scene, which was staged in a studio and does not represent an actual GM stockholder meeting, was misleading or dishonest. In any case, I would add some myself, but I don't have any good references on the matter (I remember most of this from a film-studies class some years ago). --Delirium 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's mostly because it was with Bowling for Columbine that he "hit it big". Since there's a lot more exposure for those, there are a lot more people looking through it, sourcing the problems, and so on. I agree with you, he's been dishonest since the start, and people have leveled criticism at him for it, but as they have failed to go through it quite so thoroughly, adding on stuff about it would come perilously close to the dreaded "original research". -RannXXV 07:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not original research at all; there are literally dozens of academic papers on the subject. Roger & Me was very well-known in the film-studies community, and hotly debated in the early 1990s. --Delirium 08:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then dude, you're the one that knows where the references and sources are. Go get 'em. -RannXXV 19:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Larry Elders Movie "Michael & me" to the list of Criticism. Will also add that to the See Also List.--MadDogCrog 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bodygaurds
I just removed this statement from the article, since I have not been able to find credible sources for it (although my searching was not comprehensive).
 * Michael Moore's opinions on gun control are widely known but it is little known that some of his body guards were summonsed for carrying illegal firearms.

The closest I could find was this Fox news report, indicating a fairly technical violation. If this is what it is in reference to, this is fairly unencyclopedic. --TeaDrinker 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i dont think fox news is a good source for ongoing Moore issues anyways. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.173.90 (talk • contribs).

Sicko Confusion
On this page and a description on IMDB it describes Sicko as being a documentary on the healthcare industry from the viewpoint of the mental healthcare system. However it does not mention mental healthcare on the Sicko page. On Michael Moore's website so far I've found no traces of the words 'mental healthcare'. The descriptions of the subject of this film are very vague and general so far. Most people on various messageboards and around the internet seem to assume this film is about healthcare in general, judging from the discussions brought up by mentioning the film (surgery, medicine, doctors, hospitals, etc.). No mentions of psychiatry or the DSM in these discussions, however there are some places on the internet that mention mental healthcare being in Moore's film, mostly antipsychiatry websites. Possibly also MooreWatch. I started a topic on IMDB about the subject matter of the film since the grand majority of the other topics were debates about the state of the healthcare industry and having to pay too much or not getting proper treatment, etc. etc.. From the replies I've received so far nobody seems to know for sure the exact subject of this film but most assume that if it says it'll be inspecting mental healthcare, that's what the film will probably be about. .....Anyway after that ramble, my point is there is apparent confusion about the subject of Moore's upcoming film Sicko. I would appreciate it if somebody looked into this and figured out what EXACTLY this film is about. Healthcare in general or mental healthcare to be specific? Both?

P.S. As far as I know psychiatry and surgery are two totally different stories. It's a bit frightening that they'd merge in the minds of people, but then again, the drug companies and such have been aggressively pushing the notion that every single life problem you have is not only a problem, it's a medical problem, therefore you need medicine. 139.142.225.191 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Heather


 * Every Corporation, Politician, Media Outlet, and Organization, and so called 'Do Gooder' thinks people are stupid and we cannot do for ourselves! and we need there so called professional advice, direction ,service and beurocracy so people can servive in its antique idea of a society, Protecting people from themselves, by fear and humiliation tatics, which is devoiding  people of true direction, and extension of culture. a planned society is devoid of culture, a rather boring, costly, sterile existance! Oh Maybe I just need to take a pill!--MadDogCrog 05:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Swidish newspaper claim
If someone has a link to the original newspaper article, I will get a confirmation whether it is in the text and what the proper translation is (from a native swedish speaker living in the US), after which I will post it here so that other can scutinize it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy
Can we try to clean up the criticism and controversy section to include more specific references than just weasel words? "Movie critics" could be named, as well as specific supporters and detractors of Moore, instead of "some say." Stanselmdoc 12:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ... So many things I could say... and yet... one just gets tired of pushing the rock up the hill. Whatever. -RannXXV 18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I love the wording of the weasel tag:
 * The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words" (emphasis added).

Could we put a weasel tag in the weasel template? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 2 years ago, there would had been a long incendiary fight, with Moore haters and neo-cons stating that it was not POV. Now that Moore hasnt made a movie in some time and that the Bush administration is showing the lowest poll ratings in its administration, no one comes, no one cares. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.173.90 (talk • contribs).


 * It's closer to people just getting tired of the deluge of people that, every time something non-complimentary about Moore is added to the article, show up spouting things like "neo-cons" and "Bush is teh suxxorz". The article has a long history of the neutrality being enforced lightly in favor of its subject, and most people are simply tired of trying. Wikipedia is not neutral, not fair, and not a reliable source of information, despite the efforts of some, and this article is just one symptom of that. -RannXXV 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well im not a Michael Moore fan and besides some weasel words (and it reading poorly) I dont think it's too bad at all. - UnlimitedAccess 11:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said RannXXV!--MadDogCrog 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) I plow, plant, and weed around the large stones here in Wikiland


 * Nonsense, i have read really well made articles about controversial figures, the most prominent of them all was the spanish page of the Hugo Chavez article. It used facts instead of weasel words or cold reading. The english version of the Hugo Chavez although is a mess though, but once one has seen what a good article sorta looks like, it cant be that hard to mimic it into another good article.

Bradbury reference???
...and Bradbury himself is the author of several books whose titles are taken from works by other writers.

Why should this be on this page? Isn't it more of an attack on Bradbury than a defense of Moore? If we're not allowed to point out 'Moore's hypocrisy' (saying he's really rich but he says he's for the poor) on his own page, why are we allowed to point out Bradbury's on a page that is not his?? We don't point out every other critic's problems, so we shouldn't for Bradbury. This criticism of Bradbury should be on HIS wiki article, not Moore's. Am I missing something?Stanselmdoc 16:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it, but we've attmepted to do our best to balance the criticisms of Moore with a possible explanation or note about it, and I'm pretty sure that's why the part you're objecting to is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the whole bradbury thing is sort of trivial, as it doesnt change whatsoever the content of the movie. If you say that we should focus this page more into attacking Moore, then i dont know, i think you have a severe bias towards him, and you will not be taken seriously.