Talk:Michael Moore/Archive 5

'liberal'?
Michael Moore has emphasised in numerous interviews that he does not consider himself a liberal. In fact, he has said that he "hates liberals". The description should removed from the aricle.


 * Micharl Moore is not the only source on Michael Moore. There is a perception in America that he is liberal. If he denies it, that should be included in the article as well, but you can't avoid using the word at all when Michael Moore is concerned. VxP 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read two of his book, I would hardly describe him as a 'Socialist', someone please remove him from the 'American socialists' list. Nepstad 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No support in article for 'american socialsts' category, will remove now. R. Baley 06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2006-11-14 Here he sights "A Liberal's pledge.... By Michael Moore" implying he considers himself a liberal.

Moore may not consider himself a liberal but he has clearly stated that he is "left-wing" in his politics. Anyone that doubts this needs to retire from Wikipedia immediately because they are not fit to edit here. I have re-added what WP:VERIFY and WP:CON had established before some devious vandal removed that info. Stop acting like children and don't remove established info. Jtpaladin 22:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From reading Moore dislikes live being labelled a "liberal" because he regards most American liberal politicians with contempt accusing them of being either ineffective and/or excessively moderate and too willing to compromse on core values. Perhaps "radical liberal" would be an appropriate term ? 80.229.222.48 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

'Practicing Catholic'?
Towards the end of the biography section it states Moore is a practicing Catholic. While Moore on numerous occasions has stated he had a Roman Catholic upbringing and education there is little evidence that he remains a practicing catholic indeed while he does in his books pay tribute to some of the nuns at his school and Pope John Paul II for his condemnation of the Iraq war and the death penelty some of his writings are strongly critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church particularly in relation to condom use, homosexuality, and abortion.

While this does not necessairly imply (although it does strongly suggest) that Moore is a lapsed Catholic the "citations" following the statement that he is still practicing do not give any indication either way. In any case the relevence of the statement is highly debatable therfore the sentence should be removed 80.229.222.48 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that Michael Moore agrees with the Church's stance on abortion. 75.34.26.160 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A reading of his "Downsize this" book (particularly the chapter "A sperms right to life") would suggest otherwise. 80.229.222.48 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So Michael Moore is a hypocrite? 75.34.26.160 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds ? As Ive already stated there is no evidence that he is actually a practicing catholic (Incidently I see the statement is still in the article despite no evidence having been put foward in support of it's accuracy or relevence ?) 80.229.222.48 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds is he a hypocrite? 75.34.18.32 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth
The article claims that Michael Moore was born in flint Michigan. But several sites show him as being born and raised in Davison Michigan.999mal 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael was born and raised in Flint, Michigan. The house he lived in is right by Kearsley High School.

Boom!
Disambig to "Boom! (song)" please. 83.67.217.254 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism, criticism, criticism
There already exists a Michael Moore 'Controversy and criticism' page and 'Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy' page, so I see no reason to reduplicate many of the same links here under 'General criticism'. Hitchens, Hardy and Kopel's criticisms feature prominently on their respective pages, so I argue that these can go. smb1971 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will soon begin moving some of these critiques over to other pages, along with any 'defense articles' that relate. I will do it gradually so that if anyone raises an objection, we can talk things over. smb1971 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The more I reflect on this section, the more I question its need. A 'controversy and criticism' page was started in late 2006 for precisely this kind of material, so I submit that ALL of the material be shuffled across. More specific criticisms can be moved to the various film pages. I can't find a single other entry on Wikipedia that has a section labeled "Defense articles". Let's have some feedback. smb1971 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Numbers??
Michael Moore did not direct the film Lucky Numbers. Can this be corrected? --70.49.8.116 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing political activist
I added "left-wing" prior to the phrase "political activist". I think that this is an obvious description since no one could accuse Michael Moore of being a "right-wing" activist and all of his political activism is clearly left-wing. Jtpaladin 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am of agreement that "left wing" is used in a derogatory fashion, while "conservative" is a self-appointed label. If Mr. Moore calls himself "left-wing," and we have citation for this, then it might be different. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, more importantly, that "left-wing" is merely a reductionist label, used more frequently by Moore's critics than by his supporters. As I stated in my edit summary, describing his views (for example, saying--as the current article lead paragraph does--that Moore is critical of "globalization, large corporations, gun violence, the Iraq War, US President George W. Bush, and various other domestic and global policies of the United States and its allies") imparts far more information than the somewhat inflammatory label, regardless of whether Moore considers himself "left-wing."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The test for applying a description is not whether the person considers themselves "conservative", "liberal", or whatever. It is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Is anyone doubting that Michael Moore is a "left-wing political activist"? There are plenty of sources that would verify this description. This description is applicable because it meets the standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability and that style is used to describe other persons such as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Noam Chomsky, Al Franken, and other politically active figures. Can you point to a Wikipedia guideline that supports your argument?
 * In the "Writings and political views" section, he is described as "Progressive" in his political views. That is a left-wing political perspective. He was an editor for "Mother Jones", a left-wing publication. He calls himself a "liberal" on his website. In an interview, he states that, "Somebody came up to me and said Canadian Bacon is the first left-wing film for the mall crowd. I can only hope that that's what it is." He then refers to himself as being on the "Left" on his website.
 * Clearly, Michael Moore is a left-wing political activist so arguments trying to omit this fact have absolutely no validity. Without pointing to some Wikipedia guideline that supports this argument, the description should not be reverted. Jtpaladin 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How the heck do you consider the label, "left-wing" as being "reductionist" and a "somewhat inflammatory label" if it is correct and verifiable?!! If that is held as valid as a Wikipedia rule then we have to edit lots and lots of articles on Wikipedia to conform to this perspective. Jtpaladin 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Point us to some other articles bio articles that use "left-wing" or "right-wing" in their opening setence, and we'll talk. I'm fine with the way the Noam Chomsky article uses the term--to say, much later in the intro, that somoene is "considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics" constitutes much better writing than to just flatly state that somone is a "left-wing activist".  The Chomsky statement, by the way, could use a source.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't bother to check out Michael Moore's own statements about being "left wing". Why you are working overtime to try and deny this man his self-identity is a mystery. Either come up with a valid Wikipedia argument or let's include this self-descriptive phrase. Just saying that he's a "political activist" isn't direct enough. If Moore were making films and speeches that were critical of both left-wing and right-wing issues, then you would be correct in just leaving it as is. But he clearly only directs his political activism towards the Left. And as such, he is a "left-wing political activist". What is so hard about understanding this concept? Please stop making up stuff as you go along. Jtpaladin 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Self-descriptive" phrases do not automatically lend themselves to neutral, encylopedic language. I'm sure Moore has refered to himself using a variety of terms, many of which would be ill-suited for the lead sentence of an encylopedia article (brief quotations might be appropriate in the main body of the article or on Wikiquote). "Leftist," "far-left" and "left wing" mean different things to different people, and depending upon the context and reader, varying degrees of disparagement can be inferred from their use (I would similarly object to the indiscriminate use of more positive terms like "progressive" or "populist" since they are open to interpretation and debate).  In the introductory paragraph, readers will be more more interested to know what he does and what agendas he supports than what he calls himself.


 * I'd still be interested to see if any important bio articles use the label in a similar manner to what you are propsosing, but I doubt such articles exist. I'm not going to discuss with you indefinitely, but I will strongly suggest you seek consensus (or at least a distinterested third opinion) before making the change.  If you do not, the addition will likely be reverted.  I will respect consensus, but so far I see none.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have privately consulted with an Administrator and he agrees with the "left-wing" title. If you are going to call someone a "political activist" and that person is an activist for one particular perspective then it would be appropriate to distinguish as to what his activism leans towards. He's clearly "left-wing". You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. It is verifiable and appropriate to acknowledge this fact. If you want to remove the phrase "political activist", then do so. But keeping only half of the description does a disservice to the reader. I'm going to add "left-wing" back to the article and give a citation for it. If you find that this citation is wrong, then feel free to remove it. But if it is correct then removing is is merely vandalism. My action is supported by WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, and WP:VANDAL. If you can cite some Wiki policy that supports your position, please state it or please move on. Jtpaladin 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't we just say "liberal", "liberal leaning", "left-leaning" or something else that still gets the idea accross without being perjorative? PS: "I have privately consulted with an Administrator and he agrees with..." is simply not justification for anything. Administrators have no more authority in regards to content disputes than anyone else, and consensus needs to be public. Otherwise everyone will claim that Jimbo Wales privately agrees with them :) VxP 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I have no problem with any of those titles. They are descriptive and they verifiable. That's all I'm trying to do. The problem is that I stand on WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CON, and WP:VANDAL whereas the person reverting has no foundation. He says he's looking for consensus, and that's fine, but if he reads the "Exception" section on consensus, he will find that consensus does not override WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. He refuses to even accept Michael Moore's self-description of being left-wing. Which is absurd. Plus, the reason I asked this particular Administrator for advice is that he's well respected and if we need to mediate, an Administrator will likely be involved. Jtpaladin 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all necessary or desirable to have three external links following the words "left wing" in the article's first sentence. First of all it's overkill (one or at most two references would be fine), secondly it should be modified into footnote form as the three consecutive external links are distracting. Anyway the second and third links contain no reference to Moore being on the "left"--only the first one does (and even there Moore only makes reference to "those of us on the left" or something to that effect, he does not refer to himself as "left-wing"). In the third link he actually refers to himself as a "liberal" and quite frankly I think that's a better label for him. I think in order to be truly "left-wing" (in a general sense, not as in "the left wing of the Democratic party") one has to be explicitly opposed to capitalism and I'm not sure Moore falls into that category (he has heavily criticized corporations obviously, but that's different). As an example of his non-left-winginess, Moore supported Wesley Clark in the earliest stage of the 2004 presidential campaign (Clark was heavily criticized by most died-in-the-wool leftists, who were generally angry at Moore's decision to support him).

Though I'm not going to change anything here for now, I do think at the least that the references should be cleaned up and I think "liberal" is a more accurate description of Moore. One comparison worthy of mention, note that in the first sentence of the Ann Coulter article Coulter is described as a "conservative columnist" despite the fact that her views are clearly on the far right of the Republican party.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jtpalidan, it ain't cool to accuse well-meaning, estabilshed editors of vanadlism, just because we disagree. I'm a bit disappointed that you can't see the difference between flatly stating in a neutral article that someone is "left-wing" and merely reporting that certain people have referred to him as such.


 * For example, I'm sure plenty of sources have called Moore epithets along the lines of "fat fuck" or a "traitor" or worse. I wouldn't even be opposed--as long as it's in the spirit of improving the article--to including such disparaging quotes in the article, as long you made it clear in the body of the text who is making these claims. You have merely provided verification that people have called him names, without adding any intelligent context.


 * I think your edits and purported application of policy in this case are misguided, and I find your revert warring less than constructive. As a compromise, I'll change it to "liberal" for now, until further consensus can be reached.  Personally, from the standpoint of good encycopedic writing, I find idealogical generalizations like "right-wing" or "liberal" distateful; such labels are subjective and convey much less information than specifically stating what he believes--but I won't fight the issue if others (that's a plural) disagree.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is Michael Moore being called a liberal? He's not a liberal, his ideas are not liberal ideas. If you need to characterize his political views with one term, left wing, or progressive would be the most applicable. I don't think that it makes sense to call him a liberal, when a more correct term is available. (Lucas(CA) 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Having read all the above comments, by twopenceworth is this: criticising a regime, does not make you diametrically opposed to that regimes political slant.  For instance as a 'left winger' I can be critical of left wing governments, without being instantly cast as a right winger (unless I went about it in such a way as to promote in a particularly conservative way).  Merely commenting on poor governance, lack of direction, mishandled information and the continued misbehaviour of the political elite can be dependant of political motivation.--Koncorde 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And after all this discussion and agreement and verifiable information WP:VERIFY that Moore is left-wing, someone goes and removes that description. Why? What is wrong with some people? Please face the fact that Moore proudly considers himself a left-winger. If he can be proud of that, why can't some of you accept that fact and let the man have his description? Jtpaladin 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the links that were removed by a vandal. These are valid references and although I agree that they should be better incorporated in the body of the article, there is at least one person who refuses to accept this fact so I have to blatantly address this issue up front. I would rather I remove the links in the first paragraph and then add them in the body but leave the phrase "left-wing" in the intro as is applicable in such circumstances. Also, someone tried to suggest that Moore is not a "political activist" and gave a link. Actually, by the definition of a political activist, he is one whether he acknowledges it or not. And the link says nothing about him not being a political activist. Guys, you need to adhere to WP guidelines. Is it worth all our time for me to call in a mediator who will in the end look at the evidence and agree with the facts that I have added? Does anyone want to waste time doing that? Come on, for the sake of not wasting time, be honest and fair about this matter. Moore is a left-wing political activist. He's proud of it so you should respect that perspective. Jtpaladin 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was adding a ref where more discusses the label "political activist", but I picked up the wrong lik, my bad :). This is the right one: . --BMF81 16:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary subheading about critical documentary
'' ==Critical documentary on Michael Moore==

Debbie Melnyck and Rick Caine document the (subtle?) manipulations of Michael Moore in their film Manufacturing Dissent: Uncovering Michael Moore, Canada, 2007, 74' (or 96').

I removed the above completely unnecessary paragraph for a couple of reasons. First, there are numerous films about and/or criticizing Moore. This one doesn't deserve a special mention or subheading for itself. If anything it belongs in the article Michael Moore controversies. Secondly, the assertion that the film documents "the (subtle?) manipulations of Michael Moore" is patently NPOV and ridiculous. Yeah, real subtle, AlexQuestionmark. Inoculatedcities 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

add quote section
Michael Moore uses words as a tool. A section with quotes from his works, and speeches, may be a good addition. Likely it will be a struggle to get a good balance, but I think it is needed. --gunnerclark 20:34, 15 may 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this would be troublesome. How do we differentiate between something he may have said in jest, during stand-up, and something altogether more serious? smb 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918
Please open a discussion regarding whether Mr.Moore would be considered in jeopardy under Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 laws as there seems to be quite a bit of scuttlebutt regarding Mr.Moore's works and whether or not they are seditious and if Mr.Moore is acting with sedition as defined by this law. This is not a jab, I would just like to see some intellegent consideration of this from people other than the "locker room lawyers". Thanks.

What are yout talking about? That'd be like arguing over whether a relationship was in violation of miscegenation laws. Both those acts were repealed a few years after they were enacted if I'm not mistaken. Brentt 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

-What I'm talking about is what I'm hearing from other people and want some informed/educated consideration of; particularly since I'm not a lawyer. Last time I looked, the link on wiki for Sedition Act of 1918 states it was repealed but the site for the Espionage Act of 1917 seems to state that the Act of 1917 was not repealed (see the reference to Scooter Libby) and is just kind of on the shelf. I have heard several people, and I think also on talk radio, say that they believe Mr.Moore is acting seditious and that the current administration is just choosing not to enforce the law or something. I'm just curious if there is any base to thier claims and if Mr. Moore, and other people who object to the war in some form of media, are facing legal jeopardy. I'm just curious, and a little concerned about freedom of speech, and would like to hear something definitive if possible and would really appreciate input from someone trained in U.S. law. Thanks.

Insn't that the job of the courts to decide if he is handels against the laws cited above. If anyone thinks yes, or if they think he does, they or sombody will sue him for that. (Dobby-fc 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Of course it is up to the courts to decide, but, is it likely or even possible for someone or some agency to reasonably attempt to prosecute Mr. Moore with the provisions in these laws? If repealed, can they be reinstated? The original question has still not been entirely answered, I am not a lawyer and therefore can not provide an accurate answer.


 * See OR. We don't do original research here. If there is a reputable source discussing whether Moore could be charged under some law, then we can mention it here, but we're not going to go off on our own tangents. VxP 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who did attempt to charge Mr Moore under these statutes would probabably be doing him the biggest favour he could ask for in terms of publicity. Besides there is a little matter of the first amendment ! 80.229.222.48 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Nation
The article suggests that this was an NBC programme but the TV Nation page says it was a BBC Two show. Can this be corrected? 212.140.167.99 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it was originally a BBC show, but was on NBC in the states for a while. I'm not sure if it was NBC exactly, but it was run on some American network, probably NBC. I don't know if that counts as being an "NBC show". And I'm not sure if some episodes were made specifically for NBC. (maybe analogous to how Da Ali G Show was a british Channel 4 show originally but became a HBO show)Brentt 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was originally made for the BBC TV because they were willing to show the series, as no US network would originally touch it (as described by Michael Moore in Stupid White Men. – Agendum 08:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Could a registered user add the fact that the show was made by the BBC to the article. And, possibly, the fact it was made by the BBC because American networks wouldn't make it (if people think this is relevant and it can be properly sourced- apparently in Stupid White Men).212.140.167.99 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Get me a source, and I'll be glad to ^ demon [omg plz] 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal who's against free-trade?
He's described in the first paragraph as a liberal who is against globalization? How is that liberal? Tri400 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom, in the 18th and 19th century liberalism "emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal ... It supported laissez faire at home [and] supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically ... Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930, the term liberalism became associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom ... In the name of welfare and equality the twentieth century liberal has come to favor a revival of the policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought.". So essentially these days, to Americans, liberal means protectionist and left-wing in an economic sense - both of which I am sure Michael is proud to be. See the talk page talk:liberalism for more than you would ever want to know about it. --Dilaudid 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better to describe him as socialist?Lostnight 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Turtlescrubber 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes i completely think so, considering that he support gun control, plus, his latest documentary Sicko is against private health cover. Tri400 15:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gun control and anti-private health care = Socialist? Think there's a little more to it than that.--Koncorde 03:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His critics might describe him as socialist, but they would be using that word in a perjorative way, which is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. VxP 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Supporters of free trade nowadays are as likely (if not moreso) to be conservative. One problem with "Liberal"/"Conservative" labelling What was considered liberal 50 years ago may be regarded as conservative today and vice versa which results in paradoxes like "neoconservative" politicials espousing "neoliberal" economic policies 193.112.172.12 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many liberals are opposed to free trade with countries they deem to have inadequete labour standards and/or poor human rights policies. Similarly most pro-free trade conservatives usually make exceptions when it comes to countries like Cuba and North Korea. 80.229.222.48 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Trouble
I renamed Legal Trouble to Legal Investigation - Legal trouble sounds a bit colloquial, perjorative, and prejudges that there will be some action after the investigation. On the other hand I've seen reports that Moore smuggled his film out of America in case the government took action against him - so maybe trouble should stay. Revert at will :) --Dilaudid 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Co-Person of the Year?
According to multiple sources Moore claims he was intended to become co-person of the year with Mel Gibson - and was only turned down because Gibson backed out on the day it was intended to be announced, so instead President George W. Bush won it. ,. Should this be added? --Dilaudid 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace change
Moore was born in Davison, Michigan, which is an independent municipality from the widely-attributed Flint (therefore, the information in the article and infobox is incorrect). Sources:, , ,. --75.21.227.250 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the controversy page if you haven't seen it already. Turtlescrubber 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The other anon specifically stated "born in", not raised. This is a separate issue than the one discussed on controversy.  --66.227.194.89 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Moore picture
Come on guys, could someone please add a better picture of Mr Moore? Perhaps this is an incorrect assumption, but it seems that whoever uploaded the current picture selected the worst one possible!!!
 * It's a good composition free image. There are probably better copyrighted ones, but your dissatisfaction may come from Mr. Moore's appearance himself.  --75.21.166.42 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's just the way he looks in real life. It is a good NPOV picture.  It captures his physical appearance.  It captures the appearance of his soul.  68.97.41.118 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think he looks worse now that he changed the frames on his glasses. Maybe I'm off but I think the picture is quite good. -- Gerkinstock 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Could a registered user expand the controversy section or add the template? Before linking out like that, pages are usually supposed to put a summary of what they're linking to. 69.12.143.197 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't drive his Detroit car??
I heard something on the radio about him bragging of driving an American car, probably a modest one, but that he sold it or traded it in and it didn't have any miles on it. Is there any truth to this at all? --Howdybob 05:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While one shouldnt believe everything one hears on the radio (It wasnt on Rush Limbugh's programme by any chance ?) Perhaps he was demonstrating his concern for the enviornment by minimising his usage of the vehicle ! 80.229.222.48 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that template a bit odd?
Michael Moore isn't a current event. I'm pretty sure that the template is referring to SiCKO, but isn't there a more appropriate template that can be used? I'm not a Wikipedia regular so I don't know, but surely there's something that applies to people involved in current events. 71.2.72.28 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)