Talk:Michael Moore

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Micheal Moore links[edit]

There is a generall balance of pro and anti-Moore links in the external links on the Michael Moore page, and there is no need for massive deletion of links to further information and opinions on the subject. ~ Kalki 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you are in error. Leaving aside the official Michael Moore homepage and movie trailer, which is standard fare, there is only one link that can be perceived as "pro-Moore" (that being a single 2004 Greg Palast piece, otherwise BBC, CNN and IMDB all provide neutral content). This is "balanced" by five links that purport to actively document Moore's so-called deceptions. As such I find the External Links section to be needlessly lopsided. And unless we can come to some arrangement, it is only fair that I start adding rebuttals and responses wherever necessary. Smb1971 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

18 - 19 June[edit]

I can hardly see that "leaving aside" the "standard fare" links is proper when one is talking about balances, and there is certainly no concerted effort on my part to either create imbalance, or to tediously tweak balances with the links. Some of the pro-Moore and anti-Moore links were added or retained, whether by me or others, because they are rather prominent, and Moore himself is attentive to at least one of the anti-Moore sites. Though I can't agree with all his stated opinions and employed strategies, I certainly do not consider myself "anti-Moore" and would say that in general terms I probably agree with him more than I disagree, and for the most part have liked his movies. I don't know what you mean by adding "rebutals and responses" whenever necessary... the quotes provided should for the most part speak for themselves as to what a person's stated opinion is, but any information that adds useful and factual context, rather than mere editorial opinon is permitted. ~ Kalki 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By 'standard fare' I mean of course biographical information, homepages and other relevant material. Are you seriously arguing that in the name of equilibrium, Michael Moore's noted output, his very existence, needs to be "balanced" -- link for link -- by detractors who parse and criticise his every word? That seems excessive. Nor do I accept your circular claim that links are added and/or retained because they are prominent -- a couple of these links would have trouble passing the reliable sources test, and at least one other no longer serves its original purpose. If we examine the neutral sources, clearly the "BBC on 9//1" link is outdated and no longer necessary. The same can be said of the CNN and Working For Change links. And the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer can be viewed from the official Fahrenheit 9/11 website, to which already there is a link. I am not concerned with your personal opinion of the man -- that is irrelevant, we both can agree. Dave Kopel's "Fifty-nine Deceits" has itself met with various responses. Genuine balance would be the purpose of adding 'rebuttals and responses' where necessary. smb 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I believe I have clearly indicated, examining, gauging and judging the precise balance of slants for or against a person or his productions at various links is NOT a huge concern of mine, but doing so at least seems to be with you. I do not seek to set myself up as an absolute judge of where some theoretically "genuine balance" should exist. I still do not see that "rebuttals and responses" are necessary, nor where exactly you intend to place them, especially if you are referring to links. Some of the links are related to Moore's previous well known works but I don't see that they become irrelevant here with mere age.

This discussion started with a wholesale deletion of all links other than the four at the top, with the comment "This page is not for the promotion of pro- or anti-Moore web links". I agree that this is not what the page is for, but I also assert that having a few such links are just as useful and convenient here as they are at Wikipedia. After your massive deletion I reverted the edit, and then removed some links that actually were obsolete.
In examining the current situation at Wikipedia, I notice that you have replaced a link to Moore's official 9/11 site with videos and other material with a link just to a "YouTube" video. I don't see that this is either necessary or useful. If we are going to quote a person here, or comment upon him and his work at Wikipedia, we should at least provide links to that person's websites and not have preferences for some third party site, though to some extent their addition should be permitted. I am not greatly concerned with aiming for some fictionally precise balance between links to laudatory sites and critical ones in regard to Moore or anyone; I am concerned that a variety of perspectives on subjects should be presented, and other than spam links to primarily unrelated material, none should be summarily excluded.

The far larger concern about the page that is a glaring one to me is it's general formatting mess, as careless editors add new material here and elsewhere that regular editors interested in creating neat and interesting presentations have not the time to thoroughly address. I might get around to cleaning it up eventually, but I currently have a backlog of many articles I am generally much more interested in.

I also don't see the need for continuing this discussion on the [aforementioned talk] page, since you now have an account. This initially confused me into posting my first response to your recent comments there, rather than here. ~ Kalki 06:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct: concise balance may not be a huge concern of yours, but I happen to believe it is very important. Moore attracts a great deal of criticism -- some of it perfectly justified, some of it misplaced, and some of it unequivocally unjustified. These criticisms are summarised and sourced at Wikipedia. Indeed, the main page already notes that Wikipedia has an article about Michael Moore. On that page, one can access various criticisms of his work. I do not see value in Wikiquote propagating links that specialise in, and devote themselves to, disparaging the main subject (that applies to any individual). But if we are to plunge this slippery slope then it is important to strike a balance.
This brings me back to my original objection. The external links section is patently lopsided. It largely serves as a platform to badmouth Michael Moore, without any recourse for reply, if not you permit me to delete some links or include key responses. (As my first edit to the page indicated, I would rather not bother, instead opting to start the link section afresh.) You have expended over six-hundred words defending your revert, without adequately addressing this fundamental point.
My edit at Wikipedia is irrelevant, but I am quite happy to explain it to you. I removed a direct link to the official Fahrenheit 9/11 website because it was preceded, immediately above, by a link to Moore's homepage -- all of his works (old and new) can be readily accessed by visiting that first page. Moreover, I did not insert a link to just any old third-party YouTube video; I replaced it with a link to Michael Moore's YouTube account ("mmflint" is his official username). smb 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently doing extensive cleanup work to a text file of the Moore page, in between other tasks, but don't expect I will be done with it for at least a few hours. On this file, I have just added the YouTube link you mentioned to the top links. I had seen some of Moore's videos there previously, but had not noticed the link you made at Wikipedia was to his specific account.

I do not think it careless of me to not be intensely concerned about attaining some "exact balance" of links. Frankly, talk about establishing or imposing some supposedly precise and measurable balance in anything having to do with human opinions, strikes me as more than a little presumptive and authoritarian. It is enough for me that there is at least a range of notable pro and con links provided — people can investigate further discussions of the matters as suit their own interests. I know that there are inaccuracies and distortions on many sides of the discussions about Moore, his opinions, and about many things generally in life. I don't see the reality of most people or their divergent opinions as things that are easily reducible to simplistic pro or con judgments about them, which is something that both Moore and his most vehement detractors regularly encourage. There are usually at least some elements of truth involved on many different sides of any issue, and the presumption that there can be some accurately precise "balance" obtained in the presentation of diverse opinions is one that I find quite delusional.

I am certainly not indifferent to matters of having a range of opinions presented; I am rejecting the notion that some "perfect" balance can be precisely and absolutely defined and measured, or that links to sites that might have some inaccurate or skewed presentation of information on the subject should be simply swept away and removed entirely from consideration. Were that the case we should not examine anything Moore or many of his opponents have to say at all. Whether a person is predisposed to like or dislike Moore's opinions and works, I think the general designation of the links as "Anti-Moore" is quite sufficient to indicate the nature of their commentary. I am moving the "59 Deceits" link that has been posted here somewhat lower in the list, but I don't accept that the issues, distortions and unfair bias that might be presented at any of the links to any site, pro or con, upon any matter, need to be explicitly addressed by any extensive commentary here.

I do not perceive that I have failed to address a truly fundamental point in my responses. There is often unfair bias at nearly any link one could make to sites offering exposure to human opinions. I find it far better to encourage humility and fairness in examining things than to pretend or even believe that some mathematically calculated balancing of opinions is always fair or even possible. The absurd notion of establishing "equal time" provisions for all the countless possible "evolution vs creation" theories and opinions in the teaching of the sciences comes to mind. In nearly any subject of study one should be familiar with at least a few major ideas about it, and be willing to explore and examine at least some of the most prominent and obscure of these, and to embrace, reject, or defer judgments upon them to the extent which seems most reasonable based upon what one actually knows or perceives to be most likely. It is also usually very wise to at least occasionally question or doubt much of what one assumes one actually knows, and this has become all too rare a trait in many people. I now have to leave briefly, but will be back soon, and work further on formatting and sourcing quotes on the Moore page. ~ Kalki 22:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikiquote, not a peer review journal. Quickly examine Ann Coulter's external links section. This is more appropriate than the rubbish we are present with here. The balance that I seek only goes so far as the links that are presented here in this table. An official homepage is a perfectly sound starting point, plus any newsletter links. A section full of anti-Coulter/Moore/Limbaugh websites adds little or nothing. I reject your straw man authoritarian argument (funny how you frown at the idea of including additional links one moment, then express your distaste for anyone who would curtail peoples' understanding the next). You are attacking a point I have not made, while once more ignoring the original point I have made. I submitted to you (above) that we leave it to sites of similar and immediate interest to thrash out and publicise such controversies. To this end, the Wikipedia box is a good idea.
You assert: "It is enough for me that there is at least a range of notable pro and con links provided". Must I remind you there is only one pro link that is unequivocally supportive of Michael Moore -- that is, as I said at the start, a 2004 Greg Palast piece. What you erroneously describe as pro links is neutral content. We see a mixture of biographic information, three mainstream network pieces, and the rest is unambiguously anti-Moore. There is no sub header that reads "Pro-Moore sites", filed with third-party support. I have looked, and there is nothing wrong with my eyes. Please in your next post address this very concern. Stay well. smb 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If I might jump in here, one problem I see across Wikiquote is that we don't really have much in the way of standards for external links, other than including the standard Wikimedia project box links, including a few regular genre links (like IMDb for film/TV), and avoiding commercial link spamming. I believe we tend to delete many links that would be appropriate for Wikipedia articles because our task is not to gather subject information, but only quotes, and other quote websites are typically so useless as to be a detriment (and a potential source of copyvio). We already have far more policy work on our community plate that we can readily handle, but at some point we should do some serious brainstorming about what our community wants in Wikiquote "External links" sections. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It certainly needs to be addressed because, absent good judgment, things can get out of hand. The main page is proof of that. smb 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I currently am trying to finish a cleanup of the Moore page but I would like to state that there seems to have been confusion on a few matters, throughout this dialogue.

I have never once, at any time "frowned on the idea of including additional links" — this discussion began after I reverted a deletion of links, and I have repeatedly stated that links to people with opinions either for or against Moore should not be summarily excluded, but also have stated that it is of not a great concern to me to attempt to maintain some supposedly precise balancing of opinions (in response to the specific accusation that it was, and to indications that I considered the links as they existed to presently be such). If there are useful and informative links to pro-Moore articles I do not have any objections to a posting of a few more of them. If that is all that was meant by "rebuttals and responses" then it certainly wasn't clear. "Rebuttal" generally means something more specific and elaborate than that. I should be finished with the basic cleanup on the Moore page soon, as I am simply rearranging most things into order at this point and only have a little more source-checking to do. ~ Kalki 06:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kalki: "I have never once, at any time 'frowned on the idea of including additional links'." Allow me to refresh your memory. When I first called attention to your error and stated my objection to the excessive Fahrenheit 9/11 Controversies and Anti-Moore sites external link sections, proposing to append further reading and counter responses, you said: "I don't know what you mean by adding 'rebutals and responses' whenever necessary", and later, "I still do not see that 'rebuttals and responses' are necessary, nor where exactly you intend to place them". These are your words.
The Fahrenheit 9/11 movie controversy is no longer prominent, contrary to your earlier assertion, so why retain it? Are you waiting for enough criticism to emerge of Moore's latest film to be able to replace it with a SiCKO Controversies section, and so on? No, that's quite unfair, and I withdraw it -- I'm just frustrated with your convoluted defense, which is to maintain imbalance while simultaneously deny that you are doing anything of the sort. Otherwise you would have answered my questions, so far ignored:
1. Do you think Moore's noted output, his very existence, needs to be balanced -- link for link -- by detractors who criticise his every move?
2. Why one thousand five hundred words later, after your "cleanup", is there still link spam in the Anti-Moore links section?
3. Why is there no "Pro-Moore sites" link section?
4. Have you considered including a single link to the directory at Yahoo! Movies, which contains all of these links and more?
If people want to learn the truth about someone's politics, this is not the place to come. And so I firmly stand by my edit (from this [1], to something like this [2], plus one or two changes). smb 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

20 June[edit]

I have attempted to be as considerate of many of your stated concerns as time has permitted me to be.

Pardon my ignorance and inability to fathom what is apparently very clear and obvious to you, but when people speak of "rebuttals and responses", I am inclined to think of actual commentary and argument, such as we have engaged in here, and NOT the mere posting of links. From the first I clearly stated that I did not understand what you meant by that expression, and only in your last 2 posts has it become definitely clarified that you actually were referring to the posting of additional links.

The whole page contains many links to particular essays on Moore's own site, which I have made more clearly evident in my recent work on the page. I expect more to follow, as his site has a wealth of material to quote from. I do not think that "Moore's noted output, his very existence, needs to be balanced — link for link — by detractors who criticise his every move" and never have implied that I did, but if we were to be absolutely anally "PC" about establishing as precise a balance on the page as possible, we might indeed consider a link to some anti-Moore site for every one of these. I am not actually proposing so asinine an extreme, nor would I support anyone actually engaging in such measures, but your talk of this page being atrociously imbalanced against Moore seems to me to be similarly asinine.

Though there are some criticisms, some of them vehement, and most of them added by some of the more recent editors other than myself, the page as a whole provides a broad sampling of Moore's opinions and many points of access to his site and to articles generally favorable towards him:

It additionally provides links to Wikipedia or Wikiquote articles about him and his works:

Roger & Me (1989)
Stupid White Men ...and Other Excuses For the State of the Nation! (2001)
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Dude, Where's My Country? (2003)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

And finally in the "External links" section there are links to generally favorable articles or sites, or those which are neutral in their presentation of his works or opinions:

There is at least one link to page with mixed opinions criticizing both him and his critics:

Among these copious quotes from his sites or general news articles and links to further information on his works are also a few links to sites or pages intensely critical of him (and often these have been used merely because the neutral or pro-Moore sites which have been cited as once containing the quotes for which they are being used as citations no longer do so):

If having a separate subsection clearly designated as "Anti-Moore" sites without one clearly designated "Pro-Moore" sites so offends you, would it be any less disturbing to the fragile sensibilities of some if the designation were removed and people left to discover entirely for themselves that the following five sites which are listed there are intensely polemical in presenting their contempt for Moore and his opinions?

You site a link to Yahoo as a better alternative to specific links. I would much prefer links in general to be as specific as possible, and if a link to a page of links is made by someone, I much prefer that such are to entirely non-commercial page, and not to a commercial site such as Yahoo.

I cleaned up the mess on the page to an extent I might not otherwise have done for months, and just discovered a few errors and omissions in my recent editing that I have now fixed in gathering up these links to illustrate my own contentions that this page is certainly NOT imbalanced against Moore, so at least to that extent, the time spent responding to you has not been entirely fruitless.

In summary of the above presentations, and to be concise on the matter, I perceive we have both made much ado about little, and there has been and probably remains some confusion about what has been intended.

To be more elaborate upon things, I would state that I am usually intensely interested when my own integrity or motives are casually called into question. You have used some words and made some statements in ways that are not actually valid, and others in ways that might be valid, but only obscurely so, and presented arguments and contentions in which I perceive very little validity in ways that I have only gradually been able to decipher, and others that I confess remain quite mysterious to me. It is apparent that you have also failed to either understand or acknowledge some of what I have said: I mentioned concerns for some theoretically "precise" balance as being unworthy of my attention, I still am not confident that I understand what you thought I meant in referring to it as a disregard for "concise balance" which is certainly a term I had never used. You have in fact continually cast unwarranted aspersions upon my honesty, my motives and my interests in this matter.

I am interested in accuracy and precision to the extent that it is possible, which is why I often tend to use more words than others might in expressing myself, but I am not prone to pretending that precision is possible where it is not, and I believe that an exact balancing of contending opinions is precisely one of the areas where it is a largely fictitious ideal.

That I am interested in concision is evident by my interest in quotations, but I have no great interest at this time in being either a critic or a defender of Michael Moore; I am merely interested in seeing that a broad range of views are available on many matters and that none are summarily excluded by editors whose interests seem to be more intensely focused upon some particular matter.

You state that "If people want to learn the truth about someone's politics, this is not the place to come." and that you stand firm in your regard for an edit that wipes away all links in the external link section to any arguments with Moore's opinions. I believe that a page of quotations by a person is actually often a far better place to come to get accurate indications of a person's actual opinions and ideas on many matters than articles written about them, and the criticisms, whether valid or invalid that are made of a person's ideas should not be absolutely excluded.

If you actually examined the links on the extreme mess of a page on Ann Coulter which you sited as an example of a better arrangement you would find that one of the links is a dead link, and that "The Wisdom of Ann Coulter" is actually sarcastic in its use of the term "Wisdom":

I believe wisdom includes letting many ideas be presented about things, and not absolutely excluding a group of them from consideration merely because they might might be polemic and invalid on many points or unpleasant to some people's sensibilities. I can agree that many critics of Moore tend to be even more loose about their facts and skewed with their presentations than Moore himself is, but that does not mean that I can agree with excluding links to their sites any more than I would exclude links to Moore's. ~ Kalki 23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of my single edit to the Michael Moore page was to cut back the 'External links' section (hence the edit summary reads: External links). You posted a short note of explanation justifying why the external links were restored. My stated objections, concise and completely unambiguous, all related to the state of the 'External links' division. When I said "the external links section [is] needlessly lopsided [and] unless we can come to some arrangement, it is only fair that I start adding rebuttals and responses wherever necessary", what, may I ask, did you think I was proposing to insert -- whole swathes of rebuttal text into the main page itself, fouling it completely? That would be unprecedented and inappropriate. (And if that is what you thought, why didn't you knock the idea on the head to begin with?) If something else, why waste so much time and energy arguing without once ever seeking clarification?
You agree that Moore's output should not be paired, link for link, by detractors who parse his every word. But then proceed to say, "if we were to be absolutely anally 'PC' about establishing as precise a balance on the page as possible, we might indeed consider a link to some anti-Moore site for every one of these." It obviously has escaped your inattention but the external links section is precisely stacked this way. (And, yes, I am therefore bound to agree you are being anal about it.) I have no solid idea why you reproduced all of those unrelated main body sources, though suspect you are now trying to create confusion to relieve your intransigence.
After much armwaving you finally break down the 'External links' section. Let's test your reasoning. You say of the first section, "there are links to generally favorable articles or sites". Plural. And yet when one actually examines the links, the only approving item is a 2004 piece authored by Greg Palast, third from the bottom, entitled "Gagging Michael Moore". The single CNN article "Disney blocking film about Bush" and two BBC notifications "Moore's 9/11 trailer goes online", "Moore fires Oscar anti-war salvo" merely report, and do not support. The "Post Oscar Press Conference" audio link is dead (not that you seem honestly to care). What remains is biographic information. So clearly you are in serious error, as I first asserted at the top of this page.
Your next paragraph is similarly breathtaking. In absence of a 'Pro-Moore' subsection, and believing you have made a satisfactory defense, you (not altogether seriously) suggest that we remove the 'Anti-Moore' header so not to offend the "fragile sensibilities" of, well, me; and to let each visitor discern for themselves which link is pro- and which is anti-Moore. There is just one gargantuan problem with this: Apart from a single Greg Palast link, there are no pro-Moore links. To repeat, what you erroneously describe as pro-Moore is in fact neutral and biographic content. (If Michael Moore was to make his next film about himself, and acknowledge all of his faults, would you seriously place a link to his movie in the 'Anti-Moore sites' link section?)
You reject the idea of a single, neutral link that contains all of these anti-Moore sites and more, because you "much prefer links in general to be as specific as possible, and if a link to a page of links is made by someone, I much prefer that such are to entirely non-commercial page, and not to a commercial site such as Yahoo." Non-commercial sites like MooreWatch, Michael Moore Hates America, Bowling For Truth, Moore Lies, Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11? Your explanation for dismissing this idea is wholly unsatisfactory, if not insulting.
And there's more. You actually troubled yourself to check the page on Ann Coulter. Aparently it contains a dead link. Snap! But what is worse -- spotting a dead link on a page I cited fleetingly as an example of how an 'External links' section might look like, or failing to identify the dead link and commercial spam on the page you purport to have "cleaned up", and have spent so much time defending? What nerve! smb 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly your last paragraph didn't initially make any sense at all to me, and I could only surmise a few fragments of what you might have meant. I replaced a dead link on the Ann Coulter page, one that I have generally avoided even touching. That seemed to be a source of outrage for you, but I was not certain of that. I later clearly did see that you were referring to my missing the fact that there was a dead link that remained on the page, which you deride with a statement "not that you seem honestly to care." Amidst the extensive cleanup to the page that I have done in the last few days I missed a dead link — excuse my incredible inadequacy in this regard, but I make no claim to absolute perfection. Neither do I expect it from anyone else, but there were only 5 links in that section of Coulter's page to examine, there are many more on Moore's page.

Your arguments have at times had a great deal of melodramatic bombast and accusation, but very little clear cohesion or consistency — what consistency has existed has certainly not always been clearly stated. You have also several times used quotes of my statements out of context to imply I meant something which I plainly did not, and to twist them to seem I intended something that it is also quite clear that I did not:

"You agree that Moore's output should not be paired, link for link, by detractors who parse his every word. But then proceed to say, "if we were to be absolutely anally 'PC' about establishing as precise a balance on the page as possible, we might indeed consider a link to some anti-Moore site for every one of these."

Your entire citation of that statement has apparent validity only if you totally ignore the statement which follows it: "I am not actually proposing so asinine an extreme, nor would I support anyone actually engaging in such measures, but your talk of this page being atrociously imbalanced against Moore seems to me to be similarly asinine."

That I reject an idea of a single link to some "intermediary" site as replacement for the links that are provided, and especially to a commercial one is described as "wholly unsatisfactory, if not insulting."  I am very aware that there are commercial concerns evident at the anti-Moore sites as well as Moore's own, but these sites are all directly related to the subject of the page, while Yahoo or any other commercial link provider is not.

I am aware that you have attempted to keep the focus entirely on the external links section as if that were all that need be considered in gauging the fairness of the links provided there but I have never accepted that supposition, nor do I accept the assessment that if a site or link is not explicitly pro-Moore it is not to be counted as some degree of a balance against some of the anti-Moore links that are provided.

If a person is given enough attention and respect as to be quoted word for word, without a framing commentary implying that this person is a hypocrite, a liar or a dishonorable schemer, yes, I would say that such attention is generally positive. It does not need to be explicitly labeled as pro-Moore, nor from a specifically pro-Moore site, for to some extent it is pro-fairness and pro-honesty in regard to people in general. A site that has been explicitly labeled anti-Moore is one where the bias, the agenda, the motives, and the focus can be expected to fall precisely into such narrow corridors of thought and expression as are explicitly against Moore or his ideas. If you know of any third party "pro-Moore" sites I certainly have no objections to links to them being posted, but I do believe that posts to his official sites can legitimately be considered as generally pro-Moore, and not merely neutral. ~ Kalki 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I make no claims of infallibility nor do I expect other users to be perfect. What I do expect, however, is a general level of focused attention on the main issue itself. If you failed to realise a link was dead, it simply means you did not click on it to verify. It should be of noted concern that, after investing so much time being sure of yourself and arguing against me, you had not even bothered to perform this basic examination. And so, yes, I find it hard to excuse your inadequacy in this matter. At this late stage you also have removed a link to Bowling for Truth, a commercial website no longer of any relevance; its principle purpose to generate income for the site owner. It has taken you this long to check all of the links, after you reverted them.
Sorry if my tone sounds increasingly confrontational. It is not easy to communicate with someone who argues backwards from ignorance and whom refuses to respond to reason. The above two corrections suffice to demonstrate the former point. I will leave it to others to decide if I have understood you correctly. Needless to say, I interrupted your earlier statement to remark upon its irony -- where the 'External link' section is concerned, not only have you introduced such a criterion, but you also insisted on retaining it. You obviously fail to recognise this, and yet further down in your response to me you state: "I do believe that posts to [Michael Moore's] official sites can legitimately be considered as generally pro-Moore...", and above that, "nor do I accept the assessment that if a site or link is not explicitly pro-Moore it is not to be counted as some degree of a balance against some of the anti-Moore links that are provided." This helps to explain the imbalance that on the one hand you deny exists, yet on the other hand go to great lengths to uphold. You're not interested in maintaining some precise balance of opinion, except when your argument requires it! You're not interested in curtailing information, except when your argument requires it! Your posts reek of doublethink. Quotes are selective by their very nature. In looking for dishonesty, we need to see if any distortion has been introduced. In this case the answer is verifiably No. And so just what exactly is your argument? 'The F9/11 controversy and anti-Moore website links stay! End of story.'
I will continue to push for a single link to Michael Moore at the Yahoo! Movies Directory in place of either a pro- or anti-Moore 'External links' section. You have rejected this suggestion because the anti-Moore sites below, "are all directly related to the subject of the page, while Yahoo or any other commercial link provider is not." You are mistaken. The directory page is direct relevant to the subject of the page, since it contains the same links. (Unless by "direct" you mean users will have to click their mouse-button more than once to access the same site?) Further, it is far less commercialised than some of the sites people will ultimately be visiting, and a great deal more information on a range of subjects is available and can be freely accessed there. Please give this proposal the serious consideration it deserves. smb 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You expect "a general level of focused attention on the main issue itself." What you perceive to be the main issue and I perceive to be the main issues of concern have obviously been very different.

When cleaning up the page, I was doing precisely that, cleaning up the formating of the page. I was focused on cleaning up a formating and organizational mess that had existed for some time. As I was doing it I also checked most of the links, but I obviously did not check all of them, many which had been listed as they currently are in the links section since the creation of the page in June 2004, save for the brief incident of your deletion of some of them.

You have repeatedly mentioned my intransigence on not removing some links you wish removed as unreasonable, and remain proud of your intransigence in insisting upon it. You have several times made wild claims that my reasoning is in various ways deficient, and that my arguments are merely circular, and frankly I do not see what you base some of your accusations on at all; you seem to make them because they might sound valid and pertinent.

I reverted your edit to the link section, and to some extent examined it and modified it as seemed appropriate; I did not make an intense study of it, nor was I inclined to — despite some occasional insinuations I have certainly not been driven by any ideological antipathy to Moore to provide a plethora of links disrespectful of him. I do believe that access to links to any relevant sites should not be relegated to some third party. In the pages where such directory links have been used, it is usually done in addition to and not as replacement for relevant links. I am not inclined to gather or retain highly commercial or marginally relevant links, but neither am I as inclined as some might be to drastically reduce or even totally eliminate links to relevant sites.

When I recently investigated a few more of the links more fully I saw that "Bowling for Truth" was no longer primarily relevant to the page, if it ever had been, and I removed it. I try to do what I can to keep as many of the pages here in relatively good condition, but there remain only a small group of regular editors at work here, and none of us can be expected to scrutinize all the edits made to any particular page, and to check all the links added to it, especially where we ourselves do not have any fixated interest.

I have gathered a few more quotes for the page in the course of examining some of the material that I collected for myself from various sites and articles, which I will probably soon post, but though I have taken note of many of them with agreement or disagreement, Moore's opinions as a whole have not been one of my more intense subjects of study. ~ Kalki 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pride does not come into it. Do you not think it a legitimate expectation for one user to seriously address the obvious point of concern of another user? My reason for the edit is elucidated throughout this page. Words convey meaning and my meaning was immediately made clear. If at some point you failed to grasp it then I am not the one to blame. It sounds to me as though you got distracted by the general "formating and organizational mess" which you had been meaning to cleanup for some time. Again, that is your error. In the course of debate you also failed to validate each one of the external links and yet you somehow managed to find the time to inspect the external links on the Ann Coulter page (which I cursorily referenced) and then throw the results of that examination back in my face (presumably to embarrass me). I am willing to leave all of this personal stuff behind so we can move forward.
Am I to understand that you once more reject my external link proposal? Earlier, I solicited Jeff's opinion on our disagreement. His thoughts on external links are near identical to mine. Would you care to comment? If no solution is found then I will follow his neutral advice and pose the same question to the wider community. smb 03:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that there is much that is extremely dishonest, unfair and ridiculous at the anti-Moore sites which are being discussed. I know the same is true of some of the material Moore himself presents at his, but I am not for treating most people like infants who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Learning to discern and deal with the massive amount of bullshit that are slung about constantly by people voicing all ranges of political opinions is one of the things that most people browsing the internet must eventually learn to do for themselves. The same applies to the expression of religious and anti-religious opinions, and opinions in a wide range of other fields.

The attempts to shelter people from exposure to adversarial views, or to remove links to prominently adversarial sites for the expression of pertinent opinions from pages, is one I tend to object to vigorously from whatever particular range of the political spectrum it originates.

You might argue that you were removing some pro-Moore sites as well, but the net effect of your edits were to eliminate ALL critical links from the external inks section.

In this instance you have been simply insisting on nothing more unreasonable than that we should not have these links critical to the subject on the page, because the sites are full of opinions of people who are extremely biased against Moore and have little or nothing good to say about him. By a rigorous application of such criteria we should have nothing but pro-Hitler, pro-nazi links on the pages for Adolf Hitler and all the other Third Reich imbeciles. Nothing but pro-Stalin, or pro-Mao and pro-communist links on the page for Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Nothing but pro-Manson links on the page for Charles Manson. Nothing but sites endorsing the impulses toward murder, slavery, necrophilia and cannibalism of Jeffrey Dahmer on his page. You actually accused me of "doublethink" but perhaps these extreme examples can help break through the walls of bias that make you believe your impulse toward a censorship of opinions are more worthy of application than those of Hitler, Stalin or Mao would be. I am not normally inclined to emphasize or remark upon whatever good may have existed in any of the people I have just mentioned, but I am sure there are probably some people who would welcome the establishment of such rules in regard to their pages as well. I would not.

In general, upon any matter of consideration, I would much prefer that broad ranges of opinions be accessible and that even some proponents of errors and distortions be allowed some chance to be heard, so that those actually aiming for truth and honesty may better recognize the strategies and distortions which they must learn to effectively combat with reason and vigorous expressions of their own, and not merely seek to simply silence by force or by over-ambitious application of existing customs or laws against human freedom. ~ Kalki 04:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons 21 June 2007[edit]

The struggle for historical truth is almost never straightforward. Freedom of expression and traditional methods of evaluation are incredibly important in any democracy. Naturally, one first needs to be exposed to material in order to consider, test and evaluate its accuracy. In a single case this process can often go on for tens of years until eventually the dross (or as much of it as possible) is cleared away. Your appreciation for historical truth is to be applauded, if genuine -- however, serious doubt remains because as I sit here and examine the main page as it existed before my one and only edit, I do not see much room or hope for historical truth to emerge. The truth, so it appears, is not on Michael Moore's side:
External links
Fahrenheit 9/11 Controversies:
Anti-Moore sites:
I'm no referee but I do know there is a stark difference between helping people to "discern and deal" with the "masses of bullshit" and idly throwing more of it at them (like throwing a non swimmer into the sea is not always the best way to help someone learn how to swim).
I'm glad you agree that, "some proponents of errors and distortions be allowed some chance to be heard...". This could get messy, but since you reject a single link to a reputable site that contained the above information and more, so be it. smb 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really cannot see what you are going on about, posting comparisons that you must know are already obsolete. You used a listing of the links as they existed immediately before and after my reversion of your deletions. I actually did modify it immediately after that, and even more since this discussion began, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. You by that measure are the one being absolutely intransigent, and you continue to misrepresent the actual situation — at the point of your last post the listings were actually these (with some additional comments as to their nature):

External links

  • Michael Moore's Official site (with full postings of his own extensive views on many issues and product pitches - I have no objection to linking to so obviously a pertinent site no matter how much commercialization is evident.)
  • Michael Moore at IMDb (a neutral site in regard to issues, and one with some independent commercial advertising, but on the whole a source of extensive information about film works, used extensively both here and at Wikipedia, and clearly another point of access for obtaining Moore's own works in their entirety)
  • Michael Moore on YouTube (a direct link to Michael Moore's own account and postings at YouTube)
  • BBC on Moore's Oscar Speech (an independent report of his speech, including a full transcription of his statement in its entirety)
  • Moore's Oscar acceptance speech (YouTube Video) (a link to a video of Moore's famous speech in its entirety)

Fahrenheit 9/11 Controversies:

  • Fahrenheit 9/11 at IMDb (another direct link to IMDb's info on Moore's most famous and controversial film to date.)
  • Fahrenheit 9/11 Trailer (a promotional trailer for his film)
  • Gagging Michael Moore (an article generally favorable subtitled "Hands off the fat guy in the chicken suit, Mr. Mogul")
  • CNN on 9/11 Controversy (CNN report titled "Moore: Disney blocking film about Bush" (6 May 2004) No clear editorial bias evident in the commentary, but generally most favorable and attentive to Moore's statements and expressions.)
  • BBC on 9/11 (BBC report on the film being released despite previous controversies and attempts to stifle it)

Anti-Moore sites: (clearly labeled for what they are; I do not see that this "special attention" is in anyway objectionable)

  • MooreWatch (one of the more famous anti-Moore sites where the extreme bias against him is vociferous and plainly evident, but which Moore himself helped out, financially, to the tune of $12,000, as reported at /film (18 May 2007))
  • Michael Moore Hates America (exploring this link, I see that there are currently no more than promotional citations for the film itself, but curiously no further active inks (not even to purchase it). — I now intend to delete this link as for the most part a page of merely promotional advertising, without any notable analysis or commentary about Moore)
  • Moore Lies: Revealing the Truth Behind Michael Moore (I don't know how famous or notable this forum is, and really don't have any strong desire to keep it, but I am inclined to do so merely because the push to delete it and the others has been so absolute, and absolutely disproportionate to the facts of the matter.)
  • Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (a point by point listing of what it states to be deceptions or omissions in Moore's films in which the author engages in his own forms of deception and omission, but produces many valid points of contention among them, even as Moore's own works do.)

I again will indicate my view that it is ludicrous to assert that even this very limited section of the page is in anyway overwhelmingly biased against Moore. I would also say that the page as a whole is overwhelmingly promotional of many of his ideas, and that the only section which might currently have some strong slant against him is the "Quotes about Moore" section, to which I recently added both mixed and a favorable statements.

I have just completed the edit I mentioned above, deleting "Michael Moore Hates America" which appears to currently be nothing more than a page of advertisement. So now the overwhelming bias you seem to believe has been evident against Moore consists of the incredible imbalance created by these three links:

Against these stand only 2 links in this section to Moore's own personal postings (despite the numerous links to them elsewhere on the page), 4 generally favorable reports by independent new sources, including extensive quotation of his speeches or statements, a video posting of his famous oscar speech, 2 links to a neutral site with information on his works and from which they can be obtained, and a promotional trailer for one of his films. The injustice is indeed plainly incredible.

Working on the Michael Moore page has not been my primary concern in recent days, but discussing it has consumed much of the time I would normally have been doing other things on Wikiquote. I also did in haste make a few grammatical errors in my responses here, one of which I just corrected. In all, my recent work on the page transformed it from this disorganized mess, to a page that I feel could use improvement, but is at least properly organized, and from which several of the links you have so vociferously campaigned to eliminate actually have been removed. I really cannot concede that I am the one being most intransigent and biased in my attending to this matter. ~ Kalki 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kalki wrote: I really cannot see what you are going on about, posting comparisons that you must know are already obsolete. You used a listing of the links as they existed immediately before and after my reversion of your deletions.
Yes, but did you not read why? The point of reproducing an old version of the page was to support my contention that -- until my edit -- providing a balanced platform to aid research and evaluation didn't seem to be too serious a concern of yours. Pursuit of truth is not strictly assisted by embedding a bunch of anti-InsertNameHere links on a page. Even the formatting suggests (at least to me) a greater desire to refute what this person has to say rather than to get at any deeper truth. Otherwise the sub headers might well read: "Critical views" and "Supportive views".
Kalki wrote: I actually did modify it immediately after that, and even more since this discussion began, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that.
I'm happy to acknowledge it. The section is looking a lot better now than it did previously (though the words 'pulling' and 'teeth' do spring to mind). Now, what chance is there of you applying the two sub headers above? [runs and hides behind sandbags]
'Kalki wrote: I again will indicate my view that it is ludicrous to assert that even this very limited section of the page is in anyway overwhelmingly biased against Moore.
I disagree, for the reasons previously stated. This obviously returns to the issue on what is 'neutral', what is 'negative', and what is 'positive' content. You place Michael Moore's output firmly in the positive whereas I happen to think he belongs in neither of these, being simply the subject of the page. Imagine for one moment if, sometime in the future, you wrote a best selling book on dieting. Then another book on, say, accounting. ...then another ...and another. And one day you stumble upon a page on Wikiquote with your name attached to it. At the bottom of that page is a link to your official homepage and a handful of book reviews. Perhaps a verbatim record of a speech you once gave. But immediately underneath you find a sub header that simply reads "anti-Kalki" followed by a handful of negative links. Might you then ponder, "hmm, that 'smb' bloke might just have been onto something"?
Kalki wrote: I really cannot concede that I am the one being most intransigent and biased in my attending to this matter.
No, but you are still a stubborn fox. :) smb 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)