Talk:Stupid White Men

Vandalism

206.123.202.54 changed the title of this page into "Stupid Fat Men" as well as some details. I think I reversed most of it but watch out for future edits this person makes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.112.158 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

References? Neutrality?

I added an "unreferenced" flag to this page. Most of this article is a narrative of the troubles Moore had with publishing the book, but with no mention of the sources for any of that story, or for any of the (somewhat outlandish) quotes. Not quite up to encyclopedia standards.

the "narrative of the troubles Moore had with publishing the book" was included in the (revised edition?) book in the forward. --Hypo Mix (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in light of some other comments on this discussion page ("Most of the material in the article is based directly on the UK Edition's Introduction"), a NPOV flag might be more warranted. 68.33.214.51 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"To the chagrin of HarperCollins" Is this actually true? I would have thought HC would have been chargined if the book had incited riots and lawsuits against the publisher. They wanted a book that would sell well, they just didn't think they had one. Rich Farmbrough 10:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I edited it to "Despite HarperCollins' predictions". "To the chagrin" is patent nonsense - to say that company would be unhappy that one of its products sold well is beyond the realm of conspiracy theory. Last Malthusian 15:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Most of the material in the article is based directly on the UK Edition (ISBN 0141011904 )'s Introduction. Copyvio? Lee M 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I might add that the Section about Moore having troubles with harper-collins sounds like a paraphrased version of the intro to "Stupid White men" - Or at least, the International copies. Churba 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Factual inaccuracies"

What are the "inaccuracies" in the book this article refers to?

I second that. It's important to back up a statement like that with examples to maintain some semblance of NPoV - 81.100.216.53 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I guess there are going to be bunches of anti-Moore sites, a link to them may suffice. But an unsubstantiated accusation like that cannot stand. --Orzetto 09:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No idea of the validity of this site (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html), but it's anti-Stupid White Men and seems to know what it's talking about

The whole book is "inaccuracy". Have you read it? Moore claims there are more girls born than boys (wich is false (Sex_ratio)). And the reasoning for that is that its "mother nature" wants to destroy man because of his sins... There are plenty more "inaccuracies".

"mother nature wants to destroy man because of his sins" is clearly a tongue in cheek joke. also in most developed countries the sex ratio generally shows more women than men (eg: australia,USA,almost all of europe.).--Hypo Mix (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Michael Moore is not noted for much besides collecting a lot of money from dubious stories. He has not produced one single piece of "work" that did not have copious amounts of legitemate criticism.24.10.102.46 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

legitimate criticism is only required for scientific articles which is hardly what he is attempting. --Hypo Mix (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)--

Merge proposal for A Prayer to Afflict the Comfortable

Fine with me. SP-KP 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who read this book explain why the first prayer listed here makes any sense? If we are sufficiently old enough, there is a good chance of getting cancer so it's not something that being a person of establishment helps in avoiding. Also any member of House of Representatives should have a good medical coverage that give them the advantage in fighting cancer that "ordinary" people may not have. This is like saying "You have a great medical coverage so I hope you get sick to feel the pain of ordinary people who can't afford it!". It just doesn't make any sense. --Revth 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stupid White Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030212035001/http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/stupidwhitemen/onlinechapters/part01.php/ to http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/stupidwhitemen/onlinechapters/part01.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)