Talk:Morgan Spurlock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spurlock Watch and Criticisms

What's wrong with this link? Furthermore, why are you getting rid of the criticisms? --Badlydrawnjeff 14:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I haven't deleted any criticisms, only rephrased them to eliminate redundant material. Both viewpoints, pro and con, remain unaltered. Those interested in an in-depth discussion of the veracity of Spurlock's Super_Size_Me results can visit the page specific to that film. The Spurlock entry is a general information entry, not a place to rehash those arguments at length.

As far as "Spurlock Watch" goes, I suppose it's possible that there might be something worthwhile there, but it seems to be little more than a hatchet job. Unsurprising, given the political bent of the author (the Cato Institute link is a dead giveaway). Since Wikipedia is a reference, and not a billboard for right/conservative viewpoints, there's little value to be gotten via that link from an information standpoint. However, leave it if you feel it's a fair addition. I won't touch it if no one else does.

Any other changes I've made are purely from a grammatical and clarity standpoint, though I did add a few more links to balance out the wingnuts. -- James

I appreciate your edits after my original complaint, I'm glad you came around. Thanks! --Badlydrawnjeff 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If the information 'supporting' the claims made in Super Size Me is going to be left in the article, leave the counterpoints and information AGAINST those claims in the article as well. Otherwise you have one side and not the other. If the counterpoints get removed, someone will have to go and remove the points Spurlock tried to make in that film. Nezu Chiza 20:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nezu, that's incorrect. Points for and against are both included in the article. If readers want to hear about 5,000-calorie diets, they can go to the article on SUPER SIZE ME for that information. Your tinkering with the Spurlock article has only served to introduce irrelevant or redundant points. It is not necessary (for example) to introduce a whole paragraph that simply reiterates that SUPER SIZE ME was controversial. That's a waste, and only serves to further your anti-Spurlock agenda. If you have an axe to grind with the man, do it on a blog, or something. -- James

I've never understood how trying to present both sides of something is considered having an 'axe to grind' by so many people. If making a mention of the ways in which his experiment failed to take into account certain things, or made certain assumptions...then why mention the ezperiment at all? I'll remove everything about Super Size Me other than a quick mention of it which will contain the link, and that'd be fairest of all, wouldn't it? Because, as you pointed out, they can go to the article on SUPER SIZE ME for the information duplicated here. Nezu Chiza 16:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

This back and forth on the page is getting old very quickly. All relevant facts appropriate to a biographical entry are included as of the revision I made this morning. Screwing around with the entry to turn it into an anti-Spurlock screed is a disservice to those who choose to use Wikipedia as a resource. Consider this message the first step of four toward involving administrators in a vandalism issue. James 6 August 2005, 9:11AM

I agree with James. The SUPER SIZE ME article goes into much better depth without being biased. This part still sounds biased to me and doesn't go here. Other opinions? --Macrowiz 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Spurlock Watch should not be credited simply as an "Anti-Spurlock" blog. They do not go out of their way to oppose him merely for the sake of opposing him, or go after him as some personal vendetta. In fact, in one of their entries, they note that he's right on at least one thing, even if he's wrong about others. Calling the blog "Anti-Spurlock" just makes it sound like a vendetta blog, which despite some of Morgan's bah-ing followers, it is not. -RannXXV 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcdonalds Ban

I removed the allegation that Spurlock was banned from all McDonalds establishments. Such a ludicrous allegation should stay off until it is clearly proven. Hearsay is not proof. (Phobal 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

Removal of section

There is no need to trim the Super Size Me section to just one line. The level of detail in the summary here is appropriate while one line is clearly inadequate. Therefore, I've restored it again. Worldtraveller 17:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The summary includes none of the negative information about his experiment, yet each time anyone(including myself) adds even a few lines they get removed. Therefore the summary only gives one side(that which supports what Spurlock was trying to 'prove'), and thus fails to keep NPOV. Hence why the summary was removed and the link given. If the summary merely mentioned what he was doing without the 'results', then it would be fine, but as it stands it's biased. But in the interests of those who only like one side of things, and because it's like dealing with a corpse to try and change minds...do as you will. Nezu Chiza 17:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nezu, all you're doing is reiterating what's already in the piece, and then complaining when the bloat is trimmed. You're wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. The article as it currently exists is BALANCED PROPERLY; both positive and negative comments remain in summary. Those interested in a lengthier exposition of the debate may click on the link to Spurlock's film and television projects. -- James

Do you consider one line about critics in "Super Size Me" as "balanced properly?" I certainly don't, and I think more space should be provided for it if we're to have a Super Size Me section in this article --Badlydrawnjeff 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a lost cause to try and point out that one line does not a balanced article make. What was most amusing is that James said they could click on the link to Spurlock's film and television projects for a lengthier exposition...yet Super Size Me had NO information in the entire article on the flaws in the 'experiment' until I put one there. Makes you wonder why they're so set on hiding the controversy. Nezu Chiza 23:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nezu, presenting both sides isn't an "axe to grind" (and thanks for visiting my blog, by the way). Adding a whole paragraph to reiterate what's already been successfully put across with one sentence is a waste of time. Doing it over and over and OVER again when one has had the pointlessness of the act pointed out moves into "axe to grind" territory. Saying the same thing repeatedly doesn't expand upon the anti-Spurlock argument, which is what your additions have consisted of thus far. I'm glad to hear you've taken your Morgan-and-pony show to another entry so that other people can deal with it.

Also, there is no "they." "They" is an invention of paranoids. "They" are too busy operating mind-control satellites to bother with an entry on Wikipedia.

Jeff, I consider the article balanced because this is meant to be a biographical entry that provides basic info on Spurlock. It does that by pointing out what Spurlock is known for, the basic facts of which are not in dispute (McDonald's diet, weight loss, organ dysfunction). There's mention of his critics and a distillation of their complaints. This is all that SHOULD be here. Anything more is playing to one audience or the other. This is an encyclopedia entry, and therefore it's meant to be a resource, not a debate club. -- James

Blueeyes edit

Sorry for the sudden changes to this sucker's formatting, but whoever started the old version of this article should read Elements of Writing and Style. It also doesn't seem very NPOV to include complaints, opinions, or supporting ideas intertwined with a description of a biographical event. This was most evident in the section about Supersize Me. Despite the 'critics say' tag, it still looked like we were claiming what they said to be exactly as much a fact as the damage done to Spurlock's liver. The second section was better seperated, but didn't include many critical viewpoints (one show out of six?), and did not seem to correctly

I know I included more information as to complaints of Spurlock's works, however, no matter how hard we try, it's damn likely that this article is going to suggest that 'McDs is bad'. Since that also means we're likely to present one opinion on a subject (yes, bad is qualitive, and that makes it an opinion), we need to represent the others. According to the NPOV page, we should present every side of a viewpoint as long as it has a significant minority who adhere to its viewpoints. I don't think we were giving a very reasonable response for that minority by simply saying 'critics call the movie dishonest'. At the very least, we need to actually say what their complaints are; the two sentences in here before didn't mention what the critics actually saw to be problematic. I'd prefer if biographies could be perfect lists of facts and not have to deal with this, but that's not how the world works. After all, it wouldn't be reasonable to have a George W. Bush entry without giving a section to his critics. Sure, wikipedians could just type in War on Terror, War in Iraq, and U.S. Economy (2001), but they shouldn't have to. We're not an encylopedia, JamesKosub, and this article would get WAAAY too boring it is was. Feel free to revert or remove the extra crits if you must. Blueeyes65.31.59.176 23:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Balance

Take a look at the entry as it exists right now (9:08am EST): that's what a balanced entry looks like. Biographical information is shared -- and thanks to whomever it was who let me know that CNN link was dead -- and a project-by-project breakdown follows. Those breakdowns are thumbnail descriptions of the projects. Since Wikipedia has entries for at least Super Size Me and 30 Days (I didn't check on I Bet You Will), there's no need to go on and on (and on) about the positives or negatives of the experiment. That sort of thing is best discussed elsewhere.

The question to ask in this instance is whether the facts stated are in dispute. They are not. Spurlock was in above-average condition for his age and sex at the beginning of the Super Size Me project. He did eat a (partly) super-sized McDonald's diet for thirty days. He did restrict his exercise habits to conform to the American standard. He did experience dramatic health changes. And, to cap it all off, there are critics who contend that Super Size Me was BS because any such program was bound to create havoc with a person's health.

Additional paragraphs that simply restate the above, pro or con, is a waste of time for all concerned. We can go back and forth on this forever, though I'm sure the administrators will be brought in sooner rather than later. The fact is that Spurlock's work includes X, critics say Y, and there are better places to expand upon that conflict. Blueeyes (see below) has a point in that there should be additional material on the subject. However, that additional material doesn't belong in a biographical entry. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate club.

Let's put a stop to this back-and-forth nonsense now. Those who detest Spurlock and his work should go to the entries specific to Super Size Me and 30 Days. James

First, I'm re-adding the parts of the talk page you blanked. If we're going to have an admin come in on this, it's worth it for him/her to be able to see the discussion easily.

Second, any discussion of Spurlock would require detailed information on what the criticisms of his work are. You can go into much further detail about them in the Super Size Me and 30 Days article if necessary, but to completely whitewash the whole thing when people probably aren't interested in going to an article about a 3 year old movie when looking for historical information on the man himself is wrong and lends itself to a POV whitewash.

I think we should reinstate the page before your major edit. If you disagree, I fully support you bringing an admin in to do so. I've fought with you over this already, and I don't really care to do so again. Criticisms are important and necessary for this article, and the details are what is most necessary. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have Don't Eat This Book: Fast Food and the Supersizing of America?

I want to know what Wikipedia article Spurlock sourced. If anyone can find this, that would be great, as I'm writing an article on Wikipedia's usage in books. Please contact me at my talk page user talk:zanimum. Thanks again! -- user:zanimum

vandalism

I took out some vandalism from an anon from 68.0.124.45 That is a Cox Communications Inc user in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

How exactly were his edits vandalism? He added some critical data that probably should have been sourced and a link that's still very legitimate as a criticism even though we have had people fighting over it. --badlydrawnjeff 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

His edits were biased against Spurlock and violated the nutrality of Wikipedia. --8bitJake

Edits you consider NPOV aren't necessarily vandalism. If you have an NPOV issue with them, bring 'em to talk, but don't use a word like vandalism. In nearly every article of controversial figures, both sides are presented, and verifiable criticisms are more than warranted. --badlydrawnjeff 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

One must love how any and all criticisms of Spurlock are now biased and vandalism, hm? Personally I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't just delete the article altogether. And I'm the "vandal" from Tulsa. Way to fake being an admin there, 8BitJake, you keep on fighting the good fight against any meany who lets a little thing like the truth get in the way of your praise of Spurlock.

"Anti-Spurlock Media"

I think the statements on the Website mymcdiet.com make it an Anti-Spurlock website.

"Your an American Are you a good American? Attacking McDonalds tears at my soul. McDonalds is part of our culture, or lives, it just pains me so much to see an American Icon ripped on like that. As far as I am concerned they could take down that Statue of Liberty and give it back to the French and replace it with one of Ronald holding a Super Sized Soft Drink saying "give me your hungry, your poor, your masses waiting at the doors". The thought just makes me weep. His golden jumpsuit glistening, bright red hair waving, fireworks going off all around, all for future generations to remember who fed them in their time of need. Someone check to see if Morgan was financed by Al-Qutofu or Hamburglar Hussain"

Questioning the patriotism of Mr. Spurlock qualifies this as an Anti-Spurlock website if you ask me.

The wording you put on the thing was "self-proclaimed." At no time does it proclaim such a thing, thus your statement is factually incorrect. I'm reverting your POV pushing, please try to keep NPOV in mind when you edit this article. --badlydrawnjeff 12:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The continued incorrect use of wording and POV statements has to stop. The external links are fine where they are and accurately described in an NPOV way. Any criticisms of Spurlock are being addressed in small ways within the individual sections and, hopefully, in better detail in the individual articles for his works. Please stop making POV edits to make some point and try to work toward consensus. --badlydrawnjeff 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that the Anti-Spurlock section is POV and it think it warrants inclusion. I don't want to get into a pissing contest but I am not going to let you censor me. --8bitJake 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not censoring you, I'm telling you flat out that the section is POV. For instance, the first paragraph about "politically challenging?" POV statement. Listing off a bunch of irrelevant documentaries and then calling out the right wing saying they "feel threatened?" You have no sourcing of that, and it's a complete POV push. I've already pointed out that the McDiet link never says "anti-Spurlock," so your "self-proclaimed" statement is incorrect. Your hardly readable and lacking-in-grammar second paragraph is also unsourced and makes a lot of assumptions about the ideology of those creating the sites. Please do NOT add this back until you can verify the information you're placing there. Also, keep in mind that you're close to 3RR at this point. --badlydrawnjeff 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a Three-revert rule exception for vandalism as I consider most of your edits --8bitJake

I'll keep in mind that you don't believe that the rules apply to you. --badlydrawnjeff 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the DVD information, as it's really not at all necessary in the Spurlock article and is better off in the Super Size Me article, if relevant at all. I've also NPOVed your additions to the descriptions, please be careful of calling something "false" without verification. --badlydrawnjeff 01:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please work to find agreement in how to move forward. Nobody wins in a revert war. Once you have a agreed on how to move forward, place a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a seperate Morgan Spurlock criticisms page

I request moving all right wing criticisms and links to right wing websites to a separate page. I believe that they are negatively biased against Mr Spurlock and they do not deserve to be included in the main page. On the criticisms page people would be free to list all the bile and rage that they have about Mr. Spurlock on that page and the main article would remain neutral. --8bitJake 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No go. POV forks are not worthwhile, the criticisms are simply stated and do not take up too much space, and any criticisms in place are sourced. Whitewashing the article is not the answer, NPOV is. How do you intend to continue to go forward w/NPOV in mind? I'd consider trying the third opinion route, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish given the constant POV pushing regarding wanting criticisms whitewashed, factual innacuracies, and other stuff. --badlydrawnjeff 03:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Leaving in biased links to external sources is just as bad as spreading lies. It factually wrong to casually pass off links to sources biased against Mr. Spurlock as normal information without classifying it as propaganda. You are not the god of Wikipedia. --8bitJake 04:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nor am I claiming to be, so please keep WP:NPA in mind. The links, as they were before you came to this article and continue to be now, were accurately descirbed in a NPOV manner. Twice I requested that you demonstrate how one of the criticisms in a blog was false, you ignored it. Twice, you insisted on calling one site a "self-proclaimed" Anti-Spurlock site, even though it does nothing of the sort (although, thankfully, you abandoned that one). The propaganda comes in when folks a) want to shuffle all criticisms (as small and few as they are) to a new article, and b) want to make POV and often inaccurate statements about critical information. --badlydrawnjeff 04:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see why I need to explain obvious things to you. I have no desire to explain the same thing over and over to you and I am not asking for your permission. Those links are to biased information and I don't need to write a thesis dissertation on what should be painfully obvious after actually reading them. --8bitJake 04:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I'll have to assume you're happy with page protection, because your so-called "obvious" things, lacking sourcing in some places and facts in others, are blatantly POV and do not improve the article. I'm not sure what else to say. The article was fair before you started editing, and the constant POV pushing doesn't improve it. --badlydrawnjeff 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You should not assume one thing about me. Your opinions are not fact. I want an article that is free of bias that is why I started editing to improve it in the first place. Getting out the bias is the entire reason why I am doing this. --8bitJake 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Then can you please point out where the biases were, and how adding more bias (such as incorrect statements regarding the "anti-spurlock" page, the line about "right wing" "feel(ing) threatened," the consideration of certain films (all, not surprisingly, left wing) being "politically challenging" ) fixes the problem? Does NPOV mean "What I think is accurate" as opposed to "a neutral description" to you? --badlydrawnjeff 04:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is where your political orientation is showing. I picked it up from your user profile. How can you not see a clear Anti-spurlock bias in sites like Spurlock Watch? I would like for you to prove to me that those sites are not biased against Spurlock and do not contain a pre-concieved political bias. I am quite curious about how you could do that to the CATO one. --8bitJake 05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You still do not understand the concept of NPOV. This will continue to be fruitless until you grasp that concept. If my "political orientation" took over, this article would look a hell of a lot different than it does, to you should probably assume good faith, check up on NPOV, and figure out how you want to handle this keeing that in mind. --badlydrawnjeff 12:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As I'm seeing it, the issue is mostly that 8bitJake feels a need to "defend" Spurlock by removing most if not all criticisms, and any criticisms that are left must be framed in an unflattering light. I agree that this issue is not going to be resolved any time soon, as 8bitJake refuses to adhere to the principle of NPOV. Perhaps he specifically could be blocked from editing the article? -RannXXV 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not changed from my plan on removing the biased links and commentary from this article but I plan on using geni's advice on how to win an edit war --8bitJake 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you start by pointing out the biased commentary? Critical links stay in - consensus has agreed to it, and every other article with controversal figures has them. --badlydrawnjeff 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I already has attempted to expresses my problems with the links that either biased or irreverent. and I will detail more in the future when this article is un-protected. --8bitJake 20:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to attempt to do so again. Part of the reason that the article is protected is that you insist that certain parts are biased or irrelevant without explaining why the prior consensus was incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff you are not an admin. That is not your call to make. Badlydrawnjeff you are not an admin. That is not your call to make. I'll make the changes that I think need to be made and I'll explain my reasons with detailed references after I do each one. I don't need to submit prior written approval to you Jeff nor do I need to ask your permission. --8bitJake 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. I am, however, attempting to make this article into a fair, NPOV one, and you are not. Until you can grasp basic rules around here, and attempt to work toward consensus by explaining what you want to edit out and why, there's little chance this article will ever become unprotected in order for you to do so. --badlydrawnjeff 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

8bitJake, you have basically stated that you refuse to give in and are going to continue to wage an edit war to push your own personal vision of how this article should be. I'd say that that pretty much means the article isn't going to be unlocked any time soon, as it was locked specifically to STOP an edit war initiated by you. In fact, your statements reinforce my own suggestion that you specifically be barred from editing this article. -RannXXV 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It was started by the person that first put biased right wing pundant links like Debbie Schlussel into the article of a liberal director. It is well within my right to edit this article as long as I keep the rules of the Wikipedia. --8bitJake 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Except that you're not. You're flagrantly violating NPOV all over the place. The very fact that you're frothing over "biased right wing pundant[sic]" links shows that you are in violation of the Wikipedia policy of providing a neutral tone in the article itself and making available all information about the subject, including critical ones. Now, you are either inexperienced in Wikipedia or you are allowing your bias to affect you, but if you go and look at any figure on Wikipedia with possible controversy about them, such as Michael Moore (a very comparable figure), his entry has links to sites like Moorewatch and Moorelies. Characterizing them by slamming them with the label "biased right-wing pundits" is coloring things with your own personal point of view, which, again, is against Wikipedia guidelines and is why the page is locked now. -RannXXV 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. --badlydrawnjeff 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I do not agree. You opionion is not worth one bit more than mine and that concept is really really getting to you. The sites that I object to are moot they are not credible. They are just some random guy with a political agenda. They do not have editors and do not come from a reputable publishing source. If I went by your rational I would get to quote and link to every comment said critical of some one like George Bush. It is blatantly obvious that the entire reason why you are so hell bent on this is that my progressive political and religious beliefs are a direct threat to you. That is the only reason why you are so obsessed with this and why you insist on forceful censorship of my contributions. I have tried to be reasonable and you will only accept things your way. Why are you so obsessed with a pissing contest? It is degrading the Wikipedia. --8bitJake 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell ya what, 8bitJake, when God arrives and declares you the arbiter of what's credible and what isn't, then you can decide what pages should and shouldn't be linked. Until then, take your whining about oppression because of your ideals back to Democratic Underground and off of Wikipedia. -RannXXV 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your political bias, your lack of compromise and attempting to offend me. It will come in handy to refer to as evidence in the future. --8bitJake 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yuh-huh. Well, when the people from the dimension where you're coming off better in this debate arrive, you be sure and tell them what I said, I'm sure they'll be fascinated. -RannXXV 05:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for personally insulting me again. It further discredits your input with the Admins. --8bitJake 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, would that be [criticisms of George Bush]? Y'know, the ones where Michael Moore's page is linked to in the external links? Funny, I don't see you over there decrying a politically biased source being linked to there. Somehow, it's wrong here, but okay there. Why... what's that? I do believe it is a textbook example of BIAS.
And trust me, if the admins were going to side with you after your big frothy-mouthed "ARG YOU REPUBLICANS ARE JUST THREATENED BY ME!" outburst, nothing I could say would have any affect on the outcome. -RannXXV 06:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That is hardly an complete listing of all people publicly critical of him. So by your counting George Bush gets one critical link and Morgan Spurlock deserves four? So a minor socially progressive director deserves four times the negative criticism as the least popular president since Nixon 38%? That does not scale or make sense.

Again your grade school attempts to personally insult me are quite amusing and continue to negate your point. Thank you for making this a trifecta. --8bitJake 06:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I must insist you stop your posts, as they are a threat to my life. I am in serious danger of drowning in the irony. -RannXXV 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes for Unprotection

Spurlock is allegedly ready to adapt The Republican War on Science to the big screen. --badlydrawnjeff 20:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. The article sounds very sure, but then that could just be the writer deciding it's a sure thing. I'd wait until there are at least two other sources that don't use this article as their origin point, then call it as good as confirmed. (Either that, or Spurlock himself makes an announcement of some kind, whichever comes first.) Once either of those happens and the article is unlocked, I'd say put it in a "Future Projects" or "In Production" section of the entry.
Edit to add, the book doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia entry. Think one should be requested? -RannXXV 20:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just a note for later on. Not goign to worry too much about it until the article is unprotected, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

His religion

This site seems to say he's Jewish [1], does anyone know for sure if that's true? I haven't seen anything else. DocOck 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am reading his book "Don't Eat This Book: Fast Food and the Supersizing of America?". I'll see if it is mentioned in it. The book is not really about him. --8bitJake 19:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Morgan Spurlock is Jewish. [2] Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Raquel Baranow Raquel Baranow

Well Mozeltov! --8bitJake (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I just was involved in a Q&A with him at the Melbourne International Film Festival where he said he was raised a Methodist but currently is more agnostic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.144.147 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He says he's Methodist so that's verified. Please verify Judaism before making such a claim. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In the reference given ("Spurlock on Islam," a Google video), he says he was raised Methodist at 2:06 minutes/seconds however, most Jews that I've talked to say, "If you're born of a Jewish mother, you're Jewish." We don't know if Spurlock's mother is Jewish but the reference I gave above, says he is. Bill Maher says he was raised Catholic and had a Jewish mother but considers himself, "apatheistic" or, "agnostic." We don't know for sure if Spurlock is Methodist or considers himself one. Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that a list of names on the Heeb magazine website (the ref) is really a reliable source, especially for a BLP and since there's some information (the Methodist thing) that at least somewhat contradicts it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The category isn't for just people who self-identify as that particlar religion. "The people in this category have all been, or are, members of one or more of the various Methodist churches of America." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Methodists 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

30 Days

"He did not complete the entire 30 days in jail because he was pleased with the footage that he obtained during the shorter stay. [4]"

I watched that show, the reason he gives is that "in Virginia, the average prisoner only serves 85% of his term, so my time is up." Does the source cited have any evidence that Spurlock himself said it was because he had gathered acceptable enough footage? If not, I think we should remove that part. Jutm543 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that he served only 23 days in jail because as noted, the average prisoner in Virginia only serves 85% of their term. However, 23 days is 2.5 days short of 85% of 30 days. What gives? Rishodi (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good links

Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein had a similar philosophy of documentary filmmaking, and should be included as links. 72.144.198.53 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's WP:OR without a source. WLU 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, maybe someone can cite the wikipedia pages of their movies then. 72.144.198.53 07:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wife

Currently it's listed that his then-girlfriend (now wife) oversaw his detox post Supersize me. This is true, but the wife is listed as All Saints' singer Natalie Appleton. Incorrect, his wife's name is Alexandra Jamieson (now Spurlock I guess). Have already edited. Neutralitybias 08:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that he and his wife got a divorce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.156.190 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed divorced. I linked to a blog post by his ex-wife where she mentions it, and that it has been years (as of it's posting in late 2011). Sorry, I'm not a wikipedia wizard, so i'm sure the formatting on the link was wrong, and I'm not logged in, &c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.232.162 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Jamieson Redirect

The article on his wife redirects here. Doesn't that seem a little disrespectful?-Samnuva 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is where all the information on her is to be found (and she doesn't meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone article on her achievements). --Paularblaster (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture is needed

This article needs a picture, It must be possible to get a shot of him somehow, it is needed for identification. Klichka 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Osama?

Interesting article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22115291/ --200.121.164.156 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird vandalism in header paragraph - I assume this happened today.... (worshipped? bin laden executed????) - DXM

Future Plans

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/magazine/06wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=spurlock&st=nyt&oref=slogin

States Comedy Central is not going to pick up the show "Public Nuisance With Morgan Spurlock" and has information about the Osama movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.44.50 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Insulting Speech Removed?

Why was the following removed from the article? It is notable and was featured in many reports, thus making it note worthy.

• In late March 2006, Spurlock came under fire for allegedly giving a profanity and insult-laced speech to suburban Philadelphia high-school students at Hatboro-Horsham High School. Spurlock has written in his own defense that press reports of his jokes took them out of context and were misinterpreted. Shortly after the speech Spurlock took out a full page ad in the local newspaper (The Intelligencer) apologizing for the incident.

I'm not sure where it should be added, but it SHOULD be added. If someone can't find a place to add it in a few weeks I'll do so. 76.116.109.221 (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that relivent or signifigant? It is not making headlines at it was over two years ago. --8bitJake (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

References

The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special

Morgan Spurlock is the host of The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special – In 3-D! On Ice!, yet is not listed on his article. Can someone please add it?? Thanks, estemshorn ^{happy new year} 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It needs a reliable source to add it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should remove the entire Career section as well until someone gets some reliable sources, hmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.50.106 (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. The addition was challenged, therefore a source is required. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoaaaaa. Where's the WIkipedian's sense of civility? Oh, I see, he's an IP like me. That must be why. There is a spot on that page you linked that did indeed state "Telling someone 'Don't be a dick' is usually a dick-move—especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say."64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Eagle Huntress

I think The Eagle Huntress is appropriate to add to the Filmography section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morgan Spurlock. 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/20100123010329/http://www.hulu.com:80/the-simpsons-anniversary-special-in-3-d-on-ice to http://www.hulu.com/the-simpsons-anniversary-special-in-3-d-on-ice
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529203640/http://comic-con.morganspurlock.com:80/ to http://comic-con.morganspurlock.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Morgan Spurlock. 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/20080502211743/http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/see_morgan_thats_why_you_shoul.php to http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/see_morgan_thats_why_you_shoul.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410193413/http://www.tribecafilm.com/news-features/TFF_2012_Spotlight.html to http://www.tribecafilm.com/news-features/TFF_2012_Spotlight.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804052229/http://shootingpeople.org/watch/filmofthemonth/best_in_show.php to http://shootingpeople.org/watch/filmofthemonth/best_in_show.php/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618221923/http://www.theodoraandcallum.com/blog/cat/creative-factory/post/my-faves-morgan-spurlock/ to http://www.theodoraandcallum.com/blog/cat/creative-factory/post/my-faves-morgan-spurlock/

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) 04:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morgan Spurlock. 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/20090111021536/http://www.phigam.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=594&srcid=469 to http://www.phigam.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=594&srcid=469

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) 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Don%27t_Eat_This_Book

I propose to merge Don't Eat This Book into Morgan Spurlock. The book's entry is little more than a stub and can be summarized here. BrynnAthena (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The book should still have its own Wikipedia article, doesn't matter if it's a stub. That can be dealt with. Instead, you should simply have a summary and then link the main article up to the section. It's a standard way of addressing topics or items. Have a short summary in the Morgan Spurlock article, and if we can get more information on the book itself, link the main page once you get enough information. --Thatlocalpessimist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayer2681 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

I'm proposing we merge Don't Eat This Book into this page and Wikipedia:Merging says to add this tag:

{{mergefrom|Don%27t_Eat_This_Book|discuss=Talk:Morgan_Spurlock#Merger_Proposal:_Don%27t_Eat_This_Book}} BrynnAthena (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done - merge tag added. No comment as to the merge request itself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I see no dicussion here for 2 weeks. Will try unprotection. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Supersize Me== "Supersize Me" was broadcast on television in the United Kingdom (on Channel Four) shortly before Easter 2006, and I watched it and found it interesting. Although I found it a good film, a well-made documentary and very interesting, I would just like to add - go on Morgan, was on reason for the experiment you wanted an excuse to indulge in large portions?ACEO 08:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientific control of his claims in "Supersize me" http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/01/the_super_size_.html

has to be added to article

"Spurlock's supervising physicians noted the effects caused by his high-fat diet" ... Excuse me, but during the movie didn't Spurlock's personal physician say “I just can’t believe a high-fat diet could do this so quickly.” Perhaps its because his liver damage and weight gain was due primarily to the 30 lbs of sugar in the sodas he drank ... I think this statement is misleading and any references to Supersize Me need to be NPOV ... the film is unscientific, and we can't assume that any of the conclusions from his "experiment" about fast food's effects are valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.189.142 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This article is a GLOWING ass-kissing report on Spurlock. In the scientific community, we have MANY unanswered questions regarding his documentary "Supersize Me," and MANY OTHERS that we've answered which REFUTE the allegations Spurlock makes about eating fast food. There is good evidence that the entire film was made as an attempt to dissuade people from eating animal products (re his vegan girlfriend, now wife), but no mention of that is made at all in this article. There is also no mention of the scientific questions or the controversy created with Spurlock refused repeated attempts by scientists to study his food diaries. Someone needs to spend some significant time adding some balance to this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)