This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should some of the content in the following article be included in the main content of this Wikipedia article on Kopel? http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/04/187663/times-has-finally-quietly-outed-nra-funded-%E2%80%9Cindependent%E2%80%9D-scholar 411GPG ( talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A member of a mailing list I am on directed our attention to Kopel's list just over a year ago. I was pretty disgusted with Kopel, when I read it, because I found his list itself highly deceitful.
I wrote to Kopel a civil email where I challenged him on several of his points. I sent a carbon to the Kopel fan who had told us about Kopel's list. Kopel didn't reply. Okay, he was a busy guy. But he didn't alter the site either.
I checked, regularly, for a month or so. The points I challenged Kopel remained on the list. Three of four months later they had quietly been dropped from the list. But there was no change log -- no list of the points he had tried to make that had been demonstrated to be false. Kopel made serious accusations against Moore. And when he was no longer prepared to stand behind them he should have acknowledged his errors. He didn't. I think he should have apologized. He didn't.
Whether the accuracy of Moore's film stands up to journalistic standards is not important when we discuss Kopel's accuracy. Kopel represents himself as a journalist. He represented his list as journalism. So I expect him measure up to the standards of journalism. He doesn't.
This is why I changed the wording of the article from "He is a leading critic of Michael Moore and documents extensively Moore's fabricated claims" to "He is a leading critic of Michael Moore and provided a list of what he characterized as Moore's "deceits"". -- Geo Swan 21:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what were those deceits? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.183.109.9 (
talk •
contribs) 08:08, 2006 June 4
He/she will never tell you what were those deceits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.176.163 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 2006 October 15
Why can't you just accept that Moore himself has admitted that his film was art, not factual, and that it wasn't very truthful? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.166.99.246 (
talk •
contribs) 22:06,
2006
October 19
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Kopel. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should some of the content in the following article be included in the main content of this Wikipedia article on Kopel? http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/04/187663/times-has-finally-quietly-outed-nra-funded-%E2%80%9Cindependent%E2%80%9D-scholar 411GPG ( talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A member of a mailing list I am on directed our attention to Kopel's list just over a year ago. I was pretty disgusted with Kopel, when I read it, because I found his list itself highly deceitful.
I wrote to Kopel a civil email where I challenged him on several of his points. I sent a carbon to the Kopel fan who had told us about Kopel's list. Kopel didn't reply. Okay, he was a busy guy. But he didn't alter the site either.
I checked, regularly, for a month or so. The points I challenged Kopel remained on the list. Three of four months later they had quietly been dropped from the list. But there was no change log -- no list of the points he had tried to make that had been demonstrated to be false. Kopel made serious accusations against Moore. And when he was no longer prepared to stand behind them he should have acknowledged his errors. He didn't. I think he should have apologized. He didn't.
Whether the accuracy of Moore's film stands up to journalistic standards is not important when we discuss Kopel's accuracy. Kopel represents himself as a journalist. He represented his list as journalism. So I expect him measure up to the standards of journalism. He doesn't.
This is why I changed the wording of the article from "He is a leading critic of Michael Moore and documents extensively Moore's fabricated claims" to "He is a leading critic of Michael Moore and provided a list of what he characterized as Moore's "deceits"". -- Geo Swan 21:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what were those deceits? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.183.109.9 (
talk •
contribs) 08:08, 2006 June 4
He/she will never tell you what were those deceits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.176.163 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 2006 October 15
Why can't you just accept that Moore himself has admitted that his film was art, not factual, and that it wasn't very truthful? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.166.99.246 (
talk •
contribs) 22:06,
2006
October 19
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Kopel. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)