Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11/Archive 1

message: Bradbury does not approve of the reference and is calling Moore "a terrible person and a thief".
i found no reference for that ( anonymous ) quote posted in front of the page.
Fahrenheit is a common word  law reference and i wonder if Ray Bradbury had ever used such terms.It's also of course a reference to Fahrenheit 451, "in fact Ray Bradbury's classic science fiction novel about censorship"
I think the anecdote (if real [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141629/posts]) could be move under Release controversy (bis) ( not in front of a "neutral" article ).
04/04/03
Author Ray Bradbury thinks Michael Moore's title will confuse people with his classic sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 and he wants Moore to change it. "He can't have my title," said Bradbury. "We've got an important film coming out [Fahrenheit 451], the book's having its 50th anniversary in October. If he wants his movie to be an homage to me, why not title it, 'Bradbury, where the hell are you now that we need you?'" (Variety)
The news is outdated since the 50th anniversary of the book ( 1953) was last year.The movie is planned for 2005  ( remake from truffaut'film 1966 )
I found more references but it is again very con·tro·ver·sial  ;-)
According to Bradbury others have asked him about Moore's use of his title, but "I don't want to make a big story out of it."
original article in sweden
movies.go.come a reference to "Variety"
salon "so called translation" and comments 
 discussion in raybradbury forum
Amusing little sidelight: The titles of several of Bradbury's greatest books are "stolen" from works by other authors, in a manner far more direct than Moore's allusion-to-but-not-complete-appropriation-of Bradbury's title. Cases in point: "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (Shakespeare); "I Sing The Body Electric!" (Whitman) "Golden Apples of the Sun" (Yeats).
* Except that the erstwhile scribes, Messrs. William, Walt and William, are dead and out of copyright. Architeuthis 23:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Bradbury applied for and received a *TRADEMARK* for the term Fahrenheit 911 I do not see how he can possibly claim it is an infrindgement.  Similar circumstances, like the 'El Diablo' movie that Blizzard objected to because they owned the trademark *Diablo* involved trademark not copyright. --ShaunMacPherson 21:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  suspicious reference to Fahrenheit 

message: The Disney blocking nonsense is nothing more than an attempt 
to get attention. Moore admitted that he knew a year ago that 
Disney didn't want the film. Mr. Moore, since when does Disney 
-have to- distribute anything? If they don't want it, they won't 
take it. Find someone else that does. Its not a story. 
* Next time, be nice enough to sign your entries. It lends them credibility. Disregarding that, however, I did my edit on the article before it became readily apparent that this was mostly a publicity stunt. Personallly that doesn't bother me at all, though it seems to bother you. The reasoning behind Disney's unwillingness to allow Miramax to distribute, whether it occurred in the last week or not, is still worth pondering.Rhymeless 23:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah Michael Moore is getting publicity at any cost.  Hmmm no shit.  It's a movie its predicated on the fact that in order for it to do well it NEEDS publicity.  But honestly I didn't hear any of these kind of attacks on another film called the Passion of the Christ, which for about 10 bucks you could by commemorative crosses and nails from Christian re-sellers.  I don't see Michael Moore with any kind of Farenheit 9/11 promotional tie ins (although a Bush punching bag would be fucking fantastic).  Lastly all of the money for the film (at least most I think) is going to charity.  Less publicity equals less money for the film equals less money for charity.  You don't hate charity do you BigBud?????? StoptheBus18 20:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disney

message: Is this subsection really nessisary? It's basically just a transcript of the trailer. I don't see how it is useful. user:J.J.
:I agree.  This isn't done for any other film. - Tεxτurε 04:32, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but doesn't that mean we should add it to every other film rather than remove it from this one? Fredrik (talk) 15:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If I add the name of the hairdresser of Bush's first Chaufer's wife to President Bush's page should I add this garbage to each president's page?  No, I should remove it. - Tεxτurε 15:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful... it's a snapshot of what's in the trailer apart from anything else! --Russell j 18:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree  with Fredrik  and Russell j ... it is informative ( it is not related to the name of the hairdresser of Bush's first ... ) like quotes or you can remove any information you dislike... --Neuromancien 03:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Memorable Dialouge"

message: How about adding a (sub)section with quotes from other people than Moore himself, including quotes that are critical of the film?
For example, Christopher Hitchens writes : 
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
While I don't agree with him (most likely, that is, not having seen the film yet), such critical views should probably also be included in the article. Jonik 10:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Just go ahead and insert. Fredrik | talk 10:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: (Critical) quotes about the film

message: This "scandal" alleging a contradiction between Disney not wanting to distribute an ultra-political film and ABC News airing an analysis is absurd.  There's a world of a difference between being the distributor of a film, and having a film which is making headline news covered and discussed on a news program by a subsidiary company. VV 23:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC 

message: Fabulous work, you lads and lasses!  This is one glorious article; possible the best overview of the film on the 'Net.  I don't want to nominate it on FAC yet since there's more fallout from the film to come, and the article will benefit from post-release statistics and another week's article clippings, but it is certainly feature quality.  Not only the content, but the flow of the article is powerful; hard to believe it has had so many active contributors. +sj+ 18:08, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Without doubt, articles about controversial events that are recent or ongoing are Wikipedia's strongest side — not only because they grow quickly but also because they are reliable and there is a lot of care to NPOV. Wikipedia is the only source on the web that I trust to get NPOV information from (more accurately, there is often POV, but on Wikipedia I know how to detect it :). I am reminded of our article on The Passion of the Christ, which was worked on and discussed just as actively as this one and is in the same quality range. Fredrik | talk 00:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature-Length Success 

message: The prior phrase "It is important to note the questionable nature of this quote" is not NPOV.  People will disagree as to the importance of the point.  Also, "questionable nature" implies inaccuracy. It's improper to convey the impression that Moore misreported facts (unless someone proves that the newspaper article that's shown in the film was faked). Moore's followup statement is, however, "questionable" in the sense that it was an expression of opinion, not an established fact, so characterizing it that way is appropriate. JamesMLane 06:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the section should be called "questioned content" instead. Fredrik | talk 07:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: It's pointless to make a big deal of the charge that the movie isn't neutral, but it's not pointless to report a particularized criticism of a specific segment of the movie. As it stands we report the facts that (1) Moore says Gore would've won, and (2) there are some facts about recount possibilities that cut the other way, the latter reported through a link rather than reiteration here.  I think that's proper and is useful to the reader. I'm inclined to agree with Fredrik's suggested change in the heading, though. JamesMLane 14:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Questionable content"

message: I added a quote from Michael Moore that I feel is quite revealing. Certainly all documentaries have a point of view and Michael Moore spells out a part of his in the film, but there is another side to the film maker that is useful when putting his films into perspective.  66.176.212.153
I think we should move the quotes from the Palme d'Or jury press conference to the Quotes section, does anyone disagree? Michael A. 08:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article needs streamlining but it needs to be more radical than these two suggestions.  As to the first point, I think it's more useful to have the Palme d'Or comments segregated out, but I think the selection we have here could be pruned.  As to the second, it seems that, so far, the Palme d'Or is just about the only significant award; we could consider reorganizing when other major awards are announced, but that will take a while.  For my idea about streamlining, see "New article on controversy" below. JamesMLane 07:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Oh, great acronym...didn't anyone think of that?
Tualha 18:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fellowship Adventure Group 

message: Putting "farenheit 9/11"  in the search box (without the quotes) doesn't take me where it should ("No page with this exact title exists"), even if it's the exact title of the page (with the automatic uppercasing).
Trying "farenheit"  gives me only Farenheit scale of temperature and Farenheit 911, which is a redirect to this article.
That might give people not used to Wikipedia the impression that no article about it exists (people more used to Wikipedia can guess the / is what is causing it to fail, and try again without the 9/11 part).
cesarb 21:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try spelling it "Fahrenheit 9/11" instead of "farenheit 9/11" I suppose if it is a common misspelling there should be a redirect. older≠wiser 21:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the redirect, I sincerely didn't even notice I was mispelling it. And I just did it again today, and your redirect made it work as expected (but then I noticed I was being redirected). Google tells me that mispelling is incredibly common (300k hits versus 3 million for the correct spelling). cesarb 18:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search box not being helpful 

message: I've left this section in, but I think that the author will have to do better than quote Fox News articles - as it stands it isn't NPOV. Secretlondon 01:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reported distortions and untruths

message: Just came across this article, and, I must say, this team has done an excellent job.  Balanced, interesting while maintaining neutrality, and well written, I'd hold this up as a model of how to handle a controversial subject.  Kudos to all involved.  Jgm 17:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of days later, and I may have to temper this compliment; the article is moving towards the grey goo of other controversial articles.  Perhaps not too late yet, but I hope folks can remember that this is an encyclopedia article not a debate transcript. Jgm 21:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Job 

message: Who is this statement referring to? Is it the woman in the tent who, if I recall properly, was a war protester? Is it referring to the woman who interrupts the filming to claim that the scene is being set up and demands that Lipscomb say where her son died? If the latter was there any indication that she was a pro-war supporter? I don't remember her saying anything that indicates she was pro-war...? (sorry I keep forgetting to sign) Michael A. 06:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-war supporter on the National Mall? 

message: I removed the caution about offensive words, because:
# Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia.
# It is likely to divert some readers, not because they're scared of dangerous words but because the notice might lead them to think the article is poorly written.
# This kind of warning is used nowhere else in Wikipedia, and no reason has been provided why this article is a special case.
Note, however, that I will most certainly not bother to counter-revert any eventual reversions of this edit. Fredrik | talk 21:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Offense caution

message: Leonard G. 01:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical (libertarian) web site article

message: Moore mentions Bush's [disputed] 42 percent vacation rate.
Please provide sources and attribution for the word "disputed" in the sentence. Once you do this, place another subsection ("Forty-two percent vacation statistic," maybe?) in the "Controversy" section if you want to explain how/why this is disputed and who disputed it and when.
Also, please do not revert my changes without explaining your rationale in the edit summary or at talk. 
Thank you, Neutrality 01:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I will revert if your only "change" is to revert me.  Since I added that it was disputed, it seems you could at least ask for sources before you start yet another reversion fest.  The implicit assumption that what I added is prima facie unreliable and should be removed until proved to your satisfaction is not good for interpersonal wiki dynamics. VV 08:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VeryVerily:

message: :The Bush White House is implicated in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States beginning September 13th, and allowing bin Laden family members to fly within the United States during the ban on air travel. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "it turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis." In making the implication that the Saudis were preferentially allowed to leave the country early, the movie does mention that September 13th was the date that outbound international flights resumed.
 
This paragraph (recently edited by CC & Rhobite) seems to me a little misleading and POV.  First, my understanding is that Moore had two basic criticisms of the flights.  (a) domestic flights were still grounded at the time.  but, special domestic charters flights were made for the Bin Ladins.  (b) the main criticism is that they were not sufficiently interviewed/debriefed/whatever.  yet the above paragraph introducing the controversy ignores this primary criticism by Moore.
Now Moore's point (b) is addressed in the subsequent several paragraphs.  Point (a) about international flights is not really Moore's point at all.  
I may be wrong above (saw the move a while back), and I don't feel strongly enough about all this to get involved in editing a disputed section anymore.  But I thought I'd bring it to your attention.Wolfman 18:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flights lead-in paragraph