Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies

message: I think it important to supply the link to Moore's factual back up. Six sections of factual backup with sources.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
Maybe have a section i nthe main article called "Moore's Response to Criticism" and under it have
"Moore's response to the attacks on his film was the posting of Factual backup on his website"RiseAgainst01 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to Michael Moore's website is supplied. Specific material should be worked into the page in a balanced manner, and I would discourage creating a separate section devoted solely to Moore's response. Dynablaster (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the 5th time you have accused me (incorrectly) of using a sock-puppet. Please stop. Dynablaster (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Backup 

message: :There was a note on the history page, clearly directed at me: "You've been warned on both this page and ray bradbury's not to insert unsourced, inaccurate, possibly OR material like this... stop, or I'll have your blocked."
: I just want to go on record as saying that I have been warned of no such thing, and the gentleman should stop assuming that I'm whoever he's pissed off at. 207.237.130.147 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Somebody needs to stop making assumptions

message: === Additional problem with this article ===
There is yet another, unrelated problem with much of this article. Presumably we should be describing this controversy through the coverage it has received in reliable third-party sources. A number of sections, however, are sourced to publications that have absolutely nothing to say about Fahrenheit 9/11. Both sides, for example, cherry-pick quotes from The 9/11 Commission Report, when the report has nothing to say about the film. There is some conflation because many of these same arguments (lack of cooperation from the White House, Saudi flights, inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives, etc) existed independently outside of Moore's film. Anything that does not pertain to the film should be separated. Dynablaster (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In respect of my earlier suggestion to improve this section by expanding the range of voices, the opinion of film critic Shailagh Murray (The Wall Street Journal) Stephen Dalton (The Times of London), journalist Desson Thomson (Washington Post') Linda McQuaig (The Toronto Star) and prominent author Andrew Sullivan are all helpful. Each individual discusses the film in a third-party published source. The only self-published source remaining is David Kopel, whose "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" is being removed, as per Wikipedia policy. Anton Sirius' rebuttal to Kopel, "Debunking Fifty-nine Deceits", is also self-published, which is why it was removed from this article some time ago. Dynablaster (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: There is yet another, unrelated problem with much of this article. Presumably we should be describing this controversy through the coverage it has received in reliable third-party sources. A number of sections, however, are sourced to publications that have absolutely nothing to say about Fahrenheit 9/11. Both sides, for example, cherry-pick quotes from The 9/11 Commission Report, when the report has nothing to say about the film. There is some conflation because many of these same arguments (lack of cooperation from the White House, Saudi flights, inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives, etc) existed independently outside of Moore's film. Anything that does not pertain to the film should be separated. Dynablaster (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional problem with this article 

message: The following passage is troublesome for two reasons:
1. a) We do not need 8 citations to buttress a statement that is completely uncontested when 2 citations will suffice. b) Notes 03 and 04 are unreliable sources (a letters column and personal opinion blog respectively); 06 is subscription access only (this once was frowned upon, what is the guideline today?); 07 only mentions Dave Kopel fleetingly. 01 and 02 are perfectly fine, if duplications. 08 is a transcript of Christopher Hitchens' and George Monbiot discussing the film on Australian television, which is useful.
2. The second part of the passage constitutes original research because the citation points not to a reliable third party source, who informs us that Moore has not ever addressed these unspecified criticisms, but rather to Moore's own website. The seeming absence of a response from Moore on website X is being used here as a source for something no third party source actually says. We are simply left to conduct our own research, exploring hundreds of pages on Moore's website to ensure the above statement is true, that Moore indeed has not ever addressed these unspecified criticisms from the aforementioned critics.
I'm going to be bold and delete this passage, but retain the link to the discussion between Hitchens and Monbiot, which I shall work in elsewhere on the page. Dynablaster (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In respect of my earlier suggestion to improve this section by expanding the range of voices, the opinion of film critic Shailagh Murray (The Wall Street Journal) Stephen Dalton (The Times of London), journalist Desson Thomson (Washington Post') Linda McQuaig (The Toronto Star) and prominent author Andrew Sullivan are all helpful. Each individual discusses the film in a third-party published source. The only self-published source remaining is David Kopel, whose "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" is being removed, as per Wikipedia policy. Anton Sirius' rebuttal to Kopel, "Debunking Fifty-nine Deceits", is also self-published, which is why it was removed from this article some time ago. Dynablaster (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy about the film's content 

message: User JJJ999: "[A] a large amount of criticism has now been censored out of the page (eg, Peter Holding's criticism of Hitchen's remains, but Holding's confession that Moore's film is biased and doesn't attempt to achieve balance ... has been edited out!"
Peter Holding is defending Fahrenheit 9/11, not criticizing it. Judging from the brief quote added to the page, readers would not know this. Here is the passage to which JJJ999 refers:
Intended criticism? No. The quote was cut short:
The "... but ..." introduces an objection. Holding says the directive of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to show your average viewer what doesn't make it to network news; it was not intended to present both sides of the story, and Moore never pretended to do so. Don't take my word for it. Read the entire article.
Therefore it is not fair to cite an article written in defense of Michael Moore, selectively quote from it, juxtapose this next to Hitchens et al., so as to make it appear these individuals are in agreement, when in fact Holding defends Moore and rebukes Hitchens in the strongest of terms. The opposite would be scouring articles that castigate Michael Moore, looking for a single line of text that, when taken out of context, could be made to appear as though Moore is receiving unexpected support. Unless we include additional lines of text and summarise the point Peter Holding is making, it's undue weight. Dynablaster (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Holding 

message: This is another problematic section with a couple of outstanding issues:
1. Bill O'Rielly may indeed make this argument, but no reference is provided, and I cannot find one, so his name will be removed until a citation is found.
2. User JJJ999 is using a Slate magazine piece (dated June 21) to refute Moore's ABC News interview (dated June 25). (diff) How can Hitchens possibly "note several examples he argues are inconsistent with this defence" before Michael Moore had even made his defense? If JJJ999 wishes to discredit Moore on this point, then he will need to find a source dealing specifically with this criticism in consideration of Moore's reply. You can't do this by inventing discourse based on an article that preceded the one you want to attack. For this reason I shall proceed to restore the section as it stood before, which was perfectly stable. Dynablaster (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War in Iraq 

message: A good way to resolve this dispute would be to reproduce the dialogue between Christopher Hitchens and Michael Moore that is central to the criticism, using third-party published sources. Hitchens, Scarborough, Himes and Parry all qualify. Kopel does not because his criticism is self-published on his personal homepage. WP:SPS "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". Hitchens kicked things off with his scathing review. He was duly invited to appear on Joe Scarborough's show where both individuals criticized Moore. A transcript is provided by MSNBC which we can quote for this purpose. Stephen Himes and Chris Parry respond to Hitchens. CNN host Daryn Kagan also asked Moore to comment on the alleged contradiction. So we have 2 people criticizing Michael Moore, 2 people defending him, and the film maker himself. This is roughly how the controversy should be described; more evenly balanced than the repetitive, one-sided section we have now. Dynablaster (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged discrepancy on Osama 

message: Two or three additional voices have been added to the page in an attempt to diversify, but, in order to convey a broad range of opinion, we could do with more. Fahrenheit 9/11 was banned in some territories. The United States freely allowed its soldiers to watch the film, both at home and abroad, but the Australian Defence Force blocked the film at all bases. A number of independent polls were also conducted to gage public reaction to the film. It would be a step forward to summarise these differing opinions. Dynablaster (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow focus 

message: Previously, not enough effort was made by editors to request an outside opinion (that includes myself). In future, I hope users who deem content objectionable will first tag the offending section (as is proper) and explain their reasons here on the talk page. We can then request a third opinion on a case-by-case basis if agreement cannot be reached. Dynablaster (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment 

message: I'm new to wiki editing so bear with me. The link to the rebuttal article "In Defense of Fahrenheit 911" doesn't load. I searched online but I wasn't able to find another site the article was hosted at. I hesitate to edit it out without someone confirming that it's a dead link. Ruvane (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link? 

message: I have found that paragraph deletable, because it doesn't address any controversion what so ever. Can someone explain to me what controversial point in the film is that paragraph is refering to?
Nobody claims that the footage seen on film are false or that the information received by the viewer is questionable! all that paragraph is giving to the reader is points of view on Bush's behavior, and are all somewhat supportive to his doings after he was notifeid that the country he is responsible of is beening under critical risk.
i belive it is unethical of us, wikipedians, to preserve such subjective paragraph on a controversion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.185.53 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a controversial point at the time but it is not very well explained in the article. At the time Bush was criticised for continuing to sit at the chair reading the book (many people claimed at the time that the book was upside down) for something like 20 minutes. I think Moore played that section of the film with a clock counting how long he sat there doing nothing. It was controversial because some people said that she he should have dealt with the problem immediately and others said that he did the right thing by considering his position and not creating a panic while he was on national TV. There have also been claims that his advisor held up a pad at the back of the room telling him to stay there. From memory this point was immediately followed by claims from Moore that Bush spent more days on holiday at the beginning of his term than he did at work. Moore uses this in conjunction with the book incident to portray Bush as someone totally incapable of leading. Moore has been heavily criticised for this (see Fahrenhype_911) as these sections contain many factual errors. This topic is worth keeping in the article - it probably just needs to be explained in more detail. --120.156.8.55 (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush reading to school children 

message: This is an encyclopedia, not a pundit magazine. Therefore, "some commentators have criticized" is not a suitable wording for a neutral statement; "several" is much more appropriate. At least the "Bush defenders" part is out... it was just a couple of steps short of "redneck lovers". Also, selective removal of sources is yet another very thinly veiled attempt at downplaying the statement. Please stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing in lead 

message: Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/02/binladen.wealth.ap/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. 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/20121009113044/http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-25/entertainment/moore.film_1_bin-michael-moore-iraq-war?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ to http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-25/entertainment/moore.film_1_bin-michael-moore-iraq-war?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614085409/http://archive.salon.com:80/ent/feature/2004/06/23/fahrenhype/index_np.html to http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/06/23/fahrenhype/index_np.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344115/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://flakmag.com/film/fahrenheit2.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/25/lt.04.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hillnews.com/news/051804/binladen.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/02/binladen.wealth.ap/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118194059/http://www.judicialwatch.org/jwnews/062207.htm to http://www.judicialwatch.org/jwnews/062207.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119052659/http://michaelmoore.com/words/fahrenheit-911-facts/factual-back-up-for-fahrenheit-911-section-six to http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/fahrenheit-911-facts/factual-back-up-for-fahrenheit-911-section-six
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sundayherald.com/43167
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-25/entertainment/moore.film_1_bin-michael-moore-iraq-war?_s=PM%3ASHOWBIZ
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/06/23/fahrenhype/index_np.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040715020956/http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/ to http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/
*Added  tag to http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. 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  tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/2004/06/29/2004-06-29_moore_s_message_delivered__b.html
*Added  tag to http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/01/23/levy/index2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041010190803/http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ to http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103032933/http://efilmcritic.com/hbs.cgi?reviewer=1 to http://efilmcritic.com/hbs.cgi?reviewer=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628201317/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040913/news_1m13duncan.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040913/news_1m13duncan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041011161332/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F06%2F29%2F1420223 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F06%2F29%2F1420223
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041012213148/http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/smackdown/index.php?id=6 to http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/smackdown/index.php?id=6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified