Talk:The Fog of War

message: :Image:Fogofwar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fogofwar.jpg

message: so is it me, or are the 11 lessons actually 12? what's up with that? --dan (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 lessons 

message: Sony's web page says that this was the 2004 recipient for best documentary, while the wiki page says 2003.  Somebody's lyin'!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.161.107 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a 2003 film.  The problem is that Sony referred to its Oscar by the year in which the ceremony was held (as IMDb does), instead of the calendar year when the film played in LA County or otherwise qualified for the Oscars (as used by both AMPAS and Wikipedia, normally same as year of release).  --RBBrittain (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 or 2004 documentary 

message: Really? Who's this "Peter"? Is he a known critic who randomly posts reviews on IMDb and then we.. I mean, what the hell?! Villings (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT?! You don't know "Peter on IMDb"?! (Never heard of him either.) Perhaps I should start sneaking my own IMDb reviews into Wikipedia articles as well... -- megA (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Peter on Internet Movie Database wrote.."

message: "His review clearly emphasizes the fact that this particular documentary has been blurred with many unnecessary artistic techniques that could have been avoided."
That's not a fact, it's an opinion.  Also, this line is inaccurate because the article clearly states that this is a general problem with the director's method,not just one particular to this film.  Bizarre that there is no link to this article.  Updating to fix all that.  Itsbruce (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presenting opnion as fact 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :The Fog of War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "mojo":
From Man on Wire: 
From The Gatekeepers (film): 
From An Inconvenient Truth: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:The Fog of War]]