Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies

Factual Backup

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)

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)

• Another infrequently used old account... what is this, your back up account Dynablaster? Go away and find some sources, or do something useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Themeatpopsicle was just proven to be a sock... so I was right in calling them one. It hasn't yet been proven that it was yours, or whether it was a meat puppet or whatever, but the point is that the editor in question was null and void as a contributor.JJJ999 (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to stop making assumptions

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)

Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence (again)

Are we ready to describe Michael Moore's position (r.e. Afghanistan) in a neutral fashion yet? This section is also lopsided. Dynablaster (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --causa sui ^talk 17:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in this section, Michael Moore's stance toward Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is described almost completely from the view point of his critics (Hitchens, Kopel and Scarborough). These 3 people say the film director's position in Fahrenheit 9/11 is at odds with what he expressed at an earlier time and date. 2 individuals (Stephen Himes and Christopher Parry) disagree, arguing that Moore's detractors have misinterpreted his remarks. Only 1 person is cited in his defense, Himes, but in a manner which does not convey any sense of disagreement. As I have explained in previous discussions above, Michael Moore was in favour of intervention on very narrow grounds: He was willing to support military action to apprehend the alleged perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks -- he is on record expressing this view as far back as 2002 -- but he stood firmly against the boarder goals espoused by the Bush administration. None of this is conveyed in the article. Each time I argued in favour of balance, user JJJ999 would edit the section, giving an increasing ammount of weight to his critics. It's basically a Hitchens, Kopel, Scarborough, Hitchens, Kopel, Scarborough, Hitchens, Kopel, Scarborough sandwich. In addition, words to avoid (such as "in fact") serve to compound the imbalance. Dynablaster (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are 3 people who could be quoted but whom for some reason are not...

Hitchens actually performs some Clintonian semantic gymnastics here. Moore's "if" is not intending "I think Osama is innocent and the Afghan war is unjustified;" he's trying to make an argument for American due process: "If he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice."

— Stephen Himes

Allow me to explain Moore's motivation, as if it needed explaining to anyone with a concept of logic, law and due process. Bin Laden IS innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. That IS the American Way. Indeed, it's the World Way. But in order to prove his guilt, one must build a case, capture him and put him to trial.

— Chris Parry

[I]f you have a suspect and the suspect gets away, the police — or our military — have a right to go after and get that suspect. In fact, they should go get the suspect. And Richard Clarke's point, and my point is, is that they make a half-hearted effort.

— Michal Moore

Reply

To be fair, I should say straight away you didn't exactly concede Parry, but you haven't justified him beyond "he's incorrectly quoted elsewhere too!". The fact a bad source is used in other places is no excuse to use it here.

It's unclear exactly which sections the text above refers to, because you've added tags to both the sections we discussed, so I've made 2 replies which hopefully clear things up.

1) I've been polite enough to leave your tag there while the dispute was unresolved, despite your total lack of engagement. Kindly cease and desist from attempting to add tags to a) the top of the page (this is a sectional dispute, not the whole page), and b) to the section you claim is poorly footnoted, despite not only failing to show as much, but never providing any alternative citations (which led to you abandoning any pretense at defending it last time). To sneak in a tag now is poor form, and a good step towards getting yourself in trouble.

2) As Ryan Delaney asks, be more specific. The reason you abandoned the "not balanced" claim (in the controversey section) last time, was because you were unable to produce sources. Now the paragraph in question is about the claims to the effect that Moore's film lacks balance, etc. I asked repeatedly for the sources that made a claim supporting the other side, in which case they could be added. You never provided them. The 3 quotes you make above a) have been alluded to before (Parry was removed as he is not a quotable source, he's basically "some guys blog", but is in fact still there as a footnote... I suggest you justify not removing him ASAP) and indeed feature in the page, and b) aren't quoted in that section because none of their quotes are relevant to the points made there. They belong elsewhere in the article. Just to be clear as possible, this paragraph here "Controversy about the film's content" is the one we are discussing, because Himes is certainly quoted in the article, and Moore's quotes are the subject of much of the discussion. If you propose how you want to use those quotes in other sections, then that's something we can discuss, but to suggest they belong in the paragraph titled "Controversy about the film's content" is confused. That paragraph is about the journalistic integrity of the film, it's bias, etc. You need to find quotes from people saying things like "Moore's film is not biased... it provides an even handed display of evidence" and so on, from quotable sources (ie, not Parry). You have failed to do so.

NB- make sure you actually provide a proposed rewritten text and/or comment meaningfully on the text I proposed ages ago if you want the other quotes used.

3) Your justification for removing the mention that Moore has not debated him as of now, is that "it makes Moore look cowardly". I'm sorry, but that's not a valid reason here.JJJ999 (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Paragraph on Afghanistan

Himes is quoted. He offers a partial defence of Moore, but it doesn't touch on most of what is being said, so it is misleading to call it a "defence" of Moore. Hitchens and Kopel don't dispute that Moore has also said we should go after him if he is guilty, indeed that's the point of what they are saying... that he's claiming two things at once, and so is inconsistent and hypocritical. Parry is not a source. The quote Moore offers above is not in dispute, and does not rebut anything his critics say. It is also OR for you to provide your own interpretation of what Moore's view is, and why it is not inconsistent (which is what you've previously tried to do with this quote). If Moore had a quote along the lines of "here is why my position is consistent" or "I disagree with Hitchens/Kopel/x because..." then it would be useful. Here it's OR and irrelevant. Find actual 3rd party sources who rebut what Hitchens and others say, not your own spin on a quote of Moore's that is not made in response to anything the critics are quoted as saying. To put it more bluntly, one of the criticisms is along the lines of "Moore opposes the war, but then says they sent too few troops". How Moore's quote above provides a response to that claim without you adding your own OR on what you think it means is mysterious at best... all Moore says in the quote is that "they made a half hearted effort"... which doesn't touch at all on whether Hitchens and Kopel are right to say he has been inconsistent, and advocated both no force, and not enough force.JJJ999 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be concise. You are wrong to accuse me of being unwilling to engage. Aside from a busy two week period over Christmas -- which you were informed about in advance -- I have been ready and willing to resolve this dispute. Indeed, in early January, I posted polite messages to your talk page, asking for your cooperation. (diff)(diff) You did not have the courtesy to respond. Moving on.

Christopher Parry is a professional movie critic. He gets paid to evaluate people' work and his writing appears in various film magazines. He is now managing editor of eFilmCritic. It was Parry who exposed Universal Pictures and Paramount Studios submitting unauthentic "fan" reviews to Metacritic and eFilmCritic. [1] His biography appears on IMDb. [2] Parry asserts that Christopher Hitchens misinterpreted several key scenes in his Slate critique of Fahrenheit 9/11. In this context, Chris Parry is a good quality source, and I fully intend to quote him. And he is not alone. Stephen Himes also broaches the very same issue you claim neither actually address; namely, that Moore, contrary to Hitchens' and Kopel's claim, did not pronounce Osama bin Laden innocent or guilty, but rather he said OBL was innocent until proven guilty and that he should be apprehended and put on trial.

The tag is provided to alert editors/readers to an ongoing area of dispute. I accept your reasoning that specific tag(s) should appear directly over problematic section(s). The talk page Unreliable and irrelevant sources section details why this section needs footnote checking. Please do not remove this tag until this dispute is resolved.

As before, you demand that I run every edit by you first,but at the same time, you edit and expand this article freely. To quote Christopher Hitchens, simply not serious. Dynablaster (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is no problem expanding uncontested material without agreement, which is what I have done. You seem to concede in this reply that nothing Himes says touches on the claims on saying two things at once. His mere utterance of "Moore also said X" is not a defence of this, indeed Hitchens and Kopel rely on the fact he's said it... it's part of their argument for why he is inconsistent and will say just about anything for a cheer. The claim in dispute has never been that Moore also said "if guilty, let's get him", your quote is therefore unhelpful. You have not since January made any comments on this talk page regarding my text, nor provided any further sources. Since I'd already done all that, you're the one who needs to catch up. I will go review Parry, and I will add him in the meantime. As for the sources, you have a long way to go before a tag is justified.JJJ999 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • After reviewing your links, I find no basis for Parry to stay as a source. I will humour you for the moment as a sign of good faith while we discuss it, since the editing of disputing sections should probably freeze, but the source is hopeless.

1) You first show me a resume that he wrote on IMBD. My dog could be a film producer on this site, it is literally meaningless and standardless. I know a would be film maker, zero films to his name, who has an exaggerated profile on here. So we can ignore that.

2) The second appears to be a passing mention on another site of Chris Parry. I'm sorry, but a passing mention in a 30 second long blurb off the guardian doesn't make Parry notable.

3) We then come to what we started with, the belief that Parry is notable because he was an editor on ecritic, and that site has been erroneously used 98 other times in wikipedia. The reality is, ecritic is not a 3rd party source. You've never shown that, beyond asserting he is paid some token fee for it (and there is no proof that is even true). Besides, payment does not notability make. Moderators for forums are paid money in some cases, but that doesn't make their views, or the views of people who post on their forums, notable. The site is basically an open slather blog, in which a bunch of unaccredited, would be journalists, blather. Indeed, the only things it's even (wrongly) quoted for in wikipedia relate to film reviews (ie, Parry/X gave it 5/10"). How it is a credible 3rd party source on the journalistic integrity of the film is baffling, even if we did accept your contention. IMBD is probably quoted a thousand times as a source on wikipedia, does that make it a 3rd party source under wiki rules. Go and read the rules, it just doesn't meet them.

But the most basic proof is in reading it... this is not a serious source, it's someone's long rant, in blog form.JJJ999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

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)

Controversy about the film's content

The following passage is troublesome for two reasons:

Kopel and Hitchens make a number of criticisms of Moore, regarding alleged factual accuracy and hypocrisy of the film , that are not addressed in Moore's official War Room response to the factual accuracy of his film.[21]

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)

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)

Peter Holding

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:

There is no question that Moore's piece has been selectively edited and that he does not really attempt to achieve balance.

Intended criticism? No. The quote was cut short:

There is no question that Moore's piece has been selectively edited and that he does not really attempt to achieve balance. But Moore is aiming his film at an audience that has been subject to a barrage of pro-war propaganda and who will continue to be exposed to such propaganda right through the US presidential election campaign.

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)

War in Iraq

This is another problematic section with a couple of outstanding issues:

Critics such as Bill O'Rielly and Hitchens argue that Moore, in his film, says Iraq never killed or attacked an American. [...] Hitchens writes "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."[42] Interviewed by ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, Moore, saying his movie had been misquoted: "That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly. Murdered.The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen."[43] However, Hitchens notes several examples he argues are inconsistent with this defence...

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)

Alleged discrepancy on Osama

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)

Narrow focus

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)

Requests for comment

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)

Stop deleting the link to Kopel's article.

Fiftysix-Deceits-In-Fahrenheit-911 is the largest, most well researched critical article on Fahrenheit 9/11. Kopel's article is a strong rebuttal to Moore's film but that isn't a reason to delete links to it. Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral POV. If we are going to post links to Moore's defense of the film and other pro-Moore articles we need a link to Kopel's article.--Auspx (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that this is a BLP-related article. If you can find a reliable source which has published Dave Kopel's claims, go ahead and add it to the page. If not, please stop adding his personal website to Wikipedia. Anton Sirius's reply to Kopel was removed for the same reason. Dynablaster (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see your point here. So Kopel's article is on his personal website and that's why we can't link to it? Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11 War Room" and "Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11" are on www.michaelmoore.com. The last time I checked that was Moore's personal website yet "Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy" links to it. What's the big difference here? And did you miss this part of Kopel's article:

Critiques of this critique, and/or defenses of Fahrenheit. Anthony Wade. Mr. Graff. Brian Ragle (PDF). Ed on Open Speech. Thread on the Randi Rhodes Show discussion forum. Daily Kos. Defending Fahrenheit 911. Fahrenheit Fact Check.

I don't know whether or not you would consider them "reliable sources" but the fact is that other sources did cite Kopel's article and even attempted to rebut it. I see no reason why "Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy" can't have a link to Kopel's article.--Auspx (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to FAHRENHEIT9/11.COM and MICHAELMOORE.COM is perfectly acceptable because the director and his film is the topic of this very article. When citing people who make serious allegations against a living person (Moore is "a liar," "a cheat," "the Prince of Darkness") we need to ensure their work is published by a reliable third-party source. If somebody adds a self-published link to Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter then it should be tagged and/or removed. The same rule applies to every page on Wikipedia. Dynablaster (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the topic of this article is Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy. Kopel's article has the most well researched point-by-point criticsm of Moore's film. If you liked Moore's film and don't like what Kopel has to say about it that's not a reason to delete the link to Kopel's article. Kopel's article may not have been published by a third-party source but it cites third-party mainstream media sources, it's not just his opinions. Kopel's article should be acceptable under Wikipedia's policy of keeping a neutral POV. Right now the links to articles critical of Fahrenheit 9/11 don't contain enough information. For that matter this entire Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy Wikipedia article leaves out a lot of information:

• Moore's claim that "The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen" is whitewashed. Where's the fact that in 1993 the Iraqi secret service attempted to assassinate former President George H.W.Bush? Or that Iraq sponsored Hamas terrorists and that Hamas is responsible for the deaths of American tourists in Israel? This makes Saddam's regime an accesory to murder. Or the fact that in 2002 Saddam went on Al-Jazeera TV and announced a new rewards program for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? I don't see these facts anywhere in this article. Why?
• You leave out the fact that the terrorist organization/political party Hezbollah offered to distribute Moore's film in Lebanon. In 1983 Hezbollah killed over 240 American peacekeepers in Lebanon and held several Americans hostage. Why would they love Moore's film so much (which we are assured is not anti-American)? Hezbollah even broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 on their TV station. Why is this information not included?
• Moore's defense of his dishonest portrayal of pre-war Iraq in 2003 is whitewashed. Moore says

  "Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war."

  But that was only in the American mainstream media. That's not how Al-Jazeera or BBC or the rest of the world media portrayed pre-war Iraq. Moore can't credibly claim that he is only countering the spin in the American media since Fahrenheit 9/11 was released worldwide to a global audience most of whom don't watch American news in the first place.
• Moore insists that Fahrenheit 9/11 is anti-Bush, not anti-American. But in Europe Fahrenheit 9/11 posters had a picture of a burning American flag. How did his "war room" miss this and why didn't he condemn it?

There are many ways that this Wikipedia article could be improved. But deleting the link to Kopel's article and depriving Wikipedia users of important information about Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't the way to do it.--Auspx (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia sets stringent rules for BLP-related articles and self-published sources. For notable criticism that you believe should be included, but which at the present time is not, please try find a reliable, third-party, published source. Christopher Hitchens makes the same point about Moore's alleged statement that "The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen." Moore's portrayal of pre-war Iraq in 2003 is covered too. Hitchens' Slate magazine piece is cited several times. Can you find a reliable source which argues that, because Hezbollah screened Fahrenheit 9/11 on television, Moore's film therefore is "anti-American"? Dynablaster (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kopel's article cites a New York Post article (no longer online) which contains this quote from the Iranian government after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in Iran.

the mullahs running the Farabi Cinema complex in Tehran scrapped the season's program to screen Moore's "documentary." "This film unmasks the Great Satan America," a spokesman said. "It tells Muslim people why they are right in hating America. It is the duty of every believer to see [this film] and learn the truth."

Although this doesn't prove that Moore deliberatly made an anti-American film it's certainly worth noting in "Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy". Also note that Kopel and some of the information from his article appeared in the film FarenHype 9/11. This may be the third-party source you were talking about earlier.--Auspx (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want another source besides Dave Kopel, The White House's official website used to have the real schedule for former Presiden Bush in August 2001, which completley contradicts the allegations of Moore that he spent the whole month on vacation. Unfortunatley that link has been harder to find in the later years of the Bush Administration, and since he left office has been completley eliminated. ----DanTD (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Broken link?

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)

Bush reading to school children

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)

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)

POV pushing in lead

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)

Image deletion

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 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 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.

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) 04:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/2004/06/29/2004-06-29_moore_s_message_delivered__b.html
• Added {{dead link}} 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.

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) 08:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)