Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11

---

Major article changes

As other posters below have noted, the article was horribly POV and was also fairly disorganized in content. I sat down with my copy of the DVD and attempted to move the article into some semblance of organization and order. I added a lot of content and attempted to recycle as much stuff as was already here (except POV criticisms of the movie, which I think need their own section so I simply deleted them). I hope the result is a better quality article here. SparhawkWiki 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive

/Archive1

Cannes Director

I added the comments by the Cannes Director put forth recently since it is a significant person close to the inner workings of the Cannes saying it.

Critics' Quotes

Why are only 2 of the 8 quotes by film critics even vaguely negative? In a table compiled by Newsweek in a recent issue (I'll go find it), the opinion was fairly split, if not weighed against - even by such seemingly "liberal" media sources as The Boston Phoenix. Let's get some more balance here, shall we?

If you check Rotten Tomatoes, the film has 84% of 191 critics praising it. If we use that as an accurate measure, that means only 16% of critics on line panned the film. Ergo, the 2 out 8 in the article panning the film (25%) is being generous. User:kchishol1970

This was why I refactored those section titles, precisely.  :-) Baylink 01:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'net based reviews tilt left as a result of the pool they draw from. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

and also because the net is international. --kizzle 01:54, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following:

• Mac Verstandig, The Badger Herald: "...the sort of vitriolic exercise in paranoia that would ordinarily land its creator in therapy."

I removed it not because it's a negative review, but because the standing of the Badger Herald (an independent student newspaper at Wisconsin-Madison University) isn't on par with the other quotes listed. CNN, the Times, Time etc. are internationally known, respected publications; and there isn't space enough in this article to include quotes from every student newspaper and independent publication in the country. --Modemac 14:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only commenting because I write for a student magazine - even writers for international media are expressing their opinions, why place such value on them? Some of the most daring and well reasoned articles I have ever read (and some of the worst) were published by student media. In fact, given that student publications are less likely to be bound by corporate ties, history and political connections, they are arguably superior in some aspects to mainstream media. :) --inks 07:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course the New York Times is internationally known and respected, but oh no, not a single thing Fox News says is true because it presents the other side too.--Exander 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

how to make this article shorter...

Any ideas? I was thinking about maybe moving the controversy part to another page, since that's pretty much what accounts for its length.

I agree. See discussion above at New article on controversy. JamesMLane 01:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? This movie is all about controversy. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we add to reflect new movie?

Check out this lame rushed Republican attempt to fight Farenheit 9/11 cause it looks like Michael Moore hates America isn't due out for a while.

Farenhype 9/11

--kizzle 18:12, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Celsius 41.11

Love the new article!

My goodness, what a breath of fresh air from the shadowy figure behind 66.167.253.97. Now the article is actually a readable, succinct, informative article about the _film_! Sure, there's some tweaking left to do, and reasonable updates, but the pruning really helps. Thank you, anonymous editor! --NightMonkey 02:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Needs a controversy section with a link and a summary paragraph or two. Otherwise, good work. Rhobite 03:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, it does not need a controversy section. That's why there's a new article for just that subtopic. This article should be kept on point, and not grow without bounds as it had. It _has_ a link integrated within the text -- see the first sentence of the second paragraph and the wiki-link contained therein. If there's more on the controversies, then the controversy article should be updated, not this one. --NightMonkey 16:13, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Time to refactor the Talk?

OK, this article's Talk section is getting really really long. Time to start refactoring this page, or just archive it and start afresh? --NightMonkey 16:15, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

My Pet Goat

I struck the "ostensibly" from "Bush sitting in a Florida classroom, ostensibly reading My Pet Goat." If there is any POV or factual question, it's not over whether or not George W. Bush was actually reading the book or not. If there is, the discussion is appropriate for Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy. ArthurDenture 07:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bush Reelection

The article still discusses Bush's re-election in the future tense. It needs atleast to be changed to the past. However since Bush got a greater percentage of the vote in 2004 than 2000, it could do with some analsys of effect the film had on this added (or at least links to the U.S._presidential_election,_2004 and 2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities articles) CS Miller 16:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by analysis of effect? What analysis do you want to include? --kizzle 20:04, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bah. Must have been looking at an old copy of the page. It was updated on the 4th by User:Modemac. Forget this 212.137.21.218 16:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont get why you say Bush was relected by so little in 2004, bush won by 3 million votes and received more votes than any other president before him. Your statement is false.

Quotes

I've removed various quotes that don't actually serve any encyclopedic purpose. We do not construct articles by using the lazy journalist's technique of assembling bunches of quotes--if we do provide quotes we supply context and select only those quotes that illustrate a significant point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by 85.74.147.133

85.74.147.133 replaced Moore responded: "There was..." with Moore pointed out: "There was...". The text as it stood didn't need changing. The edit seemed to make the article side unnecessarily with Moore. I can think of legitimate, defensible responses to Moore's comment (responses I don't agree with, but they're conceivable and rational) that would cast Moore's response as a diversion of kinds, and missing the point. One could, for instance, adopt the "Team America" point of view, and regard the Americans on the Cannes jury as de facto honorary French (don't laugh!) Maybe this is a bit of an over-reaction. If so, I apologise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by MONGO

MONGO added a passage about a Newsweek report to the content section. The passage did not describe any part of the movie's content. I have reverted because the content description isn't a venue for debating Moore's arguments. There are links to various attempts to refute parts of the movie and they can be summarised, but this should be done in a separate section of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article can be about the contents of the movie, however, it is important that the reader understand up front that the movie is an opinion documentary and not necessarily based on facts.--MONGO 19:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way Mongo, just for your own info:

1. Airspace was closed until Sept 14.
2. Saudis flew out of the country after Sept. 14, when airspace was re-opened.
3. However, the FBI did break airspace restrictions on the 13th and flew these Saudis to a centralized location so that they could take one flight to Saudi Arabia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kizzle (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC).

Prove it.--MONGO 07:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Documented in a story in the St Pete Times, June 9 2004. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't prove it...the article does not show that numerous persons were aboard the flight...only that a few persons were...you may need to reread it.--MONGO 13:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it Mongo, although my reference isn't at work with me. It's in House of Bush, House of Saud, but I'll give you Unger's reference. --kizzle 17:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, just letting you know that your rebuttal of Tony's link is simply taking issue with the amount of people involved, not a refutation of whether or not Saudis broke airspace restrictions before the ban was lifted. --kizzle 18:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I probably won't respond as I don't look at this page much, but just to let you know where I stand, I don't personally think anything Unger has to say on the matter will be held as completely trustworthy by me. Perhaps this is a personal bias so I'll just drop it...the sole-plane-theory may have happened as bin Laden has had somewhat hostile relations with some members of his family and with the Saudi government...I have to detract from this though as it is fast approaching a conflict of interest on my part.--MONGO 20:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So then you do agree, special treatment was given to Saudis, and the US government *did* break airspace restrictions to fly them around, they just didn't leave the country before restrictions were lifted like Michael Moore implied. I'm not sure what you're referring to by the sole-plane-theory, it had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden but more with citizens lashing back against the Bin Laden's that we do business with (construction company) that have relatives or family living in the states. --kizzle 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, this is one example of deception in the film...or at least a partial untruth...no surprise since it is a Michael Moore movie.--MONGO 02:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

K, I think we're on the same page, I'm not sure where Tony ripped my comment from, but I remember saying something along the lines that it is true that both Michael Moore is a douchebag and the Saudis did get special treatment, he just manipulated the point to imply they left the country before, which is idiotic because he could have made a perfectly good point about breaking airspace restrictions without disrespecting the intelligence of his audience almost as bad as Ann Coulter. --kizzle 02:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Moore's Film NOT Documentary

A documentary film is one that holds facts as such, not purposely distorted to favor a bias. Documentary labeling this film by Moore gives documentary film makers a bad name- we might as well call Sci-Fi movies "documentaries" as well. As much interest as one may have in the issue of Moore's movie one must realize that opinion is not fact, misrepresentation of reality is not fact and blatent lies are not fact. This movie is an op-ed piece of off-color political entertainment and should not be construed as fact or documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haamerhed (talk • contribs) 04:42 UTC, 7 Jun 2005.

OOOPS....I have to post an apology....please disregard my above post concerning validity of truth in film- as it now appears that reality is a production of film and nothing more is to be said about that; please take into account the recent news headlines of an upcoming film about the Middle East, "While the tag remains on the academy's Web site, an Israeli diplomat said he expected the film to be described as coming from the "Palestinian Authority" during the awards ceremony. "Both the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles and several concerned Jewish groups pointed out that no one, not even the Palestinians themselves, have declared the formal creation of 'Palestine' yet, and thus the label would be inaccurate," the diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. The academy could not immediately be reached for comment.". I'd guess I'd better consult IMDB because they are the authority on the issue of truth and categorization of film relating to reality....sorry to waste anyone's time here.....in a discussion....because others know better....about TRUTH. (Haamer)

OOOPS....Yet another apology....It appears Mikey is being sued for his manipulation of information gathered during his "interviews" to produce this highly acclaimed "documentary"...If the plaintiff wins his argument against the aforementioned director it will prove his movie was intended to mislead and therefore disqualifies as documentary...now we'll wait and let the courts decide. $83 MILLION dollars worth of argument, ya willing to place a wager, Tony? (Haamer)

As this is one of those politically charged subjects not strictly related to the production of an encyclopedia article, I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion to a subpage:

• /Not a documentary

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many documentaries have you seen, Haamerhed? It is not uncommon for a documentary to add analysis to the facts, especially with a specific political message. You have not demonstrated how this documentary in any way constitutes a "misrepresentation" or "blatant lies".129.170.202.3 12:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the number of documentaries I've seen an issue? If I've seen Jane Goodall's "Wild Chimpanzees" I would appreciate her work as documentary without critique. However Jane never made any bogus assertion that Chimpanzees' didn't back up. Truth! That IS the ISSUE. (Haamer).

Come on folks, there's nothing better than some spirited political points of veiw, discussions and arguments but this film is as much a documentary as any edition of Americas funniest home videos is.. (ED Jan 06)

POV

I'm seriously considering putting the template on this page. I can hardly any controversy on the page. This is really a POV but I'll give it some time. Falphin 00:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no criticism section, while most other controversial and political productions have it.--Exander 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this why there's Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy? Fishhead64 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Why was the film so difficult to show in Cuba? Ojw 20:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Castro didn't want to be compared to Saddam or Bush by his own people. Or maybe the communist government didnt want a single penny to go to capitalist America, in Vietnam you only have 2 TV channels, and they are government propaganda channels. You didn't have a response for a whole year and while my post didnt answer anything, I felt like I had to contribute.--Exander 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Labour" vs "Labor"

Even though the quote is from a British newspaper, I've restored the American spelling. Here's why.

The newspaper is quoting Moore, an American, and they're quoting something he verbally said, not something he wrote. That means the editor of the newspaper spelled (not spelt) "labour" according to house style, rather than according to how Moore would have spelled it were the quote in writing.

Were the exact same quotation published in an American paper, it would be spelled "labor", as is house style in American papers.

Had Moore written "labour" in the interview, I wouldn't argue this point at all, but what's happened here is clearly a stylistic transcription of a verbal quote, and to that end, we should stick to the MoS guideline of using American spellings for American subjects, and British spellings for British subjects. As Moore is American, I've restored the American spelling.

I hope that's clear.--chris.lawson 01:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the linked article which indicates that Moore made the statement verbally and the newspaper quote is a transcription. "Said" and "told" are commonly used when people send out press releases or otherwise put their thoughts in writing. Ken Arromdee 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to suspect Moore would have written "labour", though. Occam's Razor, and all that.--chris.lawson 01:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys... it's the difference between labour and labor. Holy crap... relax. It is absolutely pointless and does not help anything.

It's pointless as to Moore, but changing the quotation gives the false impression that the British newspaper departs from its house style when quoting a (presumed) oral statement by an American. In general, changes in direct quotations are unacceptable unless indicated by ellipses or brackets. Some people would allow silent corrections of obvious typos, but I don't, and this one isn't in that category anyway.

By the way, while I'm my pedantic mood, "verbal" means using words. What you're reading right now is a verbal communication. If you mean it was spoken aloud rather than written, please use a different word, such as "oral". JamesMLane 13:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bit torrent motivation

Is there some source which shows that Moorewatch posted the Bittorrent file for the purpose of hurting Moore financially? Ken Arromdee 18:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of a reference, I've taken this out. It's not even clear that they did this before Moore's statement that making the file available is okay. Ken Arromdee 15:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-war films

Should this film be categorized under Category:Anti-war films? Shawnc 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Category: Banned Documentaries

Really? I know Moore created a fuss when Disney refused to distribute it but was it ever 'banned' anywhere? Robdurbar 09:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuwait. (Ibaranoff24 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Source: [1]

Academy Awards

I think its notable that Moore released the film for television and pay per view (because he thought it would affect the election) even though it meant it would be inelligible for the Academy Awards. Does anyone else concur? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I removed this article from the good article nominations page, because its lead section needs to be trimmed a bit, several images lack fair use rationales, and also the two references cited only back up very small parts of the article - most of it is uncited at the moment. Worldtraveller 21:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I've decided to be bold and remove the spoiler warning in this article. This article is about a documentary, and as such spoiler warnings don't apply - The purpose of a documentary is to educate, not entertain and deliver surprises and plot twists. A spoiler warning works against the purpose to educate. /Magore 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake "Dubai" poster?

I removed the burning flag poster from the article since I have been unable to locate any official source for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Movie_poster_fahrenheit_9-11.jpg). It has a "Time Out Dubai" tag on the bottom, and while this magazine does indeed exist, it just seems a little too convenient for this poster. Feel free to reinstate it if it can be confirmed as an official poster. Pixel23 04:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on the same article

Does anyone else think that at least a summary of the criticism should be merged with this article? It would be one thing if the film only generating moderate criticism, but this was a highly controversial movie, there should at least be a small section devoted to it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems fair, I don't think there's a link to it under See More even.--Exander 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a paragraph or two, at best, and one of those Main Article: Foo things, but don't even try to merge the whole thing. It's way too big. --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No way, it's too big. -THB 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and comment contained in the content part

There should not be any criticism, comment or arguing with the film's content in the part describing its content. Any errors, distortions or omissions in the film should be dealt with seperately. This sort of editing is equivalent to an argument about the impossibility of space battles with audible explosions in a discussion of the specific content and plot of Star Wars.

Oh and an encyclopedia never uses "you" as in "but if you check the facts". --Dustek 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The entire thing is clearly POV'd against the film. Atropos 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I will take a hack at editing this to be more NPOV, despite my previous incarnation on Wikipedia as being merely a grammar nazi. Please let me know what you think of the edits. -SparhawkWiki

Heyo, just wanted to say that this (Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar, who was one of the recruiters, was killed in Iraq in June 2006.) should probably be moved out of body text and into a "trivia" or other extraneous segment, since it has no direct bearing on the film, and in its current placement can be construed as editorialization. I am, however, somewhat loathe to create a trivia section for just this one fact, and also don't like the idea of calling a man's death at war "trivia" insinuating that it may be "trivial." Any ideas for an appropriate fix? Perhaps we could externalize the comment to a page on Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar, which would be linkable from the mention of his name? Ess 00:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rechecking the article, a page for Staff Sgt. Plouhar already exists. The text is difficult to extricate from the paragraph though. I believe the information to be of merit, but it is misproperly placed. Can we use the external page to fix this problem? Ess 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Piracy?

The term "Piracy" should be changed to "Downloadable version" as it doesn't fit well with Copyright infringement definition and common sense as well. Pavel Vozenilek 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Moore vehemently denies factual accuracy?

In the first paragraph, we have two citations stating that Moore calls the movie an "op-ed piece" while defending its accuracy. Yet, it says later that he "admitted that much of the film is intentionally inaccurate". If this statement is to be taken literally, it would seem as though he was purposely misleading people by lying, and to that logical conclusion, that he lied about most or all of the statements made in the film.
This should be removed because of the implications of calling Moore a liar, and the other obvious problems with saying that most of the film's subject matter is totally false. Edman 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Perhaps in the Hitler article we should remove any reference to concentration camps as it implies that he didn't like Jews. Implications should not supress facts. If the quotes are well references, then point out the inconsitancies in his position. 66.151.81.244 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm trying to say is this: In one paragraph, Moore says everything in it is true, and then the next... everything is false. One or the other need to go; I personally think the unsourced statement needs to. Edman 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, I guess it's already been changed. Nevermind, then. Edman 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

why is this listed as a documentry when it should be listed as a mockumentry?