Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Delete this Opinion

Citizens United has produced a film similar to Fahrenhype, Celsius 41.11. The film's title can be converted to roughly 106 degrees fahrenheit, "the temperature at which the brain begins to die."

although i agree with this statment, it is still opinion and should be deleted

suspicious reference to Fahrenheit

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The news is outdated since the 50th anniversary of the book ( 1953) was last year.The movie is planned for 2005 ( remake from truffaut'film 1966 )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)
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)
    • This is an excellent point on copyright versus trademark, however, I still feel the page as it stands now is misleading referring to Bradbury "stealing" titles from other books. Bradbury's book is under copyright protection, all of the works he derived titles from are in the public domain. The hypocrisy inference of Moore using a variation on Bradbury's copyrighted novel title is somehow equivalent to Bradbury taking his from works in the public domain is specious at best. Wgfinley 18:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is an amusing sidelight and am glad it's been documented here in the talk -- including Wg's clarification regarding PD vs. Copyright; however in any case this little aside is not really pertinent to the facts on the subject of this article. So I've deleted that bit. Jgm 18:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disney

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. [1]

  • 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)

What bothers me is Moore's constant attempt to get publicity at any cost, even if it means trying to make someone else look bad. Disney is a business like any other. If they don't want a product, they have the right to pass on it. They don't have to have a reason, and they certainly don't owe any of us an explanation. Businesses pass on offers all of the time.. just think of how many films Disney probably refuses to release each year. Moore's nothing special. His attempt to use the situation is disgusting, and completely dishonest. - BigBud (there.. signed my entry)

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)
  • Disney is just as free to reject any offer they recieve in order to protect their interests, just as Moore is free to protest such a decision, especially if doing so would allow him to further his own interests. Rhymeless 07:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Right, he has the right to "protest" and make himself look like a baby. I'd like to make films for Disney too, but they won't let me. Boo hoo, it must be a conspiracy. Not everyone can release films through Disney - does it make sense for everyone that gets turned down to whine and complain? Sure, he can do it - but its silly. Heck, even Star Wars was turned down by a dozen different film studios before they finally found one that wanted it. It's part of the business. - BigBud

  • Disney told Michael Moore a year ago that they didn't want the movie to be released yet they still sent him six million dollars needed to fund the movie. That's quite a mixed message by Disney! So no wonder this whole controversy is just words against words. Mastgrr

Miramax

Miramax promised to Moore they would work things out, the issue of Disney releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. At that meeting it was officially decided that Disney wouldn't distribute the movie.--The lorax 02:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, according to Disney (and now Mr. Moore), it was decided a year ago.

They told him at that time that they didn't want it. - BigBud

It seems weird though that Disney would let Miramax give Moore $6 Million and then turn around and say "oh btw, we're not distributing it." --The lorax 18:03, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like Disney didn't know about it until after the $6m was given, although details are sketchy. Miramax operates mostly independently, and Disney only occasionally exercises its control as a parent company, so it's not too infeasible that Disney didn't notice Miramax was going to distribute the film until some arrangements had already been made. I'm not an expert on the rather inane minutiae of these organizational structures though, so it could be almost anything. --Delirium 03:40, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

'Controversial' filmmaker

The article states that Michael Moore is a 'controversial' film maker. I went to the Michael Moore page, but found little controversy. Since, apart from him being a film maker, which seems obvious in an article about the film he made, little else is said in the introduction about Michael Moore, I wonder why he is given this qualification.

Could somebody who knows about these things expand the Michael Moore article to indicate why controversiality is what defines him?

I don't know but such controverse ..."could/probably will be used to remove any contreversial thing any artist does"

The word is very subjective in particular applied to a personality  :

Revision as of 18:59, 2004 May 22 is not neutral and was just made when Michael Moore receives Palme d'Or at Cannes Festival

[2] the same person erase all the quotes of Fahrenheit 9/11 and never answer why when he was questionned on his page ... but obviously moves the question.

[3] [4]Michael Moore page was deleted few hours later at 23:11 ...

I just compare the timeline of users contributions and dig further !

[5] [6] strange coincidence he was silent when the anonymous vandal was connected ( twice time periods ) even if he was online just before and just after that... twice in the evening and in the morning too and ...under dispute.

[[7]] [this one convince me too]

I have no certitude but it seems the vandal was connecting from a server near Springfield Virginia USA and disapprouves Michael Moore Personality ;-)

Can an administrator checks IP ? --Neuromancien 21:21, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read all day. I was not that vandal. I do not particularly dislike Michael Moore, either. I am definitely not against him. The reason I removed the quotes was because they were more about Michael Moore winning an award than about the movie itself. Are we going to include all Oscar speeches in the articles of their respective movies now? And by the way, not that is any of your business, but I live in Chile (that's in South America). There, your theory has been debunked. And if you don't believe me, ask any admin. --Cantus 00:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I can just say again i have no evidence no certitude ( i am not administrator and proxy IP can do the trick ) and i have nothing in particular against you (i saw your page... and obviously you were not from virginia ) but it was my first experience with vandal ( and you was once... ) and the fact you never answer why you delete so quickly when i ask you on your talk page was another doubt for me ... but i trust you now because you are simply and finally answering ! end of story for me !
The golden palm goes to the film (not only Michael Moore )and quotes about a film seems to me relevant even more because the film is more "exposed" than many others ... and like many others including Jean-Luc_Godard or Mamoru Oshii i love quotes ;-) --Neuromancien 11:46, 2004 May 27 (UTC)


"Memorable Dialouge"

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

(Critical) quotes about the film

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 [8]: 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)

Of course. Just go ahead and insert. Fredrik | talk 10:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Patriot act?

Does the film discus laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act? The tagline certainly sounds like it does reference (allegedly) freedom-limiting laws that were introduced in the wake of the attacks, but since I have yet to see the film, I'm unwilling to add this to the article CS Miller 15:33, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does go over the Patriot Act. Moore reads the Patriot Act from a loudspeaker in an ice cream truck.

The film goes into the Patriot Act in some detail, including an allegation that it was rushed into law in a great hurry, with some secrecy (don't recall the exact words), and without having been read by any members of Congress (which is apparently not unusual - what a country). He also covers some of the consequences, such as FBI infiltration of a peace group and FBI questioning of an ordinary citizen who made critical statements about Bush. Didn't go into too much detail, considering how much more could be said. But then he had a lot of other things to cover too. Tualha 19:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The film never claims that there was a level of secrecy, nor is it implied so far as I remember. Certainly there is no factual basis for saying there was any level of secrecy, the bill was in the works even before 9/11 - its passage may have been hasty, but it wasn't secret. In the film Rep. John Conyers does maintain that no one in Congress read the full bill before passage (I suppose he asked all 435 members if they had read it? Seems unlikely to me..), Conyers goes on to explain that Congress doesn't read most of the bills they pass. This might lead the audience to believe that the members don't really know what is in any of the bills that they pass, which of course would overlook the fact that staffers read the bills for the members and break down the legalese into understandable english. As for the consequences, the FBI didn't infiltrate the peace group (Peace Fresno, a group that was involved in WTO protests; WTO protests have in the past led to violent clashes - there was no described connection between the violence and the group discussed, but was checking on them imprudent?) it was the Fresno County Sheriff's office. The FBI questioning of the man who made critical statements about Bush had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. I cannot find an available transcript of the movie, all I have are my notes and recollections, but they differ from Tualha's significantly. Michael A. 23:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to review the pertinent section of the film, since the online version is missing that material. However, I just found a page on Michael Moore's website that covers that section.
Michael A. is right, there's no explicit accusation of secrecy. However, the page quotes articles saying the Patriot Act "had only been printed out hours before" and was "negotiated at the last minute by a very small group", and that some members of Congress objected that "almost no one had read the new bill". Now, if it was rushed to a vote, by a small group, and most of the Congress had not read it, it seems to me that probably very few members of the public had read it either. Perhaps not precisely "secrecy", but along those lines, yes? That was the impression I got while watching the movie.
I misremembered; it was the Sheriff's Office that infiltrated Peace Fresno. And for that matter, they probably didn't need the Patriot Act to do so. Likewise, the FBI probably didn't need it to question Barry Reingold. So, they're not consequences of the Patriot Act. Not sure if Moore implies that they are, or just that they're consequences of the aura of fear and suspicion following the attacks. Certainly, before 9/11 there would have been much more public outcry over such infiltration and questioning.
(Whoops - forgot to sign. Tualha 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC))

When it was showing those recruiters I kept expecting it to mention the No Child Left Behind Act requiring schools to give the Pentagon lists of cannon-fodder-age students. Even sixth-graders are even being terrorised with this cr@p. How come a dogsledding Tuquistani[9] knew this law but Moore overlooked it? Kwantus 06:45, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentioned

Just thought I should mention (is it a first for Wikipedia?) that Wikipedia is mentioned in the 'websites' section of the Yahoo Movies page for F9/11: http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808569540&cf=web

-- Not a regular contributor, who didn't know where to remark about this.

Yea, wow! This *is* the best review of the movie and its surrounding madness in existence, but I'm surprised there are Y! editors keeping an eye on us. Maybe that content-sharing deal is useful after all..? +sj+
What content-sharing deal? --Wclark 23:35, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

ABC

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)

No one mentioned a scandal. The point of the paragraph rested on the fact that ABC's piece was a full-fledged rebuttal of the film's ideas, and not an analysis.--Aniboy2000 20:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feature-Length Success

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)

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)

Inaccurate terminology

I disagree vehemently with the use of the word "documentary" to refer to this film. I personally wouldn't call it art either, but that is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, I would personally refer to it as propaganda or as an anti-Republican/anti-Bush pre-election political commercial. However, I realize these terms are also 'loaded' with overtones. So I propose that word "documentary" in the opening line of this article be changed to "position piece" in the interest of accuracy for people of all political persuasions. --vesuvana

It is not uncommon for documentaries to be "position pieces"; they're still documentaries as long as they are based on facts (or so they are defined in the article on documentary film). Documentaries about nature usually portray natural phenomena as magnificient and astounding and whatnot. Documentaries about nazi Germany usually portray the nazis' deeds as atrocious. Etcetera. I disagree that this should be called anything but a documentary, unless someone proves that Moore made up the facts presented in it. Fredrik | talk 00:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What constitutes a documentary is of course not agreed upon, so by some definitions it is probably one, and by some definitions it is probably not one. What constitutes making up facts isn't even agreed upon: for example, Moore's first major film, Roger and Me, had controversial footage of a GM stockholder meeting in which Michael Moore asked questions, but that meeting never actually happened; it was made by splicing together actual footage of a GM stockholder meeting with studio-filmed footage of Michael Moore asking questions, and the splicing was done in a way to make it have a coherent narrative sequence. Is that making up facts? It's hard to say. He didn't outright lie, but he did imply something misleading. The same is probably true of Fahrenheit 9/11: how many of those scenes are filmed with single shots and no cuts? With Moore, every time there's a cut anywhere, it's suspect: does it cut to something that was filmed at a completely different time, or in a studio, or out of sequence? If so, does this constitute something non-factual? Obviously nobody is going to agree. The upshot is that some people think a movie of that sort constitutes a documentary, whereas others think it does not. So its status is controversial. As for what to say in the article, I think since this film is sort of on the edge of what constitutes documentary by a mainstream definition, and therefore in the most hotly disputed gray area, it should be noted briefly that whether it is properly a documentary is a controversial question. --Delirium 07:01, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see this as being "on the edge." Critics may say that it's written to advance a particular POV and that it contains factual errors, but those charges don't amount to saying it's not a documentary. It's like the category of "nonfiction" for books. If I have two different books about the Versailles peace conference, and one attributes a particular suggestion to Wilson and the other to Clemenceau, they can't both be right, but they're both still nonfiction. The same is true if they select their facts so as to argue for or against the fairness of the Allies' treatment of Germany. JamesMLane 08:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A documentary doesn't have to be neutral to be a documentary. Obviously it puts Moore's point of view - moviemakers are allowed to do that, just like Whitehouse press officers are allowed to put the admnistration's point of view. DJ Clayworth 13:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course people are allowed to express their point of view, that isn't the question here. The question is if that is consistent with the defintion of a documentary. According to American Heritage Dictionary there are two definitions:
  1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
  2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Clearly this film fits the definition of (1) and does not fit (2) which specifically mentions film. Depending on which definition you choose, it either is, or is not a documentary. In order to prevent this ambiguity, I propose that Fahrenheit 9/11 should not be referred to as a documentary. Many films are "based on a true story," which would fit definition (1), but are not considered documentaries.

Your definition is the adjective form of the word. The noun is as follows (same source):
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
I think that fits F9/11 pretty well. 128.253.8.19 18:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Questionable content"

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)

Perhaps the section should be called "questioned content" instead. Fredrik | talk 07:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This whole section should be removed. Nobody is likely to claim that Fahrenehit 9/11 is in any way a 'neutral' movie (not even Moore would claim that), so it's pretty pointless to say that one particular sequence is 'questionable'. If we let it go this is going to become another one of those articles where we have a whole string of sections saying effectively 'some people think this part of the movie was wrong, but others think it was right'. We should report the facts and let people judge the movie themselves. 207.236.234.180 13:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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)


Quotes

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)

It would probably also be prudent to create an awards section between criticisms and quotes and move the information about the Palme d'Or there, anyone disagree? Michael A. 08:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

Fellowship Adventure Group

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

Search box not being helpful

Putting "farenheit 9/11" [10] 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" [11] 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)

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)
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)

Reported distortions and untruths

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)

Lotta links

Those are a lotta links. Can they be divided into pro and con? Is there another way we can divide them into useful categories? No one is likely to want to go through all of them but might if they are targetted to their interest. - Tεxτurε 02:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the links are proliferating. Maybe some of those in the third section should go. A film like this one will always generate a lot of volleying in the media. (In the list, BTW, I changed Christopher Hitchens to the simple "Hitchens" because he was fully wikilinked earlier, but that's now been changed back. Given that the first link is in a different section, do people think the link should be repeated?) JamesMLane 07:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are two Hitchens brothers, one of whom (Peter Hitchens) has extremely reactionary views, the other (Christopher Hitchens) being broadly liberal in his viewpoint by US standards, perhaps slightly right of center by European standards. It's important when quoting either to make sure you include the first name. --Minority Report 11:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm adding back the link for the analysis of the soundtrack song "Rockin in the Free World". It was removed with a comment that the link is irrelevant? Just wondering how the closing song on the soundtrack is "irrelevant"?

I also think it's irrelevant. The article has no direct connection with F911. The song itself isn't irrelevant, so it deserves to be mentioned in the article - you may want to add a couple sentences about the closing song to the article. But a Neil Young fan page is very tangential, it doesn't belong as a link. Rhobite 20:53, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
The song is part of the film's content. I say keep the link. Alternately, create a separate article for Rockin in the Free World (which of course won't make this article shorter, only the external links section of it). Fredrik | talk 21:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
An ice cream truck is part of the film's content too, but we don't need a link to a history of ice cream trucks. Rhobite 21:50, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously the song was picked for the end credits because the lyrics fit the message of the movie. The page analyses this message, and I think this is meaningful and relevant. As for the ice cream truck, there's no need for an external link -- we have an article in Wikipedia already. Link added. Not that I think the history of ice cream trucks is relevant in any way... that example was a bit far-fetched. Fredrik | talk 22:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Neil Young's Saturday Night Live performance is relevant to the movie either, but I agree that we should have a page on the song and the famous performance. I just don't like the random link creep that happens in articles. Rhobite 00:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

The article in question does seem to be relevant to the film. Maybe folks missed the reference at bottom of page:

"Michael Moore inexplicably edited out the most telling line - "Don't feel like Satan but I am to them" - which could be applied flexibly to Osama's hatred of the U.S. or the Right Wing's demonization of everyone they disagree with. Instead, he combined the beginning of the first verse with the end of the second verse, the one about the crack-addict and her child, so they came out:

'There are colours on the street
Red, white and blue
People shufflin' their feet
People sleepin' in their shoes
But there's a warnin' sign on the road ahead
There's a lot of people sayin' we'd be better off dead
That's one more kid that will never go to school
Never get to fall in love never get to be cool

Seems relevant to me.

Nice Job

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)

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)

pro-war supporter on the National Mall?

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)

She said that the war protestor's photos were all staged, and when Lipscomb says that her son was killed in Iraq, the woman says, "Blame al-Qaeda!}. RickK 07:04, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Rather than presuming that she is pro-war, she should be described as the woman who confronts Lipscomb claiming that the scene is being staged, if she needs to be mentioned at all. Michael A. 07:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New article on controversy

User Jgm, involved with this article only as a reader, has given us a valuable perspective -- that it's become too oriented toward cataloging every rock thrown back and forth about the film. (See his comment at the bottom of my Talk page, after I asked him to elaborate on his partial retraction of his previous praise.) And, yes, I admit that I've certainly contributed my share to that development. Furthermore, as time goes on, I wouldn't be surprised if the expansion of that section continues.

General readers, some of whom will come here without having seen the film, are probably more interested in the bigger picture, i.e., an overall look at the facts about the film. Although a significant minority would want to read the extremely detailed content disputes, they can easily be accommodated if we take what's now the "Criticisms of the film's content" section, plus some of the related external links, and move it into a new article, "Fahrenheit 9/11 accuracy disputes" or some such. That section would be replaced in this article by a generalization about the disputes and, of course, a link to the new article. What's now in "Attacks on the film" doesn't get into this debate mode as much, and I'd leave it in the main article, along with a smattering of dispute stuff to convey the flavor (e.g., the Ebert and Hitchens quotes).

Although we're urged to be bold in our edits, I didn't want to make such a major change unilaterally, with so many people having worked on this article. How does such bifurcation grab people? JamesMLane 07:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would second this proposal. It sounds like it would add to the usefulness of the article. Pasd 15:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. Factual criticism of a film as popular, controversial, and (frankly) dangerous as this one should be included in the main article. Moving the criticism section to another article marginalizes it and makes it less likely to be read by your average wiki visitor.

I also disagree that the article is in "debate" mode. Moore leaves the mooviegoer with distinctly inaccurate and misleading information. The article strives to provide complete information with context and references. If you feel something is in 'debate mode' then mention it here so that we can hash it out and agree on the facts. The only thing I see that even comes close to that are the latest modifications on the Clarke Saudi situation which were made today, and should be discussed. Providing context and factual corrections does not constitute "debate", it constitutes intellectual honesty and an attempt to properly educate the reader.

As to JGM's major concern: "The current article looks like about 40 paragraphs, at least half of which are not about the film, but about various peoples' opinions on the content of the film." - correcting factual inaccuracies and misleading statements does not constitute opinion nor POV. The "critics contend" caveat is typically added because Moore does a very good job of not actually accusing anyone of anything outright. He asks a hypothetical question and then provides a single hypothetical answer in the film - see the Unocal Pipeline section for a perfect example. So the article can not come out and claim that Moore lied or made an outright factual error, instead it must indicate that some people (most people) might be (are) mislead by the phraseology, and here are the facts and context, with references. He accomplishes the same thing with a different tact by taking inaccurate statements from professionals, and including them in the movie without indicating that they are not true (see the Jeffry Toobin and Secret Service section for examples). So again the article must be careful not to say outright that Moore is misleading people, but must indicate that some critics out there think that this part of the movie is misleading. I suggest that you see the movie and then come back and read those sections Jgm. I think you will find that Moore is misleading you in the film and I would hope that you would be happy to have the actual facts about those scenes from a credible, referenced, neutral source like wikipedia.

You are right in saying that the section will likely grow James as there are more factual inaccuracies and misleading statements in the film and I feel strongly that they should be mentioned in the article. Michael A. 19:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the main article shouldn't ignore the criticism. That's why I said the main article should include it, albeit at some level of generalization, with a link. The average Wikipedia visitor who comes to this article on the film, though, is unlikely to want to plunge into a detailed analysis of the Saudi evacuation flights, to take but one example. Yet, in the current version of the article, the discussion of who said what when about the flights is, by itself, longer than the sections "Content" and "Spoilers and content" combined -- and that's without regard to all the space devoted to the other attacks on Moore. The tail is wagging the dog here (if Bush supporters will pardon an implicit reference to a movie about a President who dupes the nation into war for political reasons).

Separating out a controversy is a good solution for an encyclopedia, especially an online one that can provide a ready hyperlink. For example, you can get the basic information about the Sea of Japan without getting drowned in all the detail about the dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan, or you can choose to follow the link from the main article. For a more political example, where the shoe was on the other (right-wing) foot, note that supporters of conservative Senator Rick Santorum objected to the imbalance created in that article by an extensive discussion of his criticism of homosexuality; accordingly, it was spun off into the Santorum controversy article, with only a summary in the main article. JamesMLane 22:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that the Saudi Flights controversy is getting out of hand and overwhelming the content of the article. I just want to be sure that when someone who sees the movie (or even before they see the movie) comes to this article that they are able to get some facts and context, even if they agree with the politics of Michael Moore. I would not oppose a section which had a short blurb about each of the misleading statements and factual inaccuracies and then a link to the full context information - as long as the blurb can properly communicate the erm situation. Michael A. 23:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to all for taking my rather offhand comment seriously. To reiterate my original explanation to James: I'm interested in this more on a meta level (how do we approach controversial subjects) than out of deep feelings one way or the other towards Moore and his film; that is, I'm trying to see the forest of making a good article on the film rather than the trees of every factual detail within the film that contributors might have multiple viewpoints about. For an encyclopedia based around the concept of a Neutral Point of View, any attempt to either counter or defend the content of a subject that is, in itself, an editorial statment seems wrong; such discussions wind up as parasites draining the life and meaning out of an otherwise useful article. See, for example, something like Roe v. Wade -- there's no need to use that article to debate all the pros and cons of the subject involved -- there are other articles for that linked at the bottom -- just state the facts about the case. Even if you really consider Moore's movie to be completely indefinsible propaganda (and to risk the Wiki-equivalent of Godwin's Law here), note that the article on Triumph of the Will doesn't feel the need to explain all the reasons why Nazi Germany wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Similarly, shouldn't we just describe the content of the movie (noting that it is controversial), and then if we want an article about the Bin Laden family departure or whatever we can put the facts about that subject there? Jgm 20:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
“For an encyclopedia based around the concept of a Neutral Point of View, any attempt to either counter or defend the content of a subject that is, in itself, an editorial statement seems wrong; “ – if the editorial statement was based in fact then you would be correct. The criticism isn’t of the broad editorial statement of the film. The criticism centers around the facts that are used to make that statement (a statement that can be made, and is made daily, without the level of dishonesty in this film). As to your examples:
I couldn't have come up with better examples myself. First let's take a general controversial subject - like Roe v. Wade. The difference between a generally controversial subject and the criticism section of this film is that the facts of the case are almost never in dispute. Certain premises (when does life begin etc) and perspectives differ and the debate is framed by those differences - but the debate isn't one about intellectual honesty. Rather it comes down to morals, perspective, and priorities (where facts and factual data are far less useful). If Moore's film was a documentary about why people should vote for Kerry and all of his facts checked out, and our criticism section was putting forth arguments against the Kerry platform, then it would be somewhat like Roe v. Wade. The problem is that the film is not only controversial on a political level but that there is a low level of intellectual honesty in the film.
As to a more appropriate parallel which you so helpfully put forth - Triumph of the Will. Here we have an excellent example of a persuasive "documentary" that is intellectually dishonest. Riefenstahl and her film were considered an integral part of the Third Reich's propaganda machine and the film must be credited, at least in part, with the mobilization of the German people for war under Hitler. You are correct when you say that the current article doesn't feel the need to explain that Nazism isn't all it is cracked up to be, the question is why? For one thing the movie is labeled as outright propaganda - it is immediately marginalized. However I suspect that even without the label there would be no need to criticize the film's content because the theories it bolsters are so widely discredited in this age.
Is that the case in Moore's film? No. Your average moviegoer will come away from Moore's film with a series of factual misrepresentations, and they may vote based on them. Why is this disturbing? Why do we care? Not because they will likely be voting for Kerry, but because their vote will be based on factually inaccurate information, and that is bad for everyone. The criticism section isn’t an attempt to “defend” Bush, nor is it an attempt to “counter” the broad editorial statement of Michael Moore. Its purpose is to bring clarity and accuracy to the moviegoer – ideals which wikipedia should strive for. I fear I have gone on for too long… — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 22:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PS - I'm confused. Why are there seemingly copies of some of the sections in this document? I see multiple sections that are (or were at some point) exactly the same....? — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 22:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, we really do seem to have a pretty deep difference in philosophy here. It really doesn't matter to me on what basis "the criticism" is made -- an encyclopedia is not a critical forum. I don't feel we have a need, responsibility, or charter here to protect readers from possibly deriving inaccurate conclusions from Moore's film any more than we have a need, responsibility, or charter to explain that "watches can't really melt that way" in an article on Dali. If we were doing an article on one of the subjects addressed in the film, say, Haliburton (and again, I haven't seen the film, so forgive me if this is a bad example), then by all means I'd argue for a complete, fair, and neutral discussion of the facts within that article. But just because the film has a particular subject doesn't imply that that subject must be exhaustively or fairly addressed in an article about the film. I seem to be having trouble explaining this distinction (which seems an important one for folks creating an encyclopedia to understand and agree upon); is there some other way I can say this?
Finally, 'pedia philosophy aside, can you really look at the article as it exists today, and claim that, from a user perspective, it is currently a better or more useful thing than the article of 6/30? If a reader wants this level of detail on, say, Richard Clark's role in the Saudi escape flights, surely there is a better place to provide it than in the middle of an article about a movie? Jgm 18:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, just to chime in here: I vote also to create a distinct article about the "controversies" resulting from this film. However, after all the back and forth here in Talk, I'm inclined to just trash the article, and in it's place have an article that goes something like this:

Fahrenheit 9/11

A film by Michael Moore, released to theaters in 2004. No one can quite agree on what the film is about, whether the filmmaker is a reincarnated Joseph Stalin or Patrick Henry, or even what kind of film it is. Please see the article Controversies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for more information.

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Sorry for the extra flippancy. This article is just becoming a joke. Even attempts at thinking out loud about editing are greeted with the possibility of a tremendous WikiShunning or WikiFlameWar. It is difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel, where we'd actually have a readable encyclopedia article on this film as a _film_. --NightMonkey 19:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Clarke appeared to take sole responsibility - but only in May 2004

It's probably helpful to this discussion to include the exact narration, from the F911 website:

Sen. Byron Dorgan: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.

Narration: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.

--Russell j 02:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article that you referenced? A more enlightening quote (and less misleading in your context of his conflicting statements) would have been “It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.” Indicating that while he takes responsibility for the decision (as it was his responsibility in the crisis mode they were operating under) he did make sure it was cleared by the FBI first. Michael A. 20:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, I saw all that. But please explain this. In his March testimony, Clarke is claiming that he may have been requested to approve the flights by the White House. Which doesn't sound like him taking full responsibility. He (possibly) gets a request from the boss to approve these flights - so whose decision is it really? Whereas in May, he's not saying anything about White House involvement. I don't have a problem with including that quote - it doesn't change anything (I only omitted it to save space). The point here is that his story is changing over time. By the way, while we're talking about selective quotes, how did you manage to quote the March testimony without ever mentioning the section about the White House? --Russell j 21:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) and Russell j 22:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whose decision is it really? Clarke's, which is why the request was passed to him at all. Let's say that Prince Bandar (as Saudi Ambassador to the US) calls State with a request to evacuate Saudi citizens. The request gets routed through State and ends up on Clarke's desk. That is one possible scenerio as outlined by Clarke. The other is that the Saudis (presumably Bandar) contacted the Chief of Staff's office (or perhaps the President directly) with the initial request (he may have contacted State AND Card's office) - the request again gets routed to Clarke. Neither scenerio is contradicted by any of his testimony. The fact of the matter is that the request ended up on Clarke's desk, he checked with the FBI, the FBI saw no suspects or people they wanted held for questioning on the planes, so the flights were approved by Clarke. Where is the contradicting testimony?
Roemer's questioning of Clarke's testimony and responsibility, while interesting, so far holds no water. If Roemer finds some evidence then more power to you, let's look at the coverup when we have some evidence of a coverup! Michael A. 22:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I didn't quote Clarke's testimony vis-a-vis the Chief of Staff's office for 2 reasons: 1) he isn't sure where the request originated and 2) there is no indication that the origin of the request had any bearing on the final decision that Clarke made. He still checked with the FBI, the FBI cleared the names and then Clarke approved the flight. Something he says to this day he would do again (even with his newfound disdain for the Bush administration), and the FBI says that they still don't want to speak with any of the passengers. Indicating that everything was done properly, the process worked, and the Saudis received no special treatment. You have to remember the broader context of this section - Moore is claiming that Bush somehow did a favor for the Saudis because of their business connections - that they fled the country without being properly interviewed and that there is some kind of conspiracy at work here. Have you seen the movie? Michael A. 22:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PS: RickK - stop reverting my edit to this section. The added comment was taken out of context as I have clearly indicated in this discussion. If you are going to revert it then at least read and add to the discussion first. Michael A. 23:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the origin of the repatriation request, let's review where we are. Clarke's mish-mash of statements on this subject mean that it is entirely possible (in fact, he thinks, one of the two strongest possibilities) that the Saudis contacted Andrew Card, asking him to fly their friends out of the country. And it is possible that Card then passed down a 'request to approve' to Clarke. A request that Clarke would have felt carried a lot of weight because of the route it had taken to him. It's only one of the possibilities, but Clarke's statements leave it open. Now, isn't this exactly what Moore is alleging? That the Saudis were able to make a few phone calls to their friends at the top, strings were pulled, and the flights were approved? If Clarke had explicitly ruled out this channel, had stated that the Saudis contacted him directly, or that it came up from the FBI, it would be a different matter.
Then you say, "I didn't quote Clarke's testimony vis-a-vis the Chief of Staff's office for 2 reasons: 1) he isn't sure where the request originated and 2) there is no indication that the origin of the request had any bearing on the final decision that Clarke made." Both true, but why is that any reason to exclude it? He states that the possibility the request came from Clarke's office is one of the two most likely ones. And since we don't know what bearing the origin of the request had on Clarke, shouldn't we let readers make up their own minds? You're missing the point of this article. It's not to decide which facts we should let readers know, it's to give them all the facts. --Russell j 01:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) --Russell j 01:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As to the broader context and the Chief of Staff scenario: Moore's implication in the movie isn't that the Saudis simply filed their request through high levels of government - but that the approval of the request was inappropriate, and approval was granted because of ties between Bush and the Saudis - he goes on the imply that the passengers were not properly interviewed, that the FBI wanted to interview them but that somehow strings were pulled that exempted the Saudis from the normal process. You seem intent on implying that because the request might have come from the Chief of Staff's office, that it was in fact the Chief of Staff's office that was MAKING the request. There is nothing, in any testimony, ANYWHERE to indicate that the Chief of Staff's office (or in fact anyone in the White House) was making the request. The only implication is that the request was possibly passed from the Saudis to the Chief of Staff's office, and then to Clarke. In the same way that it would be for any number of foreign governments. You (and Moore) are making it sound like there is some evidence that it was actually the President or the Chief of Staff that was requesting that this get done. There is no evidence to support this. Was Clarke requesting that the FBI approve the flights when he spoke with Dale Watson? Was that Richard Clarke asking that Dale get it done? Or was he just passing on the request that had been passed to him so that the FBI could check out the passengers? Don't confuse the passing of a request, with making the request. The overall point is that even if the request had come from the Chief of Staff's office, there is no indication whatsoever that anything inappropriate took place - and that is what Moore is alleging. Michael A. 02:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
>> You (and Moore) are making it sound like there is some evidence that it
>> was actually the President or the Chief of Staff that was requesting that this get done.
Absolutely not! The point being made is that the Saudis are so close to Bush that they were able to pick up the phone to Andrew Card - at a time of national crisis for the United States - and get their people on a plane ASAP. How many other countries have that kind of access? Some, but not many. As far as I am aware, liasing with foreign ambassadors and passing on requests for them is not in the job description for the White House Chief of Staff. Moore's point is that Bush is extremely close to the Saudis, so the Saudis have special access and can easily get favours done. Which is a premise that our conclusions would so far appear to support.
>> In the same way that it would be for any number of foreign governments.
Such as? All the other foreign governments that didn't get special permission to have their nationals flown out? I think one could write out a long list of foreign governments who cannot just dial the President's chief of staff, make a request to allow their nationals to fly, and the COS then passes the request straight to an overworked chief of counterterrorism. Plus add in the fact that statements about the route the request took are inconsistent (see below about Prince Bandar's comments). --Russell j 02:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
...and of course another point to be made here is the (unquantifiable) benefit to the Saudis, in terms of how expeditiously they felt the request would be actioned, of the request-to-fly coming down the chain from Card to Clarke, rather than up the chain in a more usual manner. --Russell j 03:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

alleged role -> role, later statements -> statements The FBI (even in the article you cited) did have a role in the Saudi Flights.

“The FBI cleared the names [of the passengers on the flights] and Clarke’s CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] team cleared the departure,” Hamilton said.

FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.” “We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”

The FBI is saying that they take no responsbility for the final decision, but they were involved in the process and interviewed who they thought needed interviewing. This does not contradict what Clarke says at any point, and DOES contradict with what Moore leads the viewer to believe in the movie. Michael A. 20:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Michael, I respectfully disagree. In his March 24 2004 testimony, Clarke said: "The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the at that time the number-two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight." (my emphasis). Doesn't sound like Clarke approving it all on his own, in consultation with the FBI, does it? Yet in May he changed his story, and claimed just that!
So let's summarize: spokeswoman Spiser: "We haven't had anything to do with ...clearing the flights". Clarke: "I refused to approve [the request]... I suggested that it be routed to the FBI... the FBI then approved... the flight". Pretty contradictory. This story has problems, and it's right that the Wikipedia article should discuss them.
Plus, at least one member of the Commission (Roemer) is quoted casting doubt on Clarke's claim of sole responsibility. Coincidentally, the same member who teased out of him in the March testimony that the so-called 'request to approve' (euphemism if I ever heard one) might have come from the White House. Sounds like Roemer has his eye on the ball. --Russell j 21:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) and Russell j 21:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you read the full context of the comission testimony you will see that Clarke indicates that he had the final say - a few questions after describing the pass-off to Watson and the FBI "approval" is the following:
MR. ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then, to say "Yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government to go to Saudi Arabia"?
MR. CLARKE: I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference.
Indicating that at the time he testified he claims that the request came into him (From either State or Chief of Staff's office), he refused to approve the initial request - consultued with the FBI, the FBI "approved" (we know that the FBI interviewed some of the passengers, expressed lack of interest in any of the passengers as suspects), the request went back to the Interagency Crisis Management Group where it received final approval (presumably from Clarke).
Now, you point to the passage where Clarke says that the FBI approved the flights. The FBI says they never approved the FLIGHT (as they would have had no authority in this regard anyway), they just checked the names, interviewed some, and cleared the passengers. If you look at that alone it is possible to conclude that Clarke is trying to mislead the comission, but if you read the next few passages you will find that Clarke indicated the request came back to the CMG for final approval. Is his testimony taken in full contradictory? Doesn't look like it to me. It looks to me like he is claiming that he made the final decision, in consultation with the FBI. Michael A. 22:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK Michael, I'm going to shock you by agreeing with you here. The quote was out of context. I propose to add it back with Clarke's later statement that you've pointed out, so readers get the whole picture. Although Clarke's statements on the whole issue have shifted a lot, on the question of who gave final approval for the flights, he seems to be just about consistent. However the question of where the request to fly the Saudis originated from is much, much messier. In fact, even more so than I realized. According to this interview with Prince Bandar:
MR. RUSSERT: So who did you call for permission?
PRINCE BANDAR: We didn't call for -- we asked them: Is it possible -- the FBI.
MR. RUSSERT: You called the FBI?
PRINCE BANDAR: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: And they gave permission?
PRINCE BANDAR: And the FBI, according to Richard Clarke in his testimony, called him, and he said, "I have no problem if the FBI has no problem." So we gathered them all in here, and then once they were here they left.
This final approval/origin of request split is discussed in this blog posting. And I propose to split the discussion along those lines. Conflating the route the request took, and who finally approved it, helps nobody understand this matter. --Russell j 02:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And I think we should add into the mix the Tampa flight. Especially given that it appears to have taken place under a false registration, and that the White House denied for ages that it even took place. Although not featured in the film, it supports Moore's premise of general underhand behaviour over the whole issue. --Russell j 03:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm mulling over your latest statements/questions - in the mean time can we pare down some of the discussion that we agree on and some of the sections in the article that are now agreed upon? We are well over the 32k suggested file size for this document (I think we're at 58k). I will leave it to you to remove what you feel we agree upon. *goes back to writing responses* Michael A. 03:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sure. But I'd really like to fork this content into a separate 'Fahrenheit 9/11's claims about the Saudi flights' article. Which could keep almost everything (although of course put it into proper context). For example, the comments by the FBI spokespersons are common in the blogs. So we need to explain how they are (only just) consistent with Clarke's testimony. Then we could hopefully get the information in the main article down to a very terse summary. What do you think? --Russell j 03:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would support and contribute to such an article - as long as the main article does contain a good summary of the criticism (I oppose any effort to take the criticism off the main page). I support clarity on this issue and think it is vital to understand what happened, who did what (so far as we know) and at whose behest. Jgm would probably consider it an inappropriate article but I am willing to mount a defense in that regard if necessary. ;)
I performed a cursory check to see if there is an article addressing this issue in its broader sense (that is, the controversy itself, outside of Moore's film) and I do not see one. Perhaps we should deal with the issue in its broader sense, see if we can come to a consensus, and then try to relate it to the film? Or I suppose we could do both, but it seems more useful to try the first and then move to the 2nd? Michael A. 04:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Let the eagle soar / Like she's never soared before...

What does this statement have to do with Moore's opinions/motives? Why should it be included here? It's just somebody singing. --Merovingian✍Talk 03:14, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing. It shouldn't. I vote for removal. Michael A. 03:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. If, however whoever-it-was had sung "It's aaaalll for the oil", that would be completely appropriate for inclusion. --Merovingian✍Talk 03:29, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Er - I edited your edit of the Secret service section and made "allegedly-inaccurate" into "inaccurate" as the statement is factually inaccurate (as documented and referenced). I then performed another edit to fix a typo and then my previous edit with explaination didn't show up in the history. I mention it here to pre-empt any accusations of vast right wing conspiracy and devious tactics etc. Does the wiki consider any change made in the same minute to be the same change from a history point of view? I see no other reason why it wouldn't show my other edit... Michael A. 04:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I don't oppose any of your changes. --Merovingian✍Talk 05:15, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Secret Service

I think the "allegedly" needs to be restored, unless we can substantiate a flat unqualified assertion that the officer's statement is inaccurate. The statement doesn't concern legal authority but actual practice. (Practice doesn't alway follow the law, as witness the illegal disenfranchisement of thousands of blacks in Florida, without which we'd be discussing some conservative director's film attacking President Gore.) Does the Secret Service actually provide on-site personnel at every embassy in Washington? What I find is this:

  • "Foreign Mission Branch members perform their important duties by patrolling Washington's embassy district in marked police vehicles and on foot and by responding to complaints and calls for assistance from foreign embassy personnel. Officers also handle demonstrations at diplomatic locations, man fixed protective posts, and consult with diplomatic officials regarding security matters related to their embassies and chanceries." (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=72&content=258&print=true)
  • "The Foreign Missions Branch of the Uniformed Division safeguards foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., area. Officers maintain foot and vehicular patrols in areas where embassies are located. They are assigned to fixed posts at locations where a threat has been received or at installations of countries involved in tense international situations." (http://www.2600.com/secret/more/ss/ss_protection.html)

These sources (one governmental, one private) suggest that, while on-site protection at a particular embassy isn't a unique situation, it isn't the invariable practice, either. The officer's statement in the film, "not usually", could well be a completely accurate summary. We might have difficulty establishing it to be false. If I were running the Secret Service, I wouldn't want to provide a lot of details about the assignment of agents, so it's not surprising that the Service didn't return phone calls seeking more information about embassy protection (http://www.washdiplomat.com/00-09/a5_9_00.html). Unless the Secret Service has been more forthcoming elsewhere, I don't think we can justify the flat assertion that the officer's statement is inaccurate. JamesMLane 06:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see your point. While it is certainly not unheard of, nor outside of their legal duties, without a study or further evidence we have no way of knowing if it is the "usual" for Secret Service uniformed officers to protect embassies.
The entire scene revolves not around Craig Unger (I think there were 1 or 2 lines from him in the scene) but around the Secret Service protecting the Saudi Embassy and their "showing up". Note that Moore plays to the audience's typically incomplete knowledge by saying "even though we were no where near the White House" - banking on the fact that the audience knows the secret service protects the white house, but probably doesn't know that they also protect foreign embassies. Taken in the surrounding context the obvious implication is that something abnormal is going on: either the Saudis are receiving special attention from the Secret Service, or Moore himself is. So here is my question to you: how would you go about clearing this up for the viewer, indicating that in fact the secret service is in charge of protecting foreign embassies, and that while we might not be able to call it the "usual" it certainly doesn't indicate anything out of the ordinary nor does it indicate that the Saudis are receiving any special treatment (nor extra-legal treatment) from the Secret Service. In fact, the Saudi Embassy could have called them up and said that someone was filming the embassy (an act that, as of late, is deemed to be worthy of police questioning). I'm not out to get Moore, I just want the viewer to have an accurate picture of reality and that is not what is conveyed in this scene. I am open to suggestions. Michael A. 07:25, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having seen the movie, I very much doubt that the Secret Service showed up in response to a phone call prompted by Moore's filming. I didn't see any car pull up, and my recollection is that the guys came out of the embassy. If a car had pulled up and disgorged Secret Service agents, Moore probably would've filmed it and included that footage -- "The Saudis were so upset that someone might be getting information on what they were doing that they called the Secret Service, which obediently dispatched a couple guys just to check up on li'l ol' me." That would've been more to Moore's liking, I suspect, than what actually appears in the film. As to why the agents were there, one of the sites I quoted above says that the Secret Service guards "installations of countries involved in tense international situations," which might well cover this instance. So, did the Saudis get "special treatment"? One could answer Yes (it's special in the sense that the Secret Service probably pays much more attention to the Saudi embassy than to that of most countries) or No (it's non-special in the sense that it's probably based on applying a general principle -- go where there's most likely to be trouble). This is another paragraph where more nuance is necessary. It's now on my list of edits to think about. JamesMLane 08:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those of you interested in this section might want to read the ongoing discussion between Eloquence and I : Talk - the first few paragraphs refer to old versions and are no longer on point. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 01:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you want to include the law that gives the Secret Service this authority, we shouldn't do it in a way that suggests inaccurately that the Secret Service has sole responsibility in this area. I've changed "tasked with" (a phrase I despise anyway) to "plays a role." Also, it seems that there are at least three different accuracy issues -- the alleged implication that the Secret Service plays no role in protecting any other embassy, Officer Kimbell's statement that it doesn't usually do so, and Moore's speculation that Bandar is the best-protected diplomat, so all three need to be stated separately. JamesMLane 04:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All of the research I have done indicates that the Secret Service Uniformed Division Foreign Missions branch has full responsibility for protecting foreign missions in Washington D.C. The UD can call upon the metro DC police in a supportive role when required (not sure if that is legislated or just de facto). The state department plays a role in protecting foreign officials, but I see nothing anywhere that indicates that the SSUD doesn't have sole responsibility for protecting embassies? I gather that the role metro police plays in the process is similar to the role that local police might support an FBI investigation that is outside of their legal jurisdiction, the police don't have the responsibility, the FBI does - and they ask the police for support. [12] [13] (also see the links in the article). Do you have something that indicates otherwise? — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 05:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The metro police support is legislated (see the next few pages in the article link to the legislation). The UD can call upon the metro police at any time (and in fact may appoint a police officer to serve in the UD) - all associated costs must be reimbursed. The law looks pretty clear to me - the UD has sole responsibility for protecting embassies. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 10:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Offense caution

I removed the caution about offensive words, because:

  1. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

Online version incomplete

Hmmph. I downloaded the movie, hoping to review a part I couldn't recall clearly, but a big chunk is missing. Everything between Tappahannock and the start of the Iraq war. No Ashcroft losing to a dead man, no Patriot Act, no Rep. Conyers, no Moore reading the Act to Congress, no Peace Fresno, no older man exercising and criticizing Bush and getting a visit from the FBI or whoever it was, no Oregon state trooper. Don't remember what else should be in there, it's been a couple of weeks since I saw it in the theater.

I wonder where the online version came from, anyway? It hasn't been released on DVD yet. Maybe someone snuck a camcorder into a theater, and that's when they needed to change tapes. It's about 55 minutes into it. Tualha 03:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's illegally reshot in a theater, correct. Poor sound, poor quality, bits and pieces of the movies are missing... Ahhh... The standard of bootleg quality :) I've heard of a SVCD (movie CD) version being leaked now (which would mean that the whole movie is intact with adequete quality), but it's doubtful. Mastgrr
The rumor is that the online version was filmed at an early screener of the movie, before the final editing was complete, and that is why it does not contain the same content as the theatrical release. --CrucifiedChrist


This probably isn't the best place to discuss illegal activities, and IIRC websites in the past have gotten into serious trouble for hosting such conversations in discussion boards. On the other hand, I'm loathe to delete the comments of others. Not sure what to do here. Any precendent? --Wclark 23:47, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Obviously the mere existence of a bootleg copy is illegal, as is its distribution. Do you think someone's going to sue Wikipedia for defamation? Or do you see some kind of criminal charges in the offing? Tualha 17:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
According to this and many many news articles, Michael Moore and Lions Gate Films are not opposing the distribution of this film, as long as it is not for profit. So, though IANAL, this would seem to relieve Wikipedia from accusations of pirating a copywritten work. Is this a first for a major mainstream theatrical release? --NightMonkey 21:34, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

My concern was with discussing illegal activities, not with Wikipedia being accused of trafficking in the bootleg copies themselves. Some websites have been threatened with legal action simply for hosting discussions in which the participants discuss how and where they downloaded copyrighted materials illegally. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is scary, indeed. --Wclark 01:21, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Critical (libertarian) web site article

[14]

Leonard G. 01:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bradbury title dispute

This portion of the article seems to be under dispute:

However, since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, legal action is unlikely. A new movie version of Fahrenheit 451 is under development, and may have to be renamed as a result.
It is notable that Bradbury has lifted the titles of works of others, for his own work. His short story I Sing The Body Electric (1969) is the title of a Walt Whitman poem; The Woman shares the title of a 1939 movie directed by George Cukor; William Shakespeare is understood to be the original author of the line Something Wicked This Way Comes, used as the title of a 1962 Bradbury novel.

First off, isn't it copyright that applies to artistic works, not trademark? I think that whole sentence should be removed, since Fahrenheit 451 is obviously copyrighted.

Secondly, if Moore can't be forced to change the title of his movie, Bradbury certainly can't be forced to change his either. The whole point there is inconsistent and should be removed.

Lastly, is this an article on Moore's film or on Ray Bradbury? I understand that people want to defend Moore, but attacking Bradbury is simply POV. The instances where Bradbury "lifted" titles either involve public domain material or else can be considered an homage to the earlier work. Moore's use is neither. The argument for Moore should be that his title is sufficiently different, not that Bradbury did the same thing. --Wclark 18:13, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Until recently, this wasn't so much a dispute as a line that anon(s) insisted on re-adding without justification over and over; more recently it's been re-added with the explanation "it's an NPOV way of indicating that Bradbury is a hypocrite". I've removed it again; once more, and as Wclark says, this isn't an article about Bradbury. I'd have no objection to noting the facts about his titles being derivative, or about the upcoming movie, in the Ray Bradbury article, but including it here just makes the article more convoluted, less focused, and less useful. Jgm 19:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just a question. If Ray Bradbury's Credibility is not worth one sentence in the write up, why are his attacks worh a whole paragraph?
Trademark is the correct reference. Use of the sole word "Fahrenheit" isn't a copyright violation -- which of course is fortunate for Bradbury, since otherwise he'd be in violation. There's no argument that Moore improperly appropriated Bradbury's copyrighted material. The only argument to be made is that there's a potentially confusing similarity between the titles. For example, if Bradbury were to sue, he might argue that some people might go see Moore's movie because they liked Bradbury's book, so Moore is making money by "passing off" his work as Bradbury's. These are concepts of trademark law. Of course, the enormous publicity about the nature of the film would make it pretty much hopeless for Bradbury's lawyers to show a significant likelihood of confusion. JamesMLane 02:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd thought similarity was enough in the case of copyright, just as it was in the case of trademark (for example, I couldn't call my softdrink "Popsi" because of the similarity to "Pepsi", although that case is definitely trademark law because "Pepsi" isn't an artistic work). Apparently that's just my misunderstanding, though. What about the possibility of the remake of Fahrenheit 451 having to be renamed? I assume the logic is that Michael Moore can (or did) trademark "Fahrenheit 9/11" and thus prevent Bradbury from using a title too similar? Is there a concept such as prior art in trademark? I'm half tempted to say that this entire section (including the removed portions) should be put into an article all its own, since there seems to be quite a bit to it. I suppose once the controversy settles down it won't make for an interesting article though, and would seem rather pointless a few months or year from now. --Wclark 04:52, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
In "a few months or a year"? I think it's already pretty pointless, and the raising of it has lowered my opinion of Ray Bradbury -- but that, admittedly, is just my POV. As for similarity and copyright, a would-be thief can't evade copyright protection by making minor changes to a copyrighted work -- a substantial infringement is still a violation. I'm saying that, in this case, there's no colorable argument of substantial infringement. By comparison, I could write a book about advertising and make explicit reference to the name "Pepsi" or even the "Pepsi Generation" slogan and not be infringing Pepsi's copyright. In fact, I could make The Pepsi Generation the title of my book and still have no copyright worries. As for Fahrenheit 451, I'm pretty sure that actual use (even without trademark registration) establishes a right to continue that use. I can't imagine any danger that Bradbury could be prevented from releasing a film using his book's title. JamesMLane 05:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think Bradbury is more upset that Moore didn't contact him. There's a long tradition of contacting the author of something you're going to parody or play on. "Weird Al" Yankovic is known to always seek the permission of the artist before doing a parody of a song. Another interesting case is Kevin Smith's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. There appears to be some kind of friendship even between Smith and George Lucas as Smith was married at Lucas' Skywalker Ranch. I also found an interesting article on IMDB about Mark Hamill double checking with Lucas to make sure things they were doing in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back were okay with him (they were). So, I think this is much more an issue of Moore not going to Bradbury to at least ask for his blessing as most artists consider parody the highest form of flattery. Hopefully Fahrenheit 451 sales will skyrocket as a result, it's an excellent book.
Getting back to the article though, thanks to those who are watching it, I think it is perfect as written that Bradbury has a problem and that is it, getting into it any deeper on one side or the other just strays from NPOV. I think this article is remakably NPOV thanks to many folks monitoring it, hopefully it will stay that way. Wgfinley 17:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yeats is still under copyright until 2009 http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~martinh/poems/y_copyright.html. Thus, I removed the sentence about the allusions being to 'public domain' works. Frankly, I think the whole section about the allusion to Bradbury should be removed. It has no legal basis and has nothing to do with the film. But if it's going to be included, it might as well be accurate.

VeryVerily:

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)

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)

Documentary?

I take exception to this movie being called a "documentary." Just like Bowling for Columbine, it's "fiction."--Jasontromm

Don't kid yourself. All "documentaries" are "fiction". In fact I'll go further. All documentaries are fiction. Some documentaries are closer to the truth than others but all of them are fiction when you examine them closely. -- Derek Ross | Talk

What national geographic makes is what we traditionally call a "documentary". What Moore makes would be better classed as "propaganda", because a doumentary implies at least an attempt at NPOV. --inks 02:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, ALL documentaries have a POV and ones who claim not to have one are simply trying to hide their own POV. As for you, get real, this film is not a news report where the expressed claim is to be impartial (but they themselves usually have their own POV). As it is Michael Moore is upfront about his perspective on his subject, which is better than Fox News does anyway with their fraudulent "Fair And Balanced" claim. --User:Kchishol1970
Everything is propaganda. Every movie, every news outlet, every type of media is propaganda. This is a documentary. Every documentary reflect the movie makers opinion. It's impossible to completely be fair and balanced. Some like Michael Moore don't hide that he's not balanced, other try to -- like Fox News. And I don't like it how this word is suddenly being used for this documentary when the right time to use this word should've been at our media during the build-up to the iraqi war. Mastgrr 10:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No need to be rude - I simply suggest that "documentary" does not describe the nature of the film as well as "propaganda" does. --inks 07:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that all documentaries are "fiction" or have a "POV". Certainly, many do, but documentaries about the mating habits of Koalas or the geography of the Himalayas need not. Calling Moore's movies documentaries does seem to violate the "spirit" of the word, as they are largely a nonstop effort at deception, but we must classify his movies as something, and this does fit that category more than any other. This could be an issue of denotation versus connotation; documentary implies truth, but doesn't really mean it. As a comparison, books are classified as "fiction" or "non-fiction", but "non-fiction" books include the works of L. Ron Hubbard, Lyndon LaRouche, Bill Clinton, and Mao Zedong, as well as the Bible, the Koran, etc. This classification by no means endorses the content in question. VV 18:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll be happy to agree to disagree on this one :) - I still think classing it as a documentary legitimises questionable content, and that propoganda is more accurate - it's just that the word propoganda has such negative connotations associated with it that most people instantly reject it as a classification without thinking about its definition. Many propaganda films are exellent examples of op-ed. --inks 01:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why is it such a suprise to people when you say that dolphins gangrape and have incest relationships all the time? It's a case where there is a clear bias behind the movie maker/information givers because they don't want to make dolphins look bad. And what about documentaries on Disovery Channel that use reinactments? They're despite the fact that they're using actors, acting out a situtation that might not at all be the absolute truth (perhaps based on a singel person's story/version) still considered documentaries? Both are cases where they're not giving the absolute truth to the viewer, but they're still considered documentary. Maybe we could call dolphin documentaries "dolphin propaganda" and discovery channel's documentaries "documentary that is propagated for the person/persons who gave the actual story to the reinactment in this propaganda piece" (sorry, trying to be humorous) Mastgrr 10:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Heh, I would hope they used words other than "gang rape" and "incest" - if they don't, they should. The point is that the traditional "National Geographic" documentary has far more accurate content that F9/11, to the point where the word "documentary" is not an accurate classification for the film. It is not implied (or required) that a documentary be an absolute truth. --inks 06:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
News outlets don't have to be truthful either. Mastgrr 10:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is subjective. An example that springs to mind is the date of US independence. Most people would say July 4 1776, but no other country recognised that independence (leaving aside the croat city of Ragusa) until the treaty of paris in september 3 1783. So which day is the abosolute truth? My own country declared independence from Britian dozens of times over the centuries before Britian accepted it in 1922. But other dates you could reasonably say are true dates of independance are 1937 and 1948, when the name of the country changed and our legal relationship with Britian became looser. All these dates are true, unbiased and fair. But if you want absolute truth you have to moan on in a boring way like I've just done, and no documentary, whether on the Discovery chanel or not, has time for that. Seabhcan 11:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Being biased is like having an accent, only other people have it. Seabhcan 11:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I only half-way agree with Jasontromm. It seems misleading to call the movie a documentary, however "fiction" does not fit either. I wouldn't call the film fiction because all the things it says are true. I wouldn't call the film a documentary either, though, because it does not even try to be objective. Propaganda sounds very negative, implying that the content is not only biased, but also has little regard for truth. Maybe some other term would be more appropriate?
Polemical books are routinely classified as "nonfiction" because that's their basic intent. A nonfiction book doesn't lose that status because it's written from a particular POV, nor because it contains one or more specific assertions as to matters of fact that are challenged as (or even shown to be) false. The film analogy is the "documentary" class. That's the most accurate characterization of Fahrenheit 9/11. The intro to the article goes on to to note the charge that it's propaganda, and to report Moore's own characterization of it as an op-ed piece. This presentation is balanced and NPOV. JamesMLane 09:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The question here is if the film is consistent with the definition of a documentary. According to American Heritage Dictionary there are two definitions:
  1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
  2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Clearly this film fits the definition of (1) and does not fit (2) which specifically mentions film. Depending on which definition you choose, it either is, or is not a documentary. In order to prevent this ambiguity, I propose that Fahrenheit 9/11 should not be referred to as a documentary. Many films are "based on a true story," which would fit definition (1), but are not considered documentaries. This film should instead be referred to as an "op-ed" piece, as described by the filmmaker himself.

moved film material from Michael Moore article

I moved and merged stuff from the Fahrenheit 9/11 section in Michael Moore to here because some was duplicated and the rest was about the film rather than Michael Moore, with a possible exception concerning Ray Bradbury's statements.

Here are the differences.

While moving I couldn't help noticing the alleged translation of Ray Bradbury's words are suspect. I assume Ray would have spoken in English, which the Swedish newspaper then translates into Swedish, which in turn gets translated back to English by a blog on salon.com, which in turn get paraphrased here.

I do not read Swedish but I can see part of the translation is, um, unfair, in that his words are constructed from separate answers, eliding a whole sentence and a question. So I boldly cut it out, pending a trustworthy source.

The Swedish:

Så vad tycker Bradbury?
- Michael Moore är en korkad skitstövel, det är vad jag tycker om saken. Han stal min titel och bytte ut siffrorna utan att någonsin fråga mig om lov.
Har ni talat med honom?
- Han är en förfärlig människa. Förfärlig människa.

What appears in wikipedia (moved by me from Michael Moore and then moved here):

Ray Bradbury stated in an interview with Dagens Nyheter "Michael Moore is a screwed a--hole, that is what I think about that case. Moore is a horrible human being – horrible human!"

salon blogger translation (appears closer to the Swedish):

"Michael Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case. He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission.
Have you spoken to him?
- He is a horrible human being. Horrible human!

-Wikibob | Talk 16:22, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)


"made to look" vs. "is shown" (or better phrasing)

In this paragraph, under Content: "A strong pro-war supporter, Lila Lipscomb, from Moore's home town Flint, Michigan with a daughter in the First Gulf War, and a son in Iraq, is made to look like an anguished anti-war mother upon the death of her son on April 2, 2003 in Karbala. Lipscomb later travels to Washington, DC where she confronts a pro-war supporter at the National Mall, who says that "this is all staged." Lipscomb asks her if her son's death was staged also."

The italicised phrase above ("made to look") doesn't seem to adhere to NPOV. It would imply that she actually wasn't "an anguished anti-war mother" at the time of filming. Is there some dispute over whether she actually _is_ an anguished anti-war mother? If so, I'd like to see references. Should this be changed? --NightMonkey 01:15, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Best would be to state factually what she expresses in the movie. Perhaps a quote, or at least a neutral paraphrase. From my recollection, it would certainly be fair to state that she expresses anguish over the death of her son and expresses opposition to the war. But, it's been a few weeks since I've seen it.

I made this neutral paraphrase: "A strong pro-war supporter, Lila Lipscomb, from Moore's home town Flint, Michigan with a daughter in the First Gulf War, and a son in Iraq, appears anguished and questions the war's purpose upon the death of her son on April 2, 2003, in Karbala." but an actual quote of what she said escapes my memory - something about dying for a lie? -Wikibob | Talk 09:43, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Content in need of more content?

The content section isn't really doing a great job of describing the content of the film. Discussion of the contreversies is intermixed into this section, and significant portions of the film are left out of the section. In addition, it is not really, as it is now, a true linear description of the actual content, and is somewhat scattershot over the timeline of the film. I may be asking for more than is usual for a description of a documentary, however, and I'ld love to hear more opinions.

Some examples of currently undescribed scenes:

  • The scenes of Moore attempting to convince congressmen to get their children to enlist.
  • The scenes of people unfairly affected by law enforcement overreaching and general "fear of terror" mindset (the peace activists and their FBI "mole", the gentleman from the gym in Oakland, CA, approached by the FBI because he said George Bush was an "asshole", etc.).
  • The scenes of the interviews with the Oregon State Police, of the lone deputy partolling the undefended Oregon coastline and of the general lack of law enforcement in Oregon.

Anyone agree or disagree? --NightMonkey 01:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it would be improved with more content, but haven't much ability to describe these scenes myself. Meanwhile this non-NPOV paragraph looks a lot like criticism and is not at all clear whether it's part of the film at all (I suspect not):


While these business links are not disputed, they are not widely known, and Moore has previously alleged that the Bush administration turned a blind eye to Saudi links to terrorist groups (most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis). In this vein, he also examines the government-sponsored evacuation of relatives of Osama bin Laden after the attacks. One of his primary sources for these claims is the book House of Bush, House of Saud by which Moore also advertises on his website.

When I have time I will move all but the middle sentence straight to the criticism section, but did the film discuss the Craig Unger book? -Wikibob | Talk 10:26, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

Category: Propaganda?

Recently added as minor edit. Debate ongoing in Talk:Michael_Moore is relevant here.Wolfman 16:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The debate in Talk:Michael_Moore resulted in the category being rescinded. As this categorization in general is the subject of spirited debate, and as it was added as a minor edit with no discussion, I am removing it for now. If someone wants to make the case that F911 fits the definition of propaganda in some way distinct from an editorial, I won't get in a revert war. But as the term propaganda generally conveys a pejorative POV, F911 should not be categorized as such with no discussion.

I would start off by saying you're wrong for deleting the category for the reason you cite. It is not policy to discuss an edit before making it. If need be, consensus to remove is usually achieved before removal. This category was added before it became a "subject of spirited debate". F911 article is not in dispute and there no controversy templates attached to this article, therefore no discussion was warranted. As to rather it was a minor edit or a major edit is of no consequence either way. I do not believe the category propaganda makes an NPOV statement, as it stands it's simply a category that points to articles that deal with propaganda. The F911 article easily falls into this category by definition of the word propaganda. The word propaganda is used in the F911 article no less then 3 times.
The problem may lay more on the category existence then its use. If so then have the category debated in the appropriate forum. Please refrain from guerrilla tactics, as it just makes for more reverts if your case prevails.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary - propaganda --Buster 23:23, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
A point of clarification regarding the debate in Talk:Michael_Moore. The category was not rescinded as a result of debate, it was removed because it did not fit into what I now believe the original intent of the category to be. See Talk:Michael_Moore for my reasoning. --Buster 23:42, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
Buster, your attitude seems inconsistent with your user page announcement which states "Feel free to delete and or further refine any article category without notice."Wolfman 00:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not my attitude but my position has changed. I think I will add on my user page in small print "subject to change without notice". Thanks for the input. It's mainly that I would like to see this issued resolved, deleting the category from F911 will not make it go away. I suggest the category be reviewed not its usage. BTW, It was by chance that I was categorizing firearm related articles category's when I let myself get sucked into Moore's "propaganda" movie articles and decided to classified them further. I am sure I won't be the last if this isn't resolved. Note: edit conflicts when saving this. --Buster 00:42, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think the Propaganda category should be retained but severely limited. I've posted a specific suggestion on Category talk:Propaganda, which seems to be the logical place to have this discussion. JamesMLane 00:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Despite all the foregoing, a "Propaganda" subcategory has been added here, with no discussion on Talk. See Category:Propaganda, which now makes clear that it's aimed at government PR, not at every Michael Moore movie and Ann Coulter book. I'm deleting the category from this article. JamesMLane 19:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I restored the category prior to reading the comments here. Mea culpa. While the propagand category is "primarily" intended at government produced works, it does not consist solely of government produced works. F911 was intended to propagate an idea (propaganda) and was hoped to produce a political outcome. I will consider carefully what the intent of the category (and definition of propanda is) before restoring a revert, but I ask that opponents of this inclusion suggest an alternative. -CrucifiedChrist
Removed from "Propaganda" category -- see discussion above. There is no need to suggest an alternative, as CrucifiedChrist requests, as the current categories are enough (2004 films, Documentary films). Also, "propagate an idea" is not the complete definition of the arguably difficult-to-define word "propaganda". It also includes the _systemic_ propagation of a doctrine. Unless every individual who creates a movie, writes a book, writes an Editorial, creates a web site, or otherwise has something to say is a "propagandist" (which would dillute the usefullness of a "Propaganda" category) there are enough non-doctrinal facts displayed in the film to merit at least a significant doubt as to whether it can be truly called "propaganda". See the American Heritage 2000 definition, first definition. --NightMonkey 03:51, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
I think the fact that there has been so much back and forth over this indicates that a completely satisfactory solution hasn't been found yet. I've reflected on this today, and will be making some changes soon that I sincerely hope will satisfy both sides. As far as the definition of propaganda goes, F911 fits very well into meaning 2 and 3 at [15]. -- CrucifiedChrist
The argument for applying the category to Fahrenheit 9/11 would also support applying it to quite a few articles on right-wing subjects: Stolen Honor, Ann Coulter, etc. It's partly because of such considerations that the current definition at Category:Propaganda was modified to emphasize government action. One solution to these recurring disputes is simply to abolish the Category:Propaganda as inherently POV. Another is to say that everyone engaged in trying to influence public policy is going to have to live with the negative connotations of "propagaganda" -- we'll just splash it all over articles like FOX News and it will be understood that if someone wants the category on, it stays on, and conservatives who are upset can go add the category to Air America. In practice, the solution we've drifted into is that, because of its negative connotations, "propaganda" means something that more or or less meets the definition of the category and has no active defenders among current Wikipedia editors. This is why the Nazis are so well represented while similar acts by contemporary governments and private propagandists are largely absent. This de facto solution stinks, in my opinion. Some ways of adjusting the category are discussed at Category talk:Propaganda. JamesMLane 16:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

James, your argument makes no sense at all. Michael Moore's film absolutely is "propaganda". As for the other film you mention Stolen Honor, I've seens both films and certainly do not agree that Fahrenheit 9/11 is anywhere near the quality production that Mr. Sherwood's production is. I don't see why or how you are comparing the two. 66.167.13.144 19:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protestor at the White House

Does somebody know about the protestor camping by the White House? Where is she from? Her accent reminds me a Spaniard accent, and she tells something like "they killed people in Spain yesterday". Would that place the filming on March 12, 2003? -- Error 01:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks? Fuzheado | Talk 02:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes -- Error

Moore's comment on file sharing

Despite what the linked article [16] says, Moore was very likely not commenting on Fahrenheit 9/11, as the quote referred to has been around since January. Perhaps it should be removed from the article? It is already mentioned on Wikiquote [17].

The quote "Michael Moore has stated that he disagrees with copyright laws and doesn't mind if his movie is freely distributed over the Internet as long no money changes hands" appears to have no foundation. The link next to it does not work. Is this a malicious enticement to ignore copyright?

Anon, assume good-faith. --kizzle 02:24, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

PV: I assure you that Michael Moore did say such things. I downloaded an interview clip, and it was clearly him responding to a question about filesharing. He compared it to borrowing a friend's VHS tape, and not having to pay the movie company a second time for the same tape.

POV to call it a documentary

Prior to Wolfman's useful edit, the intro read "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary motion picture..." A simple google search will show several thousand link which question whether this movie is actually a documentary or not. [18]. Therefore, the documentary nature of the film is a topic of public debate, and there is more than one viewpoint. Wikipedia cannot simply assert that the movie is a documentary without bending to one POV. Instead, to maintain NPOV, we must cite that some hold it to be a documentary and some hold it not to be, without ever speaking in the "voice of wikipedia" to assert one or the other. --CrucifiedChrist

Hmm... The population numbers (or returned Google hits, which can be very skewed) associated with a particular opinion matter, but the source of the opinions must be accounted for, as well. Wikipedia's articles shouldn't be written via a "Popularity Contest". The Academy will be considering F 9/11 for an Oscar... as a "documentary". It _won_ Cannes as a "documentary". Most (if not all) major filmmakers who have publicly talked about the film call it a "documentary". Most major film journalists and critics call it a "documentary". If 10,000 web sites say that the movie is an "Instructional Video", I don't think that would negate the need to keep its proper description in the article. Personally, I think the film should really be classified as an "essay" or "editorial" (or maybe "highly unauthorized biography" - ok, just kidding), rather than a "documentary", perhaps in a new category together with "Swimming to Cambodia" or something similar. That would still allow for it to not be labeled "fiction", as it would be squarely within the realm of journalism (see Editorial). However, that being said, "documentary" is the best major film category currently available to use for classification, and the most appropriate way for the filmmaking and film critic communities and journalists to classify it at this time, as we await a better classification system. I'm restoring "documentary" to the classification of this article, as it is the prevailling classification in use. "Motion Picture" is just too generic to reflect the truth. Please discuss here before reverting. Thanks. --NightMonkey 19:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) (Sorry, edit conflict delayed this! :( )
I was hesitant about that one, but this isn't the first time this was discussed re: this article, and I believe the consensus was to keep the word "documentary." It could really go either way. Rhobite 17:54, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I have no problem with calling it a documentary. Was just trying to split the difference in a disagreement between CC & VV.Wolfman 19:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Per Rex's edit, It's called a documentary on IMDB.com, which is as official as any site... see here --kizzle 05:59, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with "quasi-Documentary" ? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Image:Happyjoe.jpg ]] 07:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that's needlessly awkward. If we're going to call it something other than a documentary, it should probably be along the lines of "editorial" or "persuasive." I now think it should be called a documentary, that's the genre it adheres to most closely. Rhobite 15:53, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Flights lead-in paragraph

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)

Removed sentence

I removed this sentence

There is some speculation that Karzai was actually employed indirectly. (by UNOCAL)

Speculation by who? Bloggers? There seems to be no evidence for this supposed indirect employment, and the paper which first mistakenly reported this - Le Monde - made no mention of it being a secret they had discovered. Indeed, it was just an offhand comment appearing in a story. (The best theory still seems to be that it was simple mix-up.) VV 11:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You also removed and refactored other parts of the text under "Bush, Unocal, and the war in Afghanistan"; much more than just the sentence you quote. You also removed direct links to the articles in question. It doesn't appear to be an "offhand comment", as you say in the article, or just a European thing - according to www.michaelmoore.com's 9/11 Facts area, The Nation also reported this. I have not found any reference to where you get your "theory" that it was a "simple mix up." Please tell us in Talk that you intend to delete text so that it may be discussed first before removing it. However, I agree that the sentence you mention above should be removed, as it isn't very well written, and uses weasel_words. Thanks.--NightMonkey 02:14, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I made three edits, and I felt this was the only one that needed comment or might warrant discussion. Yes, I refactored the overlong paragraph which gave a long direct quote which had no additional information. The "European thing" I found and preserved. The Nation is not a credible source, anyway; we don't need to list Z Magazine and Counterpunch as well. The mix-up appears to be with ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, although I don't remember where I read this - but I didn't put it in the article so it scarcely matters. My other deletions were noted - a parenthetical which gives someone's legal opinion and a link to an analysis of the lyrics to some song that the movie happens to use. Most of these edits (not all) were about fifteen minutes old and unsigned and didn't need to be haggled over ad nauseam in Talk. And it was an offhand comment; find a copy of the Le Monde article on the web, and you'll see it's just noted in the middle of a long sentence, not treated as breaking news. VV 06:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think monitoring this article is making me Wiki-Punchy, and I think I overreacted a bit to your edits. I urge you to find that link to the story of the mix-up between Karzai and Khalilzad, however, as it would be a salient and valuable addition to this section. --NightMonkey 20:20, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Also, how did you come to the conclusion that The Nation is not a credible source? This is part of the "Criticisms/Contreversy" section, so should not divergent viewpoints be reflected here? You removed sources (diminishing the usefulness of the article to the reader), and do not cite sources that bolster your position. I vote for restoration of the links to the articles in the Christian Science Monitor - though quoting the article text may not be necessary, and might best be only summarized. --NightMonkey 21:25, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Revised slant & removed redundant statement/POV

Removed repetitive statement: "Not a single sentence stated in the film has been shown to be false and Moore has provided a line-by-line defense of the script on his website."

Statement immediately follows "Moore himself has called it an "op-ed piece" while vehemently defending its factual accuracy."

The removed statement also presents POV, since the it is at least debatable on whether Moore represented or misrepresented facts.

Revised slant - removed "conservatives" from : "The film has been denounced by some conservatives as misleading propaganda, and praised by others as a valuable perspective on the Bush administration's response to 9/11 that the American media have not broadcast."

To state one side as "conservatives" and the other side as "others" implies one side of the opinion is biased (political motivation) while the other side is not. The revised statement is a more factual representation.