Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11/Archive 2

• 1
• Archive 2
• 3

Double Standard?

Since documentaries like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" are described as controversial, why isn't this documantary? Some would argue that most of its claims are unfounded and absurd, much like in other documentaries carrying the controversial description. Maybe this should be re-evaluated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.94.190 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 72.218.29.125 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What would happen if someone, God forbid, just went in and added such a claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.94.190 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Content of the film

Perhaps some discussion of the films actual content might be in order? I.e. a basic trace of the assertions made by Michael Moore.

International Jury

Four North americans, four europeans, and one asian... Because an asian could also be north american or european, should this be more specific or is it PC to refer to Asia as a continent?

Major article changes

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

Archive

/Archive1

Cannes Director

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

Critics' Quotes

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

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

191 respondants to a Rotten Tomatoes survey are not exactly a basis for forming a majority opinion. :) Earl Whitehaven (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed the following:

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

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

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

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

how to make this article shorter...

No!

Should we add to reflect new movie?

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

Farenhype 9/11

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

Celsius 41.11

[sarcasm]Yes, because this is definitely the place to post irrelevant links and talk about how "lame" they are.[/sarcasm] Get the partisan hatred out of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.82.144 (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Love the new article!

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

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

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

Time to refactor the Talk?

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

My Pet Goat

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

Bush Reelection

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

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

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

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

Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way Mongo, just for your own info:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moore's Film NOT Documentary

And Wikipedia talk pages are NOT a chat-room. WP:NOT#CHAT and WP:NOR, please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A documentary film is one that holds facts as such, not purposely distorted to favor a bias. Documentary labeling this film by Moore gives documentary film makers a bad name- we might as well call Sci-Fi movies "documentaries" as well. As much interest as one may have in the issue of Moore's movie one must realize that opinion is not fact, misrepresentation of reality is not fact and blatent lies are not fact. This movie is an op-ed piece of off-color political entertainment and should not be construed as fact or documentary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haamerhed (talk • contribs) 04:42 UTC, 7 Jun 2005. OOOPS....I have to post an apology....please disregard my above post concerning validity of truth in film- as it now appears that reality is a production of film and nothing more is to be said about that; please take into account the recent news headlines of an upcoming film about the Middle East, "While the tag remains on the academy's Web site, an Israeli diplomat said he expected the film to be described as coming from the "Palestinian Authority" during the awards ceremony. "Both the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles and several concerned Jewish groups pointed out that no one, not even the Palestinians themselves, have declared the formal creation of 'Palestine' yet, and thus the label would be inaccurate," the diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. The academy could not immediately be reached for comment.". I'd guess I'd better consult IMDB because they are the authority on the issue of truth and categorization of film relating to reality....sorry to waste anyone's time here.....in a discussion....because others know better....about TRUTH. (Haamer) OOOPS....Yet another apology....It appears Mikey is being sued for his manipulation of information gathered during his "interviews" to produce this highly acclaimed "documentary"...If the plaintiff wins his argument against the aforementioned director it will prove his movie was intended to mislead and therefore disqualifies as documentary...now we'll wait and let the courts decide. $83 MILLION dollars worth of argument, ya willing to place a wager, Tony? (Haamer) As this is one of those politically charged subjects not strictly related to the production of an encyclopedia article, I've taken the liberty of moving this discussion to a subpage: /Not a documentary --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) How many documentaries have you seen, Haamerhed? It is not uncommon for a documentary to add analysis to the facts, especially with a specific political message. You have not demonstrated how this documentary in any way constitutes a "misrepresentation" or "blatant lies".129.170.202.3 12:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Is the number of documentaries I've seen an issue? If I've seen Jane Goodall's "Wild Chimpanzees" I would appreciate her work as documentary without critique. However Jane never made any bogus assertion that Chimpanzees' didn't back up. Truth! That IS the ISSUE. (Haamer). Come on folks, there's nothing better than some spirited political points of veiw, discussions and arguments but this film is as much a documentary as any edition of Americas funniest home videos is.. (ED Jan 06) Actually, funniest home vids are more so than Moore's movie. What you see on Funniest are events as they happened, whereas Moore manipulated footage, slicing and dicing for the most unfavorable view possible; taking "out of context" to new heights of ridiculous. Look closely people: a documentary is SUPPOSED to represent the facts, and let the PUBLIC draw its own conclusions. Am I the only person who remembers even CNN backing off the "documentary" label because they were afraid of charges being leveled, because it misrepresented actual events? WynniFitz 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)WynniFitz Who says that a documentary is supposed to "let the public draw its own conclusions"? Moore's movie is a documentary (as well as a propoganda film).Plazak 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Hammerhead, would you mind backing up your statements by showing us what Mr. Moore actually lied about? Reginmund 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Ok - the definition of a documentary, and a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy to the 'controversial' aspect of this movie. With such a large range of controversy and many clearly labeled, lies and twisting of facts it is obvious this is not a documentary. I will be removing the descriptor 'documentary' and leave the movie described as a movie until a word more fitting can be found. "Documentary: Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/documentary The film can contain 'NO fictional elements'. --71.164.0.121 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC) No, you still haven't answered my question... just because a film is controversial, doesn't mean that it lied. You'll have to do better than that. Reginmund 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The following sources provide a well written understand to a couple incorrect facts in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, though this is not to say the entire film is false, just examples to point at this film does not fall under the definition of a documentary. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/preston200410200837.asp These two facts were the best written easiest found on short notice and though from a film that is against Fahrenheit 9/11 these two brief examples are still pertinent. This page document’s Army Specialist Peter Damon who feels and has publicly expressed (The Enterprise http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt) that Michael Moore twisted his interview with NBC’s Brian William’s at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Michael Moore was never at the hospital but obtained the interview and used it out of context to make it appear as Damon’s ‘Phantom Pain’, pain in which Damon describes his arms still feel in pain as if they were still there, is actually, as Moore would make you believe, the pain of soldier abandoned by his country. The Enterprise article mentions earlier that his is likely a breech of Damon’s rights. This news report shows the story continuing to unfold. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html For those too lazy to read it, this outlines how Peter Damon is suing Moore for $85 million, “claiming he recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Those who have watched the movie should remember the following scene: “In "Fahrenheit 9/11," the bandaged National Guardsman is shown laying on a gurney complaining that he feels like he's "being crushed in a vise. But they [the drugs] do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it." His image appears seconds after Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind.” For reference: Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort," The passage continues by documenting how Oregon State Trooper Andy Kenyon also had his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived. “Moore sent a crew to interview him under the guise of making a documentary about cutbacks in some state police programs.” “[Andy Kenyon’s words were] twisted to insinuate that in cutting Oregon's state police budget (something no president has the authority to do, since state-police budgets are a state matter), President Bush had left the Oregon coastline without police protection. But it was never the Oregon state-police force's job to patrol the coast in the first place. That responsibility belongs to the Coast Guard.” Out of all fairness it is important to note that several of the officers have publicly stated they would have given permission to appear in this film if given the opportunity. This does not excuse the fact that Moore insinuates that the two officers patrolling their respective office (a 40 mile stretch of coast, not mentioned in the film) that they are the only ones patrolling the entire Oregon coast. He then continues by blaming this on Homeland Security, using the previous false fact. The fact that the representation of these two individuals and blatant inaccuracies makes this film not fall under the category of a documentary. This is not to say the rest of the film isn’t mostly or completely factual.71.164.0.121 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Your argument that a soldier has expressed extreme disdain for Moore's use of an interview in his film that was supposedly taken out of context does not actually prove that Moore lied. Moore used several excerps of stock footage from various interviews of Iraqi soldiers. He only showed the outcome of the occurence followed information regarding the motives to invade Iraq. His theme was to balance the purpose of the war with a specific outcome. Moore never stated in the film that the soldier had expressed opposition to the war. Spin? Possibly... lies? No. Your argument regarding an Oregon state trooper being deceived into giving an interview about budget cuts, also, does not state a lie. Moore only described the result of the budget cuts. He never actually made a connection with the Iraq War to the interview. Including the statements made may have been irrelevant but they are not lies. Again, this is spin. Moore never said that the budget cuts were due to the Iraq War. Therefore, Moore never lied. The use of spin is not uncommon in such documentaries that express disdain for a certain subject. This may also be observed in daily television news broadcasts such as Fox. Spin is a form of interpreting information to project a certain point of view and despite it being unorthodox is some cases, it is not unusual in documentaries. Encyclopædia Britannica defines a documentary film as: A motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment.[1] Here, it says that a documentary film interperets the factual material. Now as I have already mentioned, "spin" is a major component of interpretation and just because Moore's oeuvre doesn't represent a neutral point of view, doesn't disregard its classification as a documentary. Reginmund 05:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC) You ignore facts that should make you outraged. First that Moore LIED “In "Fahrenheit 9/11," the bandaged National Guardsman is shown laying on a gurney complaining that he feels like he's "being crushed in a vise. But they [the drugs] do a lot to help it and they take a lot of the edge off it." His image appears seconds after Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind.” This very clearly is meant to make people believe that Peter Damon is against the War in Iraq and is bitter about his predicament, when he is entirely the opposite. This leads me to believe the film should be labled as propaganda (I don't mean this to be negative), which in and of itself isn't bad as propaganda has been used to many positive ends such as in the United States during WWII. And, yes it is spin, misrepresenting people (lieing) to portray your point-of-view no matter whether or not it has good intentions, is also a LIE. It can indeed be both my friend. This lieing makes part of this film not factual, and thus it is not a documentary, and I now propose we put it under propaganda (which again is not a negative term, propaganda can help sway minds when it is needed most). Until agreeing that it should be placed in a propaganda category I am removing it from the Documentary category, again. 71.164.0.121 05:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I have no reason to think that this film would make me outraged.[2] It is a prime example of a documentary and that fact should be respected. Moore never made a singe statement in the film that has been classified as a lie. Moore never said that the soldier opposed the war. Yes, his image may "appear" to be pacifistic, but it is not a lie, it is just spin. Misrepresenting people's interviews is not lying unless one blatantly says that a person holds a certain point of view if they don't (which Moore hasn't done). It is therefore not a lie, it is spin. They are not synonymous. Don't assume they are because they aren't. I have already given you a source that gives the precise definition of a documentary film and Fahrenheit 9/11 suits it perfectly. Therefore, it shall not be removed. Do not attempt to remove it from the documentary category again until we reach consensus. I have already bade that clear before. Reginmund 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) You are confusing two things, spin and dishonesty, though one can be the other they are not necessarily the same. If I made a film to portray Michael Moore as a serial killer, without ever directly saying he is a serial killer, but with the intent to make everyone believe he is one even though he clearly is not. This is synonymous to Moore making everyone believe Peter Damon is against the war and feels abandondend when he feels quite the opposite and Moore knows it. This is concealment of the truth, which is deceitful -refer to below definition- this is a form of dishonesty, making part of the film not factual. This is also spin, but it is also more than spin, it is in the very least dishonest. dis·hon·est adj. 1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive. 2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty. [Middle English dishoneste, dishonorable, from Old French deshoneste, probably from Medieval Latin *dishonestus : Latin dis-, dis- + Latin honestus, honorable; see honest.] dis·hon'est·ly adv. Synonyms: These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest business executive. Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth: a lying witness giving inconsistent testimony. Untruthful is a softer term and suggests lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement. Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising. Mendacious is more formal than lying, and suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth: a mendacious and troublesome employee. This is not to say that dishonesty is always bad, it can be used in propaganda to gain support for something that is absolutely necessary, in this case, electing a new president to replace Bush. Arcade123 06:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I beg to differ, but I know the difference between spin and dishonesty. Merriam Webster defines spin as: a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion Be it honest or not, it is interpretation of a fact. Moore never blatantly lied in the film. Moore never said that the soldier opposed the War. Moore never said that the budget cuts were due to the War. He may have insinuated that they were but he never said it, therefore, he never lied about it. Yes, he may have spun the truth (as concluded by the aforementioned definition) by insinuating something that wasn't true but it wasn't a lie either. He just presented facts and interpreted them. The precise definition of a documentary film. Reginmund 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, it is spin, but parts of it are dishonest, and therefor not true, for honesty is truth and dishonesty is the lack of truth. Therefore not factual, and thus not a documentary. Moore doesn't have to blatantly lie he just needs to intend to be dishonest, which he did, if he would have just spun the film (produced his point of view through facts) without knowingly misrepresenting individuals, then it would be a documentary, but he knowingly misrepresented. Did Moore intend to spin the story? Yes. Did Moore knowingly misrepresent individuals? Yes. Is this dishonest? Yes. Does that mean it is not completely factual? Yes. Thus it is not a documentary. If you disagree with any of those points, I would be happy to elaborate. Arcade123 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Which parts of it besides the spin are dishonest? Remember that spin is part of documentary film making. Now I don't think we should discuss what Moore's intentions were because we can't read his mind. That would be pushing point of view. We cannot say that he knowingly misrepresented individuals because that is something that we just do not know. For all we know, he could have been using it as an appendage to gain suppport for domestic reform (in fact, that is what I think). However, like I said, we cannot interpret what Moore said, not even if you believe that it was intent to spin the truth. Even if he did, it is still a documentary since it doesn't present a blatant lie. Reginmund 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC) If you read the above I explain which parts are dishonest, but I will explain it again. He knowingly misrepresented individuals, the data I showed support this, and you are just denying the facts I have laid down. I am no way pushing POV, disregarding this basic facts IS POV. How could someone misrepresent someone so completely? There is no need to be able to read his mind when his actions speak clearly for themselves. He portrayed Peter Damon as the EXACT opposite he was and now he is getting sued because of it. The moment the 3 R rule is over, I will be changing the page accordingly as you have provided no evidence discrediting my own. And yes, he is using it to gain support for domestic reform, but he is doing it dishonestly in parts of his film as I've shown, thus it is not a documentary. Everything you are saying doesn't make it a documentary, they are just things that can be in a documentary. What I am showing is it has characteristics that make it not a documentary, and more likely a Propaganda piece. Arcade123 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The basic problem is that you are engaging in original research. You use your own interpretation of what a documentary is or should be. The fact is, the film is commonly described as a documentary in both popular and trade publications. If it is as so clear as you seem to think that it is not a documentary, then it would not be so commonly described as such. older ≠ wiser 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC) "This news report shows the story continuing to unfold. [3] For those too lazy to read it, this outlines how Peter Damon is suing Moore for $85 million..." And for those too lazy to check the date, this story is actually old news. The judge tossed Peter Damon's claim out of court. [4] smb 12:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Arcade, I'm not prepared to go on with this any longer. You are pushing point of view by saying that Moore intended to deceive them. You, however, do not know this for a fact. Even if Moore did, it was not a lie, therefore it was not dishonest. I have already explained to you that documentaries use spin. I have already explained to you that Moore didn't lie. I have already explained to you the definition of a documentary and how this film fits in. You are using your opinion to enforce a fact. Just because a film is controversial, doesn't make it fall out of its genre, nor because the filmmaker was sued. Again, your evidence is your point of view, which is and will be discredited from Wikipedia. It has no merit here. Reginmund 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I have provided evidence to say that Moore is intending to deceive, so it is not point of view. I know it beyond a reasonable doubt. It was dishonest, and therefore not factual. And please, if you are continuing to be so adamant that documentaries can be complete spin (an issue in another debate here, sorry not sure how to link through wiki to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fahrenheit_9/11/Not_a_documentary) <- my post is at the bottom. You have attempted to explain that Moore did not lie, which is up for debate, he still knowingly misrepresented individuals, here's how it went down (again) in the film Moore clearly portrayed Peter Damon as anti-war and would make people believe that Damon feels abandoned by his country and president. Now at the end of the NBC interview, that Moore recycled, newsman Brian Williams adds, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort," can it be any more clear? My evidence is that, evidence, it is facts. I never said because it is controversial that is shouldn't be in it's category. I have laid out definitions, and facts that make it not fit these definitions again for more on that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fahrenheit_9/11/Not_a_documentary In conclusion: you nor anyone else, has discredited or dis proven ANY of the facts I have brought forth, you are merely calling me POV, and suggest that I have political motives. If that is all that you have to say, I believe I have proven my point. Again, I have laid out definitions and facts that show the film does not fit these definitions. Please bring forth some facts of your own. Thank you :) Arcade123 20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I'll repeat what I said above, since it nothing you've said has addressed it. The basic problem is that you are engaging in original research. You use your own interpretation of what a documentary is or should be. The fact is, the film is commonly described as a documentary in both popular and trade publications. If it is as so clear as you seem to think that it is not a documentary, then it would not be so commonly described as such. older ≠ wiser 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The Oscars didn't consider it a documentary and the Oscars are pretty 'common', there are loads of groups that don't consider it a documentary, just look at Google. Many have made the argument I have and many agree with it, just because a group claims it is a documentary doesn't mean it is one. How are these my own interpretations? I have shown you 7 dictionary definitions! To say this is my own interpretation is ridiculous. I have shown you where in each definition the film does not seem to fit and you make believe this counts for nothing because according to you, it is commonly believed to be a documentary. Have I addressed your problem? Arcade123 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC) This is one of the sillier discussions that I have seen on this whole site. Huge waste of time. Turtlescrubber 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Please take your petty comments elsewhere, this is about facts and logic, if you have any, please post them here. Please refer here if you actually care to be informed on the subject */Not a documentary. Arcade123 23:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Only one thing petty around these parts. Cheers. Turtlescrubber 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Arcade, you have not provided a singe fact that says that this film isn't a documentary. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence that shows that Moore lied. Moore used footage of a state trooper complaining about budget cuts. He never said that the trooper opposed the War. You say that he intended to deceive. You are wrong. You are assuming that he intended to deceive but you have absolutely no idea as to what his motives were. You are stating your opinion about how Moore intended to insinuate the footage when you truly don't know for a fact what his intentions were. What you are doing is providing original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. It is not a fact, I repeat NOT a fact that Moore intended to deceive. Don't you dare say it is again because it isn't You have no evidence of that; it is only how you perceived it. You are also assuming that because many people oppose the use of "documentary", means that they are right. This is also original research. Just because people oppose the film's classification as a documentary, doesn't mean that it isn't a documentary. There is much more Holocaust denial... that doesn't make it a fact either. The matter of fact is that you haven't provided a single fact that conflicts this film. You use weasel words such as "Moore would make you believe" and "twisted to insinuate". Again, this is not a fact, it is a weasel word which is prohibited on Wikipedia. I have already shown you the definition of a documentary and Fahrenheit 9/11 fits into it. It is a film that interprets given information for aesthetic and/or educational purposes. Reginmund 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Ok, lets go through your accusations point by point, and re outline all of the facts that have been brought to bear earlier and on other discussion pages. By the way, don’t tell me this is original research, these are the English definitions of this word if you have no time for the major points of the English language then you have wasted your time communicating with me because I refer to English dictionaries for my guides to the wonderful world of words. I have given you my sources as to these definitions and I am showing you that just because many people call something a documentary doesn’t mean it fits the English definition of one. Many people call Pluto a planet even though it is not. Many people say there are 9 planets, but there are 8. Just because something is generally accepted doesn’t make it true, you said so yourself. You also say that I believe, because others do, that this film isn’t a documentary. This is untrue, I have been providing you with evidence and facts since my first post, and I will continue to do so. 1. It is a fact that Moore represented Damon as anti-war, and made him out to feel abandoned. 2. It is a fact that Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are ... completely behind the war effort," What does this mean to you Reginmund? Do you believe it is accidental? Could it be that Moore, wanted to get his point across at the expense of the facts? Here's what you said "Don't you dare say it is again because it isn't You have no evidence of that" No evidence? Are you mad? Don't you tell me what and what not to say. I have been providing evidence and facts to support everything I have said, can you say the same? Lets continue... “He never said that the trooper opposed the War. You say that he intended to deceive. You are wrong.” - Reginmund We agree on ‘‘‘something’’’, it’s a start. Yes, Moore never did say anything that the trooper opposed the war. But, I never wrote anything about Moore misrepresenting the police officers opinions. I was highlighting the methods by which they were interviewed, by Moore’s employees acting as if they were doing a documentary on Oregon budget cuts. How am I wrong? What would you call this? I have never mentioned ‘’’once’’’ that the state trooper’s feelings about the war were misrepresented, I said “his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived.” He was deceived, “Moore sent a crew to interview him under the guise of making a documentary about cutbacks in some state police programs.” Why would Moore do that? The piece was used in a different film and they officers were never contacted. How is this making conclusions? It is what it is. You say you have shown me a definition, I have shown you the first 9 off of dictionary.com which collects definitions from numerous dictionaries. I suppose under ‘wikilaw’ your definition reigns supreme? Please! Though, I must state that I do appreciate you bringing up that definition. That means this film fits 1 out of 10, common definitions for the word “documentary.” I also find it interesting that you completely ignore the definitions of the English language provided to you in order to discredit me through a wiki technicality, but I will abide by these rules, seeing as this is Wikipedia. But, don’t be mistaken, I will not back down if it is falsely waved in my face. Now, a couple questions, is it acceptable to use this as a singular definition for a documentary as it agrees with the definitions above? Otherwise I will keep listing all of them.A documentary is a factually based document with a neutral point-of-view. I have provided two significant facts that are inaccurate, or were found through dishonest means. I have also provided you with the first 9 definitions of the word “documentary” off of dictionary.com which are the definitions as written by numerous dictionaries. Everyone seems to agree that Moore’s film is not NPOV, and I have shown that there are inaccuracies in his film. Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying have shown no evidence because it is what I have been doing the whole way through this. For the record, I intend to communicate with those who help decide the Wikipedia definition of a ‘documentary’ and I wish to re categorize the ‘political films’ (on both sides of the spectrum) as something else, though I’m not sure what, I would love help with it . Reginmund, I mean no hard-feelings, I am simply trying to help Wikipedia be as accurate as possible because I read through it frequently to better my understanding of the world. Quick word to Seven of Diamonds: 1. Just because people call it a documentary doesn’t mean it is. 2. The Oscars disqualified it from the documentary category. I am not suggesting we hide the awards it has won for being a documentary, I am just saying the film, along with many others, do not fit the definition of a documentary and Wikipedia is obliged to be as accurate as possible. I intend to change the genre of these (I’ll call them political propaganda for now) films on both sides of the political spectrum. I don’t want Wikipedia to be the grounds for Republicans or Democrats to make each other out to be like fools by selectively publishing facts in a ‘documentary’ because Wikipedia allows it to be called that. Arcade123 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Nope, sorry. All of this could be a textbook example of what to avoid on the WP:NOR page. older ≠ wiser 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC) "I have never mentioned once that the state trooper’s feelings about the war were misrepresented, I said his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived." - Arcade123 Have you any idea that what you just said means the same thing? You obviously have not been reading anything that I have been saying. I have provided a dictionary definition and referred you to it several times. Don't lie about that again. Moore's use of putting a statement about how "soldiers should not be left behind" still does not state that the soldier's words were taken completely out of context. It doesn't at all imply that the soldier opposes the War. It just shows the result of the war and subliminally asking the question "Was the war worth this?" regardless of the soldier's creed. It again, does nothing to say that anything besides the fact that the soldier feels excruciating pain. That is a fact. However, it is not a fact that Moore intended to use the interview to deceive the soldier's words. You have no evidence as to whether or not he did. Thus, you are using original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. You are assuming that his interview was meant to say that he was pacifist just because. Again, this is original research to assume. You cannot assume. It is not a fact that Moore intended to deceive him. If you continue to step out of line and break Wikipedia's policies, I will not hesitate to tell you not to say it again because you are wrong and you are going against a policy which states original research as: a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories You are theorising that Moore used the interview with the intent to say that the soldier opposed the War just because the soldier believes that his interview was taken out of context. In reality, Moore never said or intended to do this. Don't again say that I am mad for not assuming that he did because it is wrong and it goes against policy. You are also twisting my words. Stop it. He never said that the trooper opposed the War. You say that he intended to deceive. You are wrong. -Reginmund I have never mentioned once that the state trooper’s feelings about the war were misrepresented, I said “his interview taken completely out of context and was blatantly deceived. -Arcade123 News flash! I didn't say that his feelings were misrepresented either! I said that you stated that Moore intended to deceive him. Looking at the text, you did say that he intended to deceive! I did say that you said that and I didn't say that you stated that Moore "misrepresented". Now, as you did say that Moore blatantly deceived him, that is also original research. Of course prohibited. You have no evidence that Moore intended to deceive. He documents state cutbacks. He never says that anything about the War. His theme is that the domestic problems such as this should be first priority over fighting a war. He never said that the War was the cause of the state budget cutbacks. You are again assuming that he intended to deceive them just because the trooper thought that his words were taken to mean support for the War. Again, assuming is original research. Again, Moore used the footage to encourage support for domestic reform instead of the War as opposed to blaming the War for the cause. Your dictionary definitions do not whatsoever omit the film as a documentary... adjective 1. (1.a.)relating to or consisting of or derived from documents 2. (1.b.)emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; objective art" This definition is of no use since it is the definition of an adjective. "Documentary" is not an adjective. noun 1. (2.)a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event This fits in perfectly. Fahrenheit 9/11 presents facts. It presents the fact that a wounded soldier is distressed about his condition. It presents facts that the Oregon state troopers are suffering from budject cutbacks. It does nothing to say that either interviewees opposed the War. 1. (3.a.)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. (3.b)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. Again, this works fine too. The film is based on documentation of a soldier in pain and a trooper in distress. No connection to their creeds whatsoever. Again, there is no fictional matter. Moore never said that they opposed the War. 1. (4.a.)Also, doc•u•men•tal - pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France. 2. (4.b.)Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. Again, all of this work is derived from documentation of a soldier in pain and a trooper in distress. It is also a film that re-creates the actual events that a trooper is in distress and a soldier is in pain. Those are all facts. Those are all factually accurate. There is no say as to whether or not they supported or opposed the War. Therefore, there are no fictional elements. these segments are very clearly not accidents in misrepresenting the truth - Arcade123 Clearly? I see Moore showing us a soldier in pain with the theme of determining whether or not the War was worth it. It doesn't say that he opposes the War, therefore it doesn't misrepresent the truth. It also shows a trooper distressed about the budget cuts with Moore's intent to show whether or not a war is more important that domestic problems. You continue to make assumptions and original research throughout not only the debate as to whether or not this is a documentary, but to what I am saying. You "suppose" that my definitions reign supreme. I never said that. You are speculating again. You say that I ignore the difinitions due to a Wiki technicality. That is another lie. I said you cannot use speculation (i.e. original research) to prove a point. I never omitted a dictionary definition as a point. Don't purporte that it is "falsely waved in your face" unless it actually is. I have only stated actual Wikipedia policies and if you can find one that is not, be my guest. Otherwise, if you accuse me of such acts again, I will report you for incivility and even though you don't have to "back down" to a policy, I assure you, it will get you nowhere but blocked again. A documentary is a factually based document with a neutral point-of-view. - Arcade123 For the sake of this encyclopaedia, stop making up rules. It says in no definition of a documentary film that a documentary should represent a neutral point of view. You ONCE AGAIN, are performing original research. Now, I'll give you a definition that was written by professional lexicographers unlike yourself. (Which makes the definition that you made up completely obsolete) A motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment. - Encyclopædia Britannica This film is of course a motion picture and it shapes and interprets the factual material (already proven to be factual) for purposes of education and entertainment. If you want to help this encyclopaedia, read this because you have no understanding of what you are not supposed to be doing. You have not provided facts, you have provided speculation, assuming that Moore intended to deceive them which is unproven and just because you believe so, doesn't mean other people do, including me. I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain to you a policy. If you use original research again (i.e. assume that Moore intended to deceive without any proof just because it looked like he did), I will not, repeat will not respond to another filibuster that you post. If you have any other arguments, let me know. Reginmund 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Why are you so upset? I asked if we could agree on "A documentary is a factually based document with a neutral point-of-view." as a definition I never said ANYTHING about it being fact or law. I am trying to understand your point and you continue to get angry with me. Apparently, I have the grounds to report you for incivility, but I am not going to seeing as this is something you feel is very important, which can cause people to become emotional, which is very understandable. I am willing to not worry about any inaccuracies in this film but to focus on the definition of the documentary. I am giving you the definition, WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG. You are telling me that finding 9 dictionary definitions, not hand picked mind you, the first 9 from dictionary.com, a site that uses numerous dictionary resources. You continue to throw aside dictionary definitions, how is this original research? Please, enlighten me. By the way, in the wiki article it says that it is a "documentary film" last time I check, documentary was used as an adjective. Please don't try and throw technicalities at me, we need to be trying to understand each other's sides, not arguing to win. How is this film objective? If you are claiming this film is done in all neutrality, that is ridiculous. If you want to continue playing dumb and acting as if the movie does not intend to make people feel a certain way, I will simply ignore your comments and take this to those who discuss what the definition of a documentary should be. You have simply ignored the definitions with objectively in them or try to rule them out on a technicality (and failed). I can purport my feelings how ever I please, you DO NOT have the right to tell me what TO and what NOT to feel. Isn't that too personal? Lets just cut this garbage out and get to the point :) . For the definition with 'editorializing' in it. 1. to set forth one's position or opinion on some subject in, or as if in, an editorial. 2. to inject personal interpretations or opinions into an otherwise factual account. I had to look up that word to. :) (was that original research?) I also have another question, is writing with bias not factual? I have been wondering and would like your opinion (though I'm sure I can guess what it is) :) . We agree there is significant spin (I'm not going to take the time to quote what you have said earlier), so what is the problem? We all know the film is not objective, do these definitions just not count?Arcade123 02:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry I have to address this (I was going to let it go) but alas: 1. Don't try to taunt me with "News flash" unnecessary, I didn't mean to use mad as an insult, my friends and I say at a joking question, I realize this doesn't come across and I appologize. 2.“He never said that the trooper opposed the War." Ok, I realize now that sometimes people use trooper to replace soldier, but I rarely hear it so I assumed it was trooper as in a state trooper. I apologize if this was the case. 3. Why does a group of people going to interview someone under a false title not count as deception? You still haven't answered this. You just say because they didn't lie about the war, well, you're right, they didn't, but isn't that wrong to say you're their for an Oregon Budget Cut documentary when you know you're their for something entirely different? Is Moore's film an Oregon Budget Cut documentary? It doesn't matter what Moore used the information for, there was clear deception involved in getting it? 4. Stop claiming I lie, you denied the definitions because of a wiki rule, and there is no way this is original research because an item either fits a definition or it doesn't, and I'm sorry even if you don't believe the inaccuracies in the film, you still haven't explained how it is objective. 5. You continue to deny that dictionary definitions are facts, as well as events that have happened. Denying events is more understandable because it is possible to debate them. But definitions? Definitions are facts. Again, no hard feelings, I'm trying to learn just as much as I'm trying to explain my thinking. Arcade123 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No, you never asked if we could agree that a documentary is based on neutral point-of-view, you just said that it was without question. That is why I am so impatient with you. You are twisting words. Now you think that you can report my incivility while you say that I am playing dumb? I had already explained to you the theme of the film and it seems that you have ignored it. All of the threats I made to you were to report your misconduct and if you say something like that one more time I will report you for incivility, no questions asked. Now you are ignoring what I even previously wrote. I told you how your definitions fit in perfectly to the film. Don't disregard that. As for the adjetive, it is a technicality that must be "thrown in your face" as it is the dysphemism of your preference. You are trying to determine whether or not this film fits into the word "documentary". In this context, it is a noun. When we are referring to this film as a "documentary", it is not an adjective. It has different connotations that way. If you want to define this film stick to either "documentary" (as a noun) or "documentary film" (which is the most accurate). You still haven't read the original research page either. Otherwise you wouldn't have to ask me that looking up definitions is not original research. Again, I already explained how your definitions fit in with this film. Don't disregard it again. I also never claimed that this film is made in the neutral point-of-view. Again, this is why I am so impatient with you. You lie, behave with incivility, spin mine and your words, and disregard what I am telling you. If you actually want to get your point across, grow up and stop complaining about the "news flash" because it seems like it is the only way that I can get through to you without you disregarding what I am saying. I neither denied the definitions because of some Wikpedia policy that you didn't even specify. I embraced your definitions just as you gave them to me. They are up there, noticeably surrounded by a lined box. Stop continuing to deny that I didn't give you the definitions. Don't expect me to stop telling you that you lie if you continue to do so. You have repeated at least five times that I disregarded the definitions and I am much encouraged to report you and/or ignore your schtik. As for your question... Why does a group of people going to interview someone under a false title not count as deception? Your argument of this film not being a documentary is that this film misrepresented facts. According to the interview, no facts were misrepresented. The trooper stated the exact problems due to the state's budget cuts. In turn, the crew never lied. They had made a documentary regarding the state's budget cuts. They didn't go under a false title. However, in turn, Moore decided to use the interview in his film. Again, they never lied. They went there with the intention of making a documentary about the state's budget cuts. In turn, Moore decided to use the footage in a documentary film about the Iraq War with the theme that domestic problems such as this are more important. Any more questions? In fact, this would be easier if you just asked me about things that seemed uncanny to you instead of complaining about my purported incivility because it is a waste of time. Reginmund 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Erm. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but one doesn't need to make a blatantly false statement to deceive. Consider this. Let's pretend I wanted to make a documentary showing atheists in an unfavorable light. I might visit the local mental institution and ask some of the most deranged patients if they were atheists. I might find some insane atheists, I might also find some people that respond "yes" to my question due to their insanity. I would then "borrow" this group and spend several hours in a park filming them acting as the insane do. Edit the film, add music and presto, a documentary on the truth behind who atheists really are. I would state in the film that all those shown claim to be atheists. This would be a true statement. The audience would be subjected to 2 hours of tortuous film of the clearly mentally ill harrassing random people and flinging their own feces. Is that a documentary? No, definitely not. Why not? After all, I never lied. I spoke honestly when I said the group claimed to be atheists. But I clearly intended to deceive. My deception was through the distorted context of information given and my deliberate effort to mislead through the ommission of important facts. Just as I deliberately failed to inform the viewers that the "athiests" in my film were all mental patients, Micheal Moore neglected to mention that exact same fact when he interviewed Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. He took advantage of an old man who was in the midst of a losing battle with dementia. My example may seem extreme, but Moore's methods are even worse. Just for starters, how about that newspaper headline "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election". Only one problem. It never existed. Moore fabricated it by re-typesetting a letter the editor from the same newspaper. Or Moore's insistance that FOX somehow swayed the other networks to call Florida for Bush. He neglects to mention that FOX, like the other networks, erred in calling the state for Gore BEFORE THE POLLS EVEN CLOSED. He also neglects to mention that it was CBS that corrected the error first, not FOX. Then there's the Carlyle group "tie". Moore tries to connect the Bin Ladens to the Bush's through their mutual involvement in this financial group. Once again, deception through ommission. He neglects to inform the reader just exactly what the Carlyle group is, and instead implies that anyone connected to the group must be good friends with the other members. George Soros dropped over $100 million dollars into it, does that means he's "secretly" Bush's friend as well? I seem to recall him being something more along the lines of bitterly opposed political enemy. Every line in the film is set in place for the express purpose of persuading and deceiving. This is a propaganda piece, a very long political ad, perhaps even an explorative conpiracy theory film, but certainly not a documentary. Calling it a documentary is just another part of Moore's endless bag of tricks. 72.199.206.167 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Good luck pulling that off but the interviewees weren't insane. Make that clearer and put it in a nutshell as to what part of the film is deceit. Otherwise, take that rubbish to a message board. The last thing we need on this article is POV. Reginmund 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Did you read my posting before responding? The second to last paragraph are a few obvious points of deceit. If you believe they are invalid assertions of that claim, give some reason, don't just ignore it (or not even read it?). In this Micheal Moore film, none of those interviewed were insane, to my knowledge. I was creating an analogy. This is how an analogy works. You start with the concept you are trying to convey (that is the purpose of the analogy), and then change just one variable. In my analogy, a deliberately deceitful film is created, just like moore's. The only variable changed that I changed was the subject matter (attempting to show atheists rather than an incumbent presidential candidate in a poor light). I used a distinctly Moore style tactic (filming and interviewing the insane without informing the audience of their limited mental capacity. Since it would appear you probably did not read my post, this is a reference to the Charlton Heston interview in Bowling for Columbine.) Since that analogy didn't seem to get across (assuming it was read to the degree of comprehension), I'll attempt a simpler one: Pretend I'm a film maker. I get hired by the democratic party to make a special ad for one of their candidates. The ad is a huge success and a cultural phenomenon. The party approaches me again with work, but this time for a full length film adaptation of the ad. I create film. I never explicitly lie in it, at least not directly. It's a two hour ad shown in theatres with the express purpose of putting an opposition party candidate in a negative light. Is that a documentary? Last but not least, what's this of accusing me of POV? Could you please tell me what opinion of mine is so offensive, offensive enough to call "rubbish". The word "rubbish" would seem to denote a POV; in this case your POV on my unspecified opinions, describing it/them as of low quality. Hypocrisy much? Maybe you've hit the nail on the head, but unfortunately, the wrong nail. This film is NOTHING BUT POV WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY ITS NOT A DOCUMENTARY. And if you should feel inclined to disagree, to imply that this film is indeed objective, then I've got a role for you in a film I'm shooting on atheists. Did I mention its a documentary? 72.199.206.167 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC) For your information, Charlton Heston was interviewed by Michael Moore for Bowling for Columbine in June 2001. He looks fragile in the film because he was recovering from hip surgery. Heston only announced he was suffering symptoms "consistent with Alzheimer's disease" on August 09, 2002. Here is the link Throughout this period he remained President of the National Rifle Association. The allegation from Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel that Moore exploited Heston's misfortune is utterly false. --smb 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I read the link. It says nothing to indicate that this was the first time any one knew he had the symptoms, only that it was news to CNN. I think it took the MSM close to ten years to "discover" the U.N. oil for food scandal. The date in which an event is reported is not necessarily the date it occurred. I wish there were some more dates given; those are always helpful for establishing timelines. You may be right, that Moore didn't know about Heston's condition before the interview, but unfortunately your source doesn't seems to give us the specific information necessary to even suggest it. And what is clear, and much more important, is Heston's obvious senility in the film. If Moore didn't know beforehand, he most certainly must have realised it then. That was certainly my reaction. When I first saw the film, I didn't know anything about Moore, and very little about Heston. Nevertheless, it was excruciatingly clear that Heston suffered from some mental debilitation (I assumed general senility at the time) and lacked the mental capacity to respond. It was equally clear the Moore aimed to take advantage of this for personal gain. Since you appear to take an objective stance on that portion of the film, try this: Roughly 1 hour and 48 minutes into the film (this might vary with different copies of the film), moore asks to interview Heston, he is told to show up the next day at 8:30AM. About 3 minutes and twenty seconds later, a clock clearly shows 6:03. No reason for this discrepancy is given. Indeed, if you rewind a little bit further from that position, you will see the clock (showing only the minute hand) pointing about a minute above the 9. Thus, about 5:46 (possibly an hour or more earlier, but this seems unlikely) When Heston leaves, the clock can be seen again stating the time to be 6:10. Moore edited down a 24 minute interview into just a few minutes and the time given that the interview was supposed to have occurred was contradicted within the film. I suppose that's not much of a big deal, only circumstantial evidence on its own. What is more important is Hestons OBVIOUS demeanor. He demonstrates an OBVIOUS lack of the complete mental capacity needed to answer such rapid fire loaded questions, and the filmmaker has edited down the piece a great deal, depriving us of much information that occurred in the interview. Micheal asks a myriad of loaded questions. For example, "Why do you go to these places (to have gun rallies) after these horrible tragedies?" NRA meetings are held annually and of a pre-determined time and location. Moore must've known this, as he is a member. Heston must've too, but was unable to respond. I had not meant for this conversation to become about a scene within a different Moore film. If anyone is willing to respond to even one of the blatant deceptions I pointed out (in this film) with some sort of reasonable response, we can continue (begin?) to discuss the issue. 72.199.206.167 21:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

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

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

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

Funny how everyone says that all criticism should be kept on a separate page (a point with which I happen to agree) on this article but on the Expelled documentary article it is nothing but a criticism--to the tune of over 133 critical references cited! I really would love to see more consistency in POV across the articles on Wikipedia. EarlWhitehaven (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cuba

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

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

"Labour" vs "Labor"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm restoring the BrE spelling. If Moore was quoted from something besides written text (e.g. a video) then it may be spelled flexibly but because this is quoted from WRITTEN TEXT, the original text should be restored. This is also proper even if it a spelling error. (Mind you, "labour" is not a spelling error. In fact, I use BrE.)

Not a spelling error for you, obviously, but indeed one for Moore, an American. It should be changed back to "labor". (Maybe we can put it in square brackets or something ...) +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We have no consensus that Moore would spell labour without the u, and even if he does (which he probably does), it serves no authority as he was quoted with the u and we are using a reference from the quote. Therefore the spelling should stay as we found it.

I'm not buying it. Isn't that like saying that if a British newspaper quotes an American as saying something like "[so-and-so] accused Rumsfeld, the former Minister of Defence ...", that we should let it stand, even though the correct title is "secretary of defense"? The error being discussed here is smaller, but an error nonetheless. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A quote should be left as it originally appeared, unless the person quoted indicates otherwise.Plazak 13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is an error, it is still a quote. That's why the Dear Boss letter retains all of its errors. Besides labour is NOT an error so this debate is pointless.

Celtic Emperor 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. "Labour" is an error for an American writer; we don't spell it that way. 2. Where is your authority for claiming that quotes like these should be left as-is when citing them? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, regardless if it is an error (which it isn't, it is a spelling difference), the spelling must be restored as is because we are quoting directly from the media outlet and not Moore. Besides, what authority do you have to assume we should spell a word based on how a person prefers?

Celtic Emperor 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

SO! I take it that labour is the spelling because that's the way appeared in print, until somebody finds their source for the quote, or an earlier American source? Makes me wonder, what if the source is Canadian? MMetro 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If it came from a British newspaper and is quoted directly from that paper, then "labour" is correct. I'm sure Moore spells the word without a "u" just like every other American, but he speaks it the same as any other English-speaker would. And if he speaks to a British reporter, they're correct in recording it with their spelling and Wikipedia is correct in quoting it as such. By the same token, if a Brit comes to the USA and uses labo(u)r in a quote to an American newspaper, that newspaper is correct in spelling it without the "u" even if the Brit spells it that way himself. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit torrent motivation

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

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

Even though it's now been referenced, I think this section needs to be rewritten. It reads like MooreWatch suggested the idea and then Moore supported it, whereas they only suggested it after Moore's comments on downloading the film. I'd edit myself, but I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't wanna break protocol or anything. Lostnight 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can make improvements, then go ahead and edit. Be bold. smb 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The passage regarding WNEM TV-5 is also inaccurate. Convinced of copyright violation, it presently reads: "[A]ccording to the news director (...) a news clip from the station was included in Fahrenheit 9/11 without the station's permission." Yet if we examine the source, the news director merely conveys his surprise that a clip was used, and suggests a "possible" violation. Since nothing more came of this, I will shortly delete the paragraph. smb 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-war films

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

I believe that is both accurrate and univerally agreeable. I doubt any of Moore's supporters would consider it a "pro-war" film, as much as I doubt any of his critics would see it as anything less than an anti-war film. 72.199.206.167 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category: Banned Documentaries

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

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

Source: [5]

Academy Awards

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

GA nomination

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

Spoiler warning

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

Fake "Dubai" poster?

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

Criticism on the same article

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

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

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

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

Criticism and comment contained in the content part

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

..or, say, a debate about Intelligent Design/Evolution on Ben Stein's Expelled documentary page--oh wait, that's allowed... Seriously it contains 133+ "cited" criticisms mostly of ID and the poor reception on the main page! Criticisms should always be a minor point. Articles need to be about the subject at hand primarily from a NPOV... EarlWhitehaven (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Piracy?

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

Moore vehemently denies factual accuracy?

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

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

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

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

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

Size Matters!

I think if this article has a lot of information to give and disseminate, it should be a seperate article.

Al Fecund 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--NPswimdude500 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to correct mistake and it doesn't reflect changes

Contrary to what this article said, the event the film talks about where Bush continues reading to the children after hearing the news was with the second plane, not the first. This is a very significant error, because although the with first plane crash it was thought to be an accident, after the second plane crash they knew it was terrorism, so when judging the legitimacy of Moore's argument, it makes a very big difference which plane it was. I edited it to correct it, and according to the edit history, there haven't been any edits to this article since then, but when I view the page it doesn't reflect the change. Does anybody know why this is? And do other people see the change? 71.48.88.56 07:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Right now, I'm using an IP address different from the one I used to edit it.

EDIT: It seems to reflect the change now. Weird...

Propaganda

Now, I don't see why you want to fight me on this. If this movie is not a propaganda film, then that term has no meaning.--Dudeman5685 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on propaganda; the article here is a decent start. Then check the existing category of propaganda films. Notice that the dictionary definition of propaganda, which others have been slinging around here, is not sufficient to place a film in this category. Yes, this film (F/9-11) is clearly biased, has a political agenda, tries to convince its audience of it, etc.; and yet, it does not qualify as a propaganda film.

Again, check the classics in this category: In addition to Triumph of the Will, there's the American Reefer Madness. Propaganda has as much to do with who makes the film as it does with the content of the film. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon, if you would but look at my contribs page you will realize that I have already created and substantialy written the List/category for Nazi propaganda films, as well as the one for Allied propaganda films of World War Two. For the latter I have seen nearly all of them that are highlighted in blue. I have also subjected my self not only to Triumph of the Will, but also to all the other major Nazi propaganda pieces, (Ewige Jude, Sieg der Glaubens etc.) If you must know, yes I have seen Reefer madness, and no, I do not suffer from permanent insanity. I have also seen F9/11. I can tell you from my viewing experience of propaganda films that not only is F9/11 propaganda in a technical sense, it uses many of the trade mark methods of propaganda some times used in the war movies, to wit:

Editing: immediately after showing a heartwrenching interview with a woman who lost her son Iraq, he cuts to a full length Halliburton commecial, as well as a conference with business trying to get contracts for reconstruting Iraq. The sequence is heavily edited, with the participents saying how much they support the troops and another purson talking about how much money could be made on reconstruction. There is no context given.

Selective use of the facts: In the begining it makes it seem as if it the Florida recount had not been halted Gore would certainly have won, but, as is widely known, that is very controversial among experts, many of whom say that it is impossable to know or that Bush would have still one. (shoulda let go on IMHO, but I digress)There is also the part where he says that Taliban representatives visited TX with his blessing to negotiate with Unocal, and that that was an alterior motive for the Afghan war, when in fact Bush had nothing to do with the visit and unocal had cancelled the pipeline project in 1999. See the controversy page

One point of view: I like to think that the difference between a propaganda film and a political documentary is that a documentary would look a two sides of the problem and examine its merits. At no point in the film does Moore even acknowledge that another viewpoint even exist.

I am not a partisan against Moore, in fact I find F9/11 somewhat entertaining and I think some of his points, particularly about the Saudi connection with Bush, merit further exploration. But, as someone who is something of a propaganda connouseur I can tell you that F9/11 is a quentissential propaganda film, a classic of the genre. You can argue with me about AIT, but my friend, if this isn't a propaganda film, and you have yet to show me why it isn't, then there is no such category.--Dudeman5685 03:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Celsius 41.11, FahrenHYPE 9/11 and Michael Moore Hates America are all in the propaganda cat. If F9/11 is taken out, wouldn't all these have to be taken out too?--Dudeman5685 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this situation: we have exactly one person, you, who insists that this film should go into that category. Everyone else is either neutral on the subject against it. So I see no need to add this article to the "propaganda film" category, and suggest you find other fish to fry in the meantime. +66.52.186.120 22:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That fact that I am alone on this is not an arguement for or against inclusion in the propaganda cat, it is just a testament to my moral charecter ;)Any who reads the above can plainly see that I do not have a partisan ax to grind here, I just want more variety in the propaganda cat than ol'war movies and a few 50s educational films; I want the subject to be handled in its full breath, or this is not a real encyclopedia.

Now if ya'll can't give me a reason why this film is not propaganda, and I am yet to hear a single reason from any one, even though I have given four reasons that it is, then it by all rights should be in the propaganda cat.--Dudeman5685 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This definitely fits the propaganda category, I support this as no one has proven otherwise and there has been plenty of evidence suggested it is.Arcade123 07:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Another vote for this being a propaganda film. This is as much a propaganda film as any of the stuff Leni Riefenstahl did for the Nazis. It's promoting a political agenda and really has no other purpose. If we're going to use the term for ultra-right propaganda films, then we need to do the same for ultra-left propaganda films. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda films

Why is everyone riding me about this?

I don't have an agenda, as all the right leaning films I've put in the propaganda cat will show. I merely want a full listing of the relevant topics, or else the category would consist of little more than WWII newsreels and 50s exploitation films. Why is it so controversial that latter day American propaganda films. which touch on contrmpory debates, be excluded? It isn't POV, either. The FTA tour, Outfoxed, F9/11 all were films which had a clear policitcal and/or social agenda, why is it so difficult to admit that they are propaganda? (No one has ever raised objection to Stolen Honor, FahrenHYPE 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, btw).

That isn't my only reason for putting them in that cat, they all use selective editing and presentation of the facts, fail to show the other side, and try to be "entertaining" enough to lure in an audience. What other qualifications for propaganda could I possibly give?--Dudeman5685 20:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have to couch your argument in those terms—"Why is everyone riding me about this?"—then you know you've already lost.

To put it another way, remember that quote of Franz Kafka's:

In the fight between you and the world, back the world. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, anon, you DO have a sense of humor. I was beginning to think you were a run of the mill hardass. Kafka quote is hilarious, but my immediate inspiration was Towelie--Dudeman5685 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue as well that this page doesnt clearly articulate how Michael Moore, who is more a shrewd editor than an actual film-maker has once again used the same decietful techiniques in manipulating footage and audio to create what "he" calls a documetary. I make no apologies for leaning more than slightly to the right, and wanting to feed Moore the barrel of my M4 given the chance, but I am not confusing my own personal politics with what I see as a very biased description of farenheit 9/11. At the very least, I would say it lacks a section that informs readers of the movies' fictional or fabricated portions. The way the article is written only magnifies the proverbial wool Moore is trying to pull over the worlds eyes. I all ask is for an equal perspective, after all, this is Wikipedia and not Soviet Russia... and really, the only person who would term farenheit 9/11 OR for that matter bowling for columbine as a "Documetary" is Joseph Goebbels.

--Quicksmack 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the film or dislike it, agree with it or not, it is obviously a propoganda film because it has the overt purpose to propogate certain political ideas. That does not mean it's wrong; doesn't mean that it is dishonest or deceitful; it just means that it's a propoganda film. Let's be objective here and add it to the propoganda film category. Plazak 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to ILike2BeAnonymous, his question "Why is everyone riding me about this?" is legitimate because it is ridiculous to not categorize this as propaganda. You are under the impression that propaganda is a negative descriptor which it is definitely not in this situation. Look at WWII, propaganda can be used for the greater good. And if all you have to do is claim that other's have already lost the argument by a general question, you have no facts to support your argument and are thus hypocritical, as YOU are the one who has already lost. Remember, propaganda can bring about good change, some just believe the change is bad, but that's up to them, but it's still propaganda. And lastly, your quote In the fight between you and the world, back the world. adds nothing to the arguement, which leaves you in a position without facts supporting your opinion. If I know how to put this in the propaganda category I would, but I don't :), if someone would be so kind :)Arcade123 07:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If the category were populated with every book, film, or individual exhibiting a "purpose to propagate certain political ideas", then the category would be so huge as to be useless. A better suggestion would be the one I advanced in Category talk:Propaganda#Proposal for major modification of this category. Because that modification wasn't adopted, we've seen the fulfillment of my prediction that the category would be the locus for frequent POV battles.

That happens because most people don't see the term in the way urged by Arcade123. The simple fact is the the word "propaganda" has a negative connotation in many people's eyes. Arcade123, I doubt that the U.S. government characterized any of its own World War II efforts as "propaganda", any more than it uses that term today for Alhurra and the like. If you add Category:Propaganda to the article on The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush's supporters will have a fit and promptly revert you.

In practice, therefore, the category includes articles about specific propaganda techniques, plus examples of propaganda by Nazis and Stalinists. The difference is that there are currently active Wikipedians who support Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh, or the Bush administration, but none who overtly support Hitler or Stalin. Therefore, these different propagandists are treated differently. JamesMLane t c 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought. I think we can all agree that the term "propaganda" has a negative connotation, deserved or not. I think we can all agree on the following distinction; propaganda pieces differ from other POV forms, in that they deliberately deceive to propagate a POV. This is the source of the negative slant. Thus, if it can be established that this particular film is indeed deliberately deceitful in establishing its POV, it should be categorized as propaganda. If not, then it should be categorized as something else. Can we agree on that? 72.199.206.167 04:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ARBcom says categories are not part of an article, so do not violate NPOV if there is arguable relationship. For example, Golan Heights is categorized under both Geography of Syria and Geography of Israel, even though either category alone violates NPOV. THF 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that makers of propoganda films are always deliberately deceptive. I consider it far more likely that the film makers believe everything they put in their propoganda films. It is the evident and strong POV of Fahrenheit 9/11 that makes it a propoganda film.Plazak 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 (UK)

I'm told that when Channel 4 broadcast the film in the UK it was hacked about in an effort to render it more palatble to a British audience: specifically segments that made Tony Blair and the UK look bad were removed. Is this true?

Mostly Reception, not much about the movie, itself

Reading through the article, there were a few sentences at the beginning dirrectly addressing what the film was about, but following that was mostly, well, here are the section headings:

 * Cannes Film Festival
 * Film release and box office
 * Other countries
 * DVD release
 * Post-release award competition
 * Initial television presentations
 * Controversy

The controversy section's also pretty empty (there should be a summary there, not just a link).

I'm not saying reception and history of the release shouldn't be covered, I think someone should attempt to summarize the points of the film in a section. I'd do it myself, but I didn't see it. 171.71.37.103 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

POV fork inappropriate

The fact that all criticism of the factual inaccuracies of the movie have been moved to a POV-fork article violates WP:NPOV. The fact that there are no mentions of these criticisms in the lead paragraphs violates WP:LEAD. THF 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather those criticisms be merged on the main page? smb 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So long as this can be done without losing content. At a minimum, there should be a longer summary than a single sentence. Compare The Passion of the Christ, A Beautiful Mind (film), Hurricane (1999 film), The Great Global Warming Swindle. THF 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It can't be done without losing content. The controversy page is huge. Why don't you write up a summary instead of just dropping pov tags on articles who have subjects you don't like. Turtlescrubber 03:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of articles whose subjects I don't like where NPOV is complied with. This isn't one of them. Please do not delete an NPOV tag until the NPOV dispute is resolved. THF 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Realize, that the pov shouldn't be in "dispute" because no one is stopping you from trying to make changes. Placing a tag on an article and then not trying to fix it does not a dispute make. Why don't you try and makes some changes and if that doesn't work out, then put a tag on the article. Turtlescrubber 01:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

However, please use proper sourcing when making new contributions. I removed some sources, not because I disagree with the sources, but because the preceding sentence is written in such a way that the sources don't match what is stated in the article. There are three separate claims made of three separate authors. Some of the articles individually may match the statement, but all three of them lumped together do not. Please try to make your edits and sourcing as accurate as possible when dealing with controversy and criticism. Turtlescrubber 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing was accurate. Smb removed a source, and then you removed others. Please tag (or comment out) a source if you think it is inaccurate rather than deleting it; the cite-web text is difficult to cut and paste, and it's counterproductive to simply delete appropriate sources. THF 00:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD, please. Discuss on the talk-page. Why do you think the statement is unsubstantiated? It's well-sourced: in the cited movie, many conservatives criticized the film for inaccuracy. THF 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Turtlescrubber edits are a misreading of the WP:WEASEL#Follow_the_spirit.2C_not_the_letter guideline. The film was extensively criticized, and it's not a violation of WP:WEASEL to note this. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to falsely imply that only one or two or three people criticized it, and it is a violation of WP:NOT to include hundreds of sourced criticisms in the article. The solution is to use the simpler, and more accurate language. THF 00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"More accurate language" is exactly what your edits need. Turtlescrubber 03:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you contending that it is not true that many conservatives criticized the movie for its inaccuracies? THF 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Where would you get such an idea? Turtlescrubber 16:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I then fail to see why you are repeatedly deleting that sourced claim. THF 18:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not properly sourced. Period. Turtlescrubber 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to play Argument Clinic. Find an additional source you like better for a claim that you agree is accurate, and I'll have no objection to also including it. THF 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You run along and find your own source. This isn't daycare and I am not here to clean up your messes.Turtlescrubber 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a source. You deleted it. I'm not going to play a game of try to guess which sources will satisfy your idiosyncratic views that you won't support or explain on the talk page, and I'm not going to edit war. I've added a totallydisputed tag since your edit now makes the article both factually misleading and further unbalances what was already an article with questionable NPOV, since even my mild compromises are getting reverted out without any semblance of an explanation or pretense at WP:CIVIL. THF 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a very silly reaction to a three word change in the article. All I did was match the text to the source. Jeez, if you are going to pout, feel free to change it back to your poorly sourced version. A totally disputed tag? That is incredibly silly. Turtlescrubber 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The pouting is bad enough, please don't ever misrepresent my words as you did in your last edit summary. Turtlescrubber 01:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for your perception that I misrepresented your words. But you didn't just "match the text to the source." You deleted text that already matched a source, which said many conservatives criticized the movie, and changed it to text that, while it matched the source, made the article as a whole factually misleading because of the omission of the teeny-weeny bit of balance that those three words provide in a lengthy article that otherwise only presents Moore's minority point of view. THF 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This film needs a genre as it does not fit the definition of a 'Documentary'

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/documentary) doc·u·men·ta·ry adjective, noun, plural -ries. –adjective 1. Also, doc·u·men·tal /ˌdɒkyəˈmɛntl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-yuh-men-tl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France. 2. Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. –noun 3. Movies, Television. a documentary film, radio or television program, etc. [Origin: 1795–1805; document + -ary]

—Related forms doc·u·men·tar·i·ly, adverb Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

If you visit the controversial section of this video and follow the sources/links from that page you will find many items labeled as 'facts' in this film which are not. I am proposing this film be found a positive genre because it is a great piece of work, but not a documentary. 71.164.0.121 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Refer here for further discussion. Reginmund 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very silly, indeed. Turtlescrubber 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Arcade making three different discussions on this? Is he trying to hide from me or something? Reginmund 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines a documentary simply as a "nonfiction motion picture." (Special rules for documentay awards) If this is not a documentary, then what is it? Plazak 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We've actually settled this a long time ago. There was a troll here trying to prove a point and I WikiLawyered him off. Reginmund 22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's non-fiction, just like the Bible evangelism and agitprop docs. It's just a form, not a guarantee of accuracy. Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen other editors argue quite strenuously that a non-fiction picture isn't a documentary if it includes staged pranks, and F9/11 certainly includes staged pranks, but I won't be WP:POINTy. This is a documentary. THF 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's immediately what I thought of here. This article does a good job by calling it the top-grossing political documentary. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Content" section

I noticed that by April 2007, or so, the "Content" section has disappeared from the article. Why is it removed? It doesn't help readers understand the film any better if so, and spoiler warnings are no longer required. So, if there aren't any objections, I'll readd it per the version in April. Cheers.--Kylohk 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now reinserted the section, having taken it from a revision in March this year. After all, this article needs a "plot summary".--Kylohk 07:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

pov section tag

The controversy summary contains some poorly sourced material and weasel words. User THF has reverted my npov and adequately sourced version and instead insists that broad brushed statements apply to multiple sources and insists on using weasely attributions. The tag stays until some very minor changes are made. I don't feel like going on the THF sourcing merry-go-round so if anyone else can weigh in on the matter, that would be great. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits are discussed above in full detail. The sources are adequate and the language is consistent with WP:WEASEL, which only requires sourcing. THF 14:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Content summary

WP:MOSFILMS#Plot indicates that a content summary should be 400 to 700 words. This content summary is 1200 words. The tag is appropriate, and the section should be cut. Please do not remove the tag.THF 14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline states: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." --Proper tea is theft 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. This was 1200 words when I added the tag, and an editor removed it repeatedly without explanation. I've made a cut, but will not object if someone has a different cut consistent with WP:MOSFILMS and WP:NPOV. THF 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Double standard in political descriptions

A couple of times now, the description of Michael Moore as "left-wing" has been deleted. First, it was deleted as irrelevant. When I pointed out that it was obviously relevent, the phrase was the deleted as supposedly POV. However, no one has objected to the article labeling certain critics of the film, namely Jon Alvarez and Front Page magazine, as conservative. Well, you can't have it both ways. If the politics of the film's critics are relevent and proper for the article, then so is the political position of Michael Moore. In fact, both the film and the reactions to it are strongly influenced by political views, and it would be silly to pretend otherwise.Plazak 03:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't POV or irrelevant, although it probably shouldn't be placed in the first sentence because it puts too much emphasis on Moore. Considering that there is a link to Moore in the first sentence, it shouldn't be a problem determining his political affiliations. Reginmund 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the Michael Moore talk page for reams of discussion on this topic. Turtlescrubber 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The double standard remains, only the rationalizations for it keep changing. This article's links to critical FireHollywood and Front Page also extensively discuss their political inclinations, yet both are also labelled "conservative" in the Fahrenheit 9/11 article (and properly so in my view). But when it comes to the filmmaker himself, the article does not describe his political inclination, now supposedly because it would such would put "too much emphasis on Moore." So again, why are his critics treated differently? This persistent double standard shows clear bias.Plazak 11:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Double standard? Conservative is related to liberal, not left-wing. It's like you are saying right wing is the same as conservative. You can't use "conservative" as an illustration as to why left-wing should be in the article. Please take a minute to read what I just wrote. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It does put too much emphasis on Moore considering the fact that the critics are biased. Well... that's their job. Reginmund 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

conservative/right-wing, liberal/left-wing; they are much the same to me. The quibble still does not answer my question as to why the article should preserve a double standard in which political descriptors are applied only to Moore's critics, and not to Moore.Plazak 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Regarding this edit by Tdl1060:

Some film critics have stated that the film is too biased to be called a "documentary" and have compared it to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl .

The charge of propaganda is twice conveyed by Ed Koch. Christopher Hitchens also makes the same claim. His critique is referenced once on this page and three times on the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy page. Enough already. ~ smb 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

'Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of the conservative American FrontPage magazine communicated by phone, fax, and email with people in Iran who had seen the film, and found that it generated an unexpectedly pro-American response. The viewers were struck by the way with which Moore was free to attack his own government, in contrast to the government repression and censorship they saw in Iran. One Iranian said of Moore, "He ought to thank his lucky stars he lives in a country where he's allowed and even encouraged to be this obnoxious." Another told Zand-Bonazzi, "They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea of America being the great liberator; maybe Americans themselves don't appreciate what they have but we sure do!"

This whole paragraph is dubious, for not being written in a neutral way. Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi obviously solicited opinion from a very specific demographic (i.e those who sympathise with his own political point of view). Caution should run through this statement, but not a word is expressed, misleading readers into believing he conducted a completely random poll. ~ smb 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph recounts opinions (properly labeled as such) as reported by Zand-Bonazzi. The responses to any film, whether political or artistic responses, are by their nature not neutral, and there is nothing

wrong or unencyclopedic about including them in the article, as long as they are not given undue weight. The first sentence (again, quite properly) identifies Zand-Bonazzi as affiliated with a conservative viewpoint. You yourself, as would a typical reader, concluded that the opinions expressed are perhaps filtered through his conservative point-of-view. However, you apparently conclude that the average reader is less intelligent that yourself, and requires a more explicit warning. I disagree; I think that the paragraph is fine as is. Plazak (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph recounts opinions (properly labeled as such) as reported by Zand-Bonazzi. Opinions of people who are, in Zand-Bonazzi's own description, favourable to President Bush.

You yourself, as would a typical reader, concluded that the opinions expressed are perhaps filtered through his conservative point-of-view. I'm politically conscious (so, I gather, are you). We must not leap to the conclusion that each individual visiting this page is likewise so minded.

However, you apparently conclude that the average reader is less intelligent that yourself No, I conclude correctly that different people are at dissimilar stages of development, and may or may not be aware of the political leanings of this one journalist. Zand-Bonazzi did not canvass the opinion of independents. This needs to be made clear if the text is to be restored. ~ smb 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"dissimilar stages of development" is about as clever (but condescending) a eufemism for less intelligent as I have heard in some time. Apparently you consider that the article must be censored by yourself to protect those of "dissimilar stages of development" than yourself. I disagree. Plazak (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is your silly invention, literally. Please deal directly with the point raised (and not some fiction). Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi is a journalist, producer and activist. She is blisteringly critical of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where her father remains a political prisoner. [6] I can respect her opinion, up to a point. But this is Wikipedia, not Debatewise, and we must push prejudice aside. So here is the disputed text once again:

"Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of the conservative American FrontPage magazine communicated by phone, fax, and email with people in Iran who had seen the film, and found that it generated an unexpectedly pro-American response."

The word "unexpectedly" is used here to suggest Zand-Bonazzi conducted a random poll, when it is patently obvious that she did nothing of the sort. The exact methodology is not explained, and no research notes are provided, but here is a sample of the comments solicited, presumably from friends and colleagues, whom she acknowledges being in contact with:

• "This guy [Moore] gets to publicly accuse Bush of lying and becomes famous and adored worldwide. We, here, complain about some decrepit and inconsequential government lackey and we not only go to prison but some of us get death sentences. He ought to thank his lucky stars he lives in a country where he's allowed and even encouraged to be this obnoxious…"

• "If he [Moore] thinks that the U.S. is so bad, he's welcome to trade places with us…since he's so forgiving of brutal Middle Eastern dictators"

• "They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea of America being the great liberator"

• "Outside such pathetic ideological schemes, Moore's fixation to reprimand and castigate his own society is so great that he is BLIND to the fact that our ancient land and society cannot be regarded and dealt with in the same fashion; therefore he has fallen pray to the Mullahs for whom he is nothing more than a tool to discard when his mission for them is completed."

You get the gist. Now we can be more realistic and remove any pretence of neutrality. Something like this:

"Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi of the conservative American FrontPage magazine communicated by phone, fax, and email with friends and colleagues in Iran who had seen the film, and found that it generated a pro-American response." ~ smb 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the exact methodology was not disclosed, we may not presume anything about it, and certainly not state such personal speculations as fact, as in your suggestion above. There's also no need to poison the well by labeling people or magazines. I'll re-insert this passage, reworded slightly so as to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V, and ask that you not remove sourced material again without discussion and consenus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the aforementioned activist makes a number of sweeping statements in her piece, but with regard to this statement...

"I have also been asked to express the judgment of a number of Iranians who saw the film in Iran. They sent e-mails, faxes and even phoned me to ask me to report their reviews."

...it is reasonable to conclude this was not an ordinary, nonpartisan sample. Moreover, the material (which you agree needed improvement) was moved to the talk page, in keeping with guidance. I made this perfectly clear in my edit summary. ( diff) The purpose of moving text to the talk page (as opposed to deleting it) is so that editors can discuss it, preferably without mindless accusations of "censorship". ~ smb 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By "mindless accusations", I am of course referring to the previous user, and not yourself. ~ smb 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not think that you were addressing me with that comment, though I might add that regardless of who it is addressed to, it is an uncivil one, and should not be used. Consider striking it out. It may be reasonable to conclude that the sample referred to by Zand-Bonazzi was not a random sample - but the article did not make that claim. It is not reasonable at all to jump from that conclusion to the claim that the sample consisted of "friends and colleagues" . I agree that the paragraph needed some improvement, which I have proceeded to perform. If you want to take another stab at tweaking it, to something that more closely reflects the quote you are referring to, I would not object to something along the lines of "Iranian movie producer and human rights activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi claims to have received e-mails, faxes and phone calls from Iranians who watched the film, who reported that it produced pro-American sentiments". Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this film argued to be noteable?

I'm wondering, how is this film argued to be noteable? The film "The Money Masters" has been deleted several times from wikipedia but has been seen by 200 thousand at a very minimum since it started to gain momentum on the net around 2005 or earlier. Currently it is freely available on both google video and youtube, it is one of the most viewed on youtube, and it is one of the most well documented of its kind. The film is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. there is even a wikiproject for documenting films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Documentary_films) but it seems this film is not deemed noteable enough for some curious reason. One wikipedia moderator seems also intent on stifling all valid discussion on the subject, even silencing and deleting the discussion pages on it even after a 'hang on' tag has been added.Nunamiut (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased?

This seems a little one-sided towards the movie without enough evidence on the inconsistencies and controversies of the movies. Gregweitzner (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

even balance in reporting

Almost all Wikipedia articles written about a conservitive veiwpoint such as "Unfit to Command" point to the fact the Author or distributer has conservitive roots yet on this article about Micheal Moorers 911 movie no one bothered to point out his openly liberal veiwpoint and I feel all of us who help Wikipedia become a better source for information need to write in a fair and balanced way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paltenrate (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)