This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
I think it important to supply the link to Moore's factual back up. Six sections of factual backup with sources.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
Maybe have a section i nthe main article called "Moore's Response to Criticism" and under it have
"Moore's response to the attacks on his film was the posting of Factual backup on his website"RiseAgainst01 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we ready to describe Michael Moore's position (r.e. Afghanistan) in a neutral fashion yet? This section is also lopsided. Dynablaster (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are 3 people who could be quoted but whom for some reason are not...
Hitchens actually performs some Clintonian semantic gymnastics here. Moore's "if" is not intending "I think Osama is innocent and the Afghan war is unjustified;" he's trying to make an argument for American due process: "If he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice."
— Stephen Himes
Allow me to explain Moore's motivation, as if it needed explaining to anyone with a concept of logic, law and due process. Bin Laden IS innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. That IS the American Way. Indeed, it's the World Way. But in order to prove his guilt, one must build a case, capture him and put him to trial.
— Chris Parry
[I]f you have a suspect and the suspect gets away, the police — or our military — have a right to go after and get that suspect. In fact, they should go get the suspect. And Richard Clarke's point, and my point is, is that they make a half-hearted effort.
— Michal Moore
There is yet another, unrelated problem with much of this article. Presumably we should be describing this controversy through the coverage it has received in reliable third-party sources. A number of sections, however, are sourced to publications that have absolutely nothing to say about Fahrenheit 9/11. Both sides, for example, cherry-pick quotes from The 9/11 Commission Report, when the report has nothing to say about the film. There is some conflation because many of these same arguments (lack of cooperation from the White House, Saudi flights, inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives, etc) existed independently outside of Moore's film. Anything that does not pertain to the film should be separated. Dynablaster (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The following passage is troublesome for two reasons:
Kopel and Hitchens make a number of criticisms of Moore, regarding alleged factual accuracy and hypocrisy of the film[1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], that are not addressed in Moore's official War Room response to the factual accuracy of his film.[21]
- ^ Koch, Ed (2004-06-28). "Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation". World Tribune.
((cite news))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)- ^ Kopel, Dave (2004-11-12). "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11". Independence Institute. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
- ^ http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/30/Opinion/Focus_on_facts_not_Mo.shtml
- ^ http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/jireland_20040616.html
- ^ http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22079050-28737,00.html
- ^ http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=105CFF3399B1AC4D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM,
- ^ http://media.www.theonlinerocket.com/media/storage/paper601/news/2004/10/08/Opinion/Moore.Media.Feed.Lies.To.Americans-747310.shtml
- ^ http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1162379.htm
1. a) We do not need 8 citations to buttress a statement that is completely uncontested when 2 citations will suffice. b) Notes 03 and 04 are unreliable sources (a letters column and personal opinion blog respectively); 06 is subscription access only (this once was frowned upon, what is the guideline today?); 07 only mentions Dave Kopel fleetingly. 01 and 02 are perfectly fine, if duplications. 08 is a transcript of Christopher Hitchens' and George Monbiot discussing the film on Australian television, which is useful.
2. The second part of the passage constitutes original research because the citation points not to a reliable third party source, who informs us that Moore has not ever addressed these unspecified criticisms, but rather to Moore's own website. The seeming absence of a response from Moore on website X is being used here as a source for something no third party source actually says. We are simply left to conduct our own research, exploring hundreds of pages on Moore's website to ensure the above statement is true, that Moore indeed has not ever addressed these unspecified criticisms from the aforementioned critics.
I'm going to be bold and delete this passage, but retain the link to the discussion between Hitchens and Monbiot, which I shall work in elsewhere on the page. Dynablaster (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
User JJJ999: "[A] a large amount of criticism has now been censored out of the page (eg, Peter Holding's criticism of Hitchen's remains, but Holding's confession that Moore's film is biased and doesn't attempt to achieve balance ... has been edited out!"
Peter Holding is defending Fahrenheit 9/11, not criticizing it. Judging from the brief quote added to the page, readers would not know this. Here is the passage to which JJJ999 refers:
There is no question that Moore's piece has been selectively edited and that he does not really attempt to achieve balance.
Intended criticism? No. The quote was cut short:
There is no question that Moore's piece has been selectively edited and that he does not really attempt to achieve balance. But Moore is aiming his film at an audience that has been subject to a barrage of pro-war propaganda and who will continue to be exposed to such propaganda right through the US presidential election campaign.
The "... but ..." introduces an objection. Holding says the directive of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to show your average viewer what doesn't make it to network news; it was not intended to present both sides of the story, and Moore never pretended to do so. Don't take my word for it. Read the entire article.
Therefore it is not fair to cite an article written in defense of Michael Moore, selectively quote from it, juxtapose this next to Hitchens et al., so as to make it appear these individuals are in agreement, when in fact Holding defends Moore and rebukes Hitchens in the strongest of terms. The opposite would be scouring articles that castigate Michael Moore, looking for a single line of text that, when taken out of context, could be made to appear as though Moore is receiving unexpected support. Unless we include additional lines of text and summarise the point Peter Holding is making, it's undue weight. Dynablaster (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is another problematic section with a couple of outstanding issues:
Critics such as Bill O'Rielly and Hitchens argue that Moore, in his film, says Iraq never killed or attacked an American. [...] Hitchens writes "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."[42] Interviewed by ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, Moore, saying his movie had been misquoted: "That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly. Murdered.The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen."[43] However, Hitchens notes several examples he argues are inconsistent with this defence...
1. Bill O'Rielly may indeed make this argument, but no reference is provided, and I cannot find one, so his name will be removed until a citation is found.
2. User JJJ999 is using a Slate magazine piece (dated June 21) to refute Moore's ABC News interview (dated June 25). (diff) How can Hitchens possibly "note several examples he argues are inconsistent with this defence" before Michael Moore had even made his defense? If JJJ999 wishes to discredit Moore on this point, then he will need to find a source dealing specifically with this criticism in consideration of Moore's reply. You can't do this by inventing discourse based on an article that preceded the one you want to attack. For this reason I shall proceed to restore the section as it stood before, which was perfectly stable. Dynablaster (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
A good way to resolve this dispute would be to reproduce the dialogue between Christopher Hitchens and Michael Moore that is central to the criticism, using third-party published sources. Hitchens, Scarborough, Himes and Parry all qualify. Kopel does not because his criticism is self-published on his personal homepage. WP:SPS "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". Hitchens kicked things off with his scathing review. He was duly invited to appear on Joe Scarborough's show where both individuals criticized Moore. A transcript is provided by MSNBC which we can quote for this purpose. Stephen Himes and Chris Parry respond to Hitchens. CNN host Daryn Kagan also asked Moore to comment on the alleged contradiction. So we have 2 people criticizing Michael Moore, 2 people defending him, and the film maker himself. This is roughly how the controversy should be described; more evenly balanced than the repetitive, one-sided section we have now. Dynablaster (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Two or three additional voices have been added to the page in an attempt to diversify, but, in order to convey a broad range of opinion, we could do with more. Fahrenheit 9/11 was banned in some territories. The United States freely allowed its soldiers to watch the film, both at home and abroad, but the Australian Defence Force blocked the film at all bases. A number of independent polls were also conducted to gage public reaction to the film. It would be a step forward to summarise these differing opinions. Dynablaster (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Previously, not enough effort was made by editors to request an outside opinion (that includes myself). In future, I hope users who deem content objectionable will first tag the offending section (as is proper) and explain their reasons here on the talk page. We can then request a third opinion on a case-by-case basis if agreement cannot be reached. Dynablaster (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Fiftysix-Deceits-In-Fahrenheit-911 is the largest, most well researched critical article on Fahrenheit 9/11. Kopel's article is a strong rebuttal to Moore's film but that isn't a reason to delete links to it. Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral POV. If we are going to post links to Moore's defense of the film and other pro-Moore articles we need a link to Kopel's article.--Auspx (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not you would consider them "reliable sources" but the fact is that other sources did cite Kopel's article and even attempted to rebut it. I see no reason why "Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy" can't have a link to Kopel's article.--Auspx (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Critiques of this critique, and/or defenses of Fahrenheit. Anthony Wade. Mr. Graff. Brian Ragle (PDF). Ed on Open Speech. Thread on the Randi Rhodes Show discussion forum. Daily Kos. Defending Fahrenheit 911. Fahrenheit Fact Check.
But that was only in the American mainstream media. That's not how Al-Jazeera or BBC or the rest of the world media portrayed pre-war Iraq. Moore can't credibly claim that he is only countering the spin in the American media since Fahrenheit 9/11 was released worldwide to a global audience most of whom don't watch American news in the first place."Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war."
Although this doesn't prove that Moore deliberatly made an anti-American film it's certainly worth noting in "Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy". Also note that Kopel and some of the information from his article appeared in the film FarenHype 9/11. This may be the third-party source you were talking about earlier.--Auspx (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)the mullahs running the Farabi Cinema complex in Tehran scrapped the season's program to screen Moore's "documentary." "This film unmasks the Great Satan America," a spokesman said. "It tells Muslim people why they are right in hating America. It is the duty of every believer to see [this film] and learn the truth."
I'm new to wiki editing so bear with me. The link to the rebuttal article "In Defense of Fahrenheit 911" doesn't load. I searched online but I wasn't able to find another site the article was hosted at. I hesitate to edit it out without someone confirming that it's a dead link. Ruvane (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have found that paragraph deletable, because it doesn't address any controversion what so ever. Can someone explain to me what controversial point in the film is that paragraph is refering to? Nobody claims that the footage seen on film are false or that the information received by the viewer is questionable! all that paragraph is giving to the reader is points of view on Bush's behavior, and are all somewhat supportive to his doings after he was notifeid that the country he is responsible of is beening under critical risk. i belive it is unethical of us, wikipedians, to preserve such subjective paragraph on a controversion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.185.53 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a pundit magazine. Therefore, "some commentators have criticized" is not a suitable wording for a neutral statement; "several" is much more appropriate. At least the "Bush defenders" part is out... it was just a couple of steps short of "redneck lovers". Also, selective removal of sources is yet another very thinly veiled attempt at downplaying the statement. Please stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/2004/06/29/2004-06-29_moore_s_message_delivered__b.html((dead link))
tag to http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/01/23/levy/index2.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)