Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Recount 2 Removed 3 Coalition of the Willing... 4 External links 5 AFD 6 Quotations 7 Michael Moore misquotes himself 8 No logical sense 9 Bush reading to school children 10 Bush Reading to School Children

[edit] Recount

What about the Pentagraph lawsuitregarding the recount? That is a case where there is a court record. The Illinois Pentagraph sued Moore for nominal damages, and won, because one of the papers shown in the recount section of the film is a doctored version of the Pentagraph. Moore claims it was a "typo."

24.167.130.187 05:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

Removed supposed "information" about Saddam Hussien "murdering U.S. citizens". Lets see some sources... the claims that were in there were ridiculous.

CanadianPhaedrus 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

[edit] Coalition of the Willing...

It is not mentioned that Moore also neglected to tell us some of the larger nations that did contribute to the coalition, and implied that only countries like Costa Rica sent troops. Though of course he is right in the legitamacy of this so-called "mother of all coalitions," this doesn't help his case. GWC Autumn 59 2004 18.20 EST

What needs to be mentioned exactly? Moore was making a point that the "Coalition of the Willing" was essentially just us participating. If you add up the total number of troops offered up by other countries it ammounts to under 25,000 total as opposed to 130,000 american troops. The point being the US _is_ the coalition. -david-

When the war first started Britain alone sent 49,000 troops to Iraq. This was their largest deployment sent WWII.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw the film at a press screening a long long time ago, so I could be misremembering but I remember finding the handling of the smaller coalition countries slightly offensive. Am I right that one country is represented on screen as spear-wielding tribespeople? Has there been any criticism of the film as being implicitly racist? Marshall 00:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've suffered your way through a particular book, he actually explains that he doesn't consider most of the Coalition countries to be part of the Coalition of the Willing, but rather, as he puts it, the Coalition of the Unwilling, in that most of their population opposed the invasion of Iraq. This definitely needs to be in the article. As for the spear-wielding tribes-people and vikings part, yes, he did that. Iceland was represented by footage of Vikings aboard a viking ship, and another nation tribes people. --Safe-Keeper 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I too think that this segment was a little offensive. He did not mention Britain (I was waiting for a clip of the president saying 'you forgot Poland') and the videos of Costa Rica, Iceland, and the others, did seem to be a little racist. It showed them as 'spear and shield kinds of people'...primitive would be a good word.

I believe the main point of the name Coalition of the Willing is to show that the US has support. To say the USA pressured weaker nations that rely on it for support to join the war, instead of strong western democratic nations Rds865 (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I do not think all of the external links on this page can be justified (see bottom of page). Rush Limbaugh's page includes a “look at Saddam’s many crimes” and lists “facts on Saddam’s links to al-Qaeda” that are not facts at all. On the very same page, we are also informed that Iraq’s unconventional weapons were carted off to Syria (and now Lebanon).

I think this one link should be removed. Anyone else agree?

Stephen Birmingham 25 March, 2005 17.51GMT

I agree on this point.

- Anonomous, 1/23/06

While I am not an official source, I grew up next to the russian embassy. There have always been many secret service agents gaurding it and many other embassies in DC. The British embassy also has round the clock secret service but that might also be due to it's proximity to the Vice President's house. Either way there is has always been a large visible presence around the russian embassy from when I moved in in 1986 until now.

The link to the Knight Ridder article is dead. However, it can be found in the Internet Archive here -> [1] I'm not sure the propler method to indicate that the link is through the Internet Archive, so I'm posting it here. --71.242.104.138 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• The US Secret Service was originally formed to investigate counterfeiting and to offer security to government buildings. Only later was the USSS given the more high profile job of guarding the White House and the President. Guarding public buildings in Washing DC, including embassies, is not unusual for the Secret service. Only ignorance makes it seem unusual.Naaman Brown 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus (though many people felt it needed cleanup and de-POV'ing). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason the article repeats itself after the last section, I deleted the repeated sections. I trust there is no dissention to this action.- Julian Diamond 05:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

What is the relevance of "Several of Bradbury's own titles are quotations"? Bradbury's complaint is that the work imitated a title of his own work, not that it quoted his own work. Ken Arromdee 14:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I took it out. It seems obvious that the intent of this reference was to imply, by juxtaposition, that Bradbury was being hypocritical by using quotations in his titles. However, using quotations was not what he had complained about, so no hypocrisy is involved. Ken Arromdee 15:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore misquotes himself

If there are no objections, I am going to add this on to the main page. It is original research, but it is directly cited.

In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore states: “While Bush was busy taking care of his base and professing his love for our troops, he proposed cutting combat soldiers' pay by 33% and assistance to their families by 60%.” [2]

What Moore was referring to is two bonus allowances given to deployed soldiers. When he says “soldiers’ pay” he is talking about Imminent Danger/Hostile Fire Pay, a bonus received by soldiers in designated combat zones. By “assistance to their families” he is talking about the Family Separation Allowance, one of many benefits that soldiers with families get. In reality, no soldier, combat or otherwise, was in danger of having their pay cut by a third, and no family was going to loose 60% of their benefits.

On his website, without admitting the original error, Michael Moore actually misquotes himself by adding the word bonus to the line: "…proposed cutting the soldiers’ combat BONUS pay 33 percent and assistance to their families by 60 percent." [3]

--BohicaTwentyTwo 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No logical sense

In the section titled: "Claimed flip-flop on Osama's presumed innocence" The section asserts that Christopher Hitchen's claim that Moore called for a presumption of innocence is called into question by the possibly questionable "transcript reproduction" which quotes Moore as stating at the time, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." I invite to reread that, and show how the phrase, "IF he and his group were the ones who did this..." can reasonably presume anything OTHER than a presumption of innocence. There's certainly nothing criminal in a presumption of innocence on Moore's part, but it does point to a pattern of equivocation on Moore's part - which was Hitchen's point. ~mjd 2007-04-12 16:32EDT

[edit] Bush reading to school children

This article has a section titled "Bush reading to school children." I don't remember exactly what Michael Moore said in his film, but Bush WAS NOT READING TO SCHOOL CHILDREN. He just sat their and occasionally looked at his copy of the book that the school children were reading. You might surmise that he was reading it to himself silently, but he was not reading it to the school children. I don't understand why this mistake is made over and over again.

[edit] Bush Reading to School Children

I believe it needs to be stated of what George Bush was informed when he remained calm in the classroom. I am not personally sure but I do know they had known the planes were hijacks before they actually crashed. If all Bush was told was that the planes had possibly been hijacked (which a commander in chief would need to know), his actions were certainly normal. It could also be said that there was nothing he could do or perhaps there were already other (smarter) people dealing with the issue at-hand. 74.247.93.3 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)