Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies/Archive 1

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)

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

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)

It is very likely, as stated in Moore's film, that these small nations in the coalition of the willing were there because of Bush's "With us or against us" speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.17.236 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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?

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)

With respect, this sword cuts both ways. I randomly flipped down to the section regarding 'My Pet Goat'. The page discusses the reasons for Bush staying in the room during 9/11 but then seems to refute it decisively with Bill Maher as the source. What qualifies him as a credible source? I won't edit it because I'm 'anonymous' here but come on.

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

Oh, so bush was just reading one of those books to himself then right? I guess that makes sense if you think about it... Even if he was reading the book to himself what's the relevance of what you are saying? What does this have to do with anything? Oh, so he wasn't sitting in the school room with children, so he was out in washington closely watching the events unfold, okay... Honestly, that's the point, he wasn't around, he was jacking off in some florida school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.100 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

RFC

{{RFC [Politics] | section=RFC !! reason=Dispute covered in the talk section above, but just self evident from the edit history on the page, where the above pooster keeps reverting what are quite reasonable and sourced edits for changing, invented reasons. He has a new reason each time for why it doesn't count, and I'm getting sick of it. !! time=21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)}}

Edits by user JJJ999

Your additions are problematic. Lets take them in turn.

Moore has chosen not to reply to a number of criticisms pertaining to the factual accuracy and perceived hypocrisy of the film... diff

This adds nothing to the value of this article. Exactly the same thing could said of every single author, director and journalist on the planet. Is it your intention to add the same text to hundreds of thousands of other Wikipedia articles? ("Person X has chosen not to reply to a number of criticisms pertaining to Y") More seriously, how do you know which criticism Moore has "chosen" not to respond to, and what criticism he has? Have you performed an exhaustive LexisNexis database search?

Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan. diff

The subsection Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence deals fairly with this criticism. Clearly you have not invested 5 minutes rereading this article before making unsourced additions to it. Dynablaster (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your reply is more than problematic. Let's get it done with quickly before you are foolish enough to commit 3R and I have an admin block you and lock this page.

1) Firstly, it "adds" quite alot to the article. As it is now written it suggests that the 2 sides have competing claims, and the truth is unclear. In reality, Moore has not been willing to defend dozens of accusations of misrepresentation and lying. to suggest that is not relevant to the article is like suggesting the fact that an accused rapist refused to deny guilt is not relevant in discussing the accusations of rape. Of course it is. You're obviously some kind of Moore partisan, which is why i know I'm going to need to get an admin to block you. I really hope not though. It was sourced, but you deleted the source the first time saying we didn't need old sources rehashed (or some nonsense). I'd be delighted to re-add it.

2) I know which criticisms he has not responded to because (as the source you deleted showed) Kopel (his most exhaustive and prominent critic) has listed all the claims which were drawn into question on his website, and he has also listed at the bottom of the claims Moore's replies (if any). This is not "Moore can't respond to every accusation out there", this is prominent journalists criticisms. Moore knows the criticisms were made, because he selectively replied to some of them on his webpage (and regardless of whether he says/admits it was in response to Kopel, he clearly didn't find the faults himself, and then put them on his webpage for the sake of argument). Again, it's irrelevant because whether Moore is willing to reply to claims his film has lied is important context.

3) The earlier text is not detailed enough, and does not explain clearly enough on Afghanistan exactly what Moore's earlier position was. Your revision is toned down to try and disguise and soften Moore's earlier position. I'd be happy to source it for you if you like.JJJ999 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it. David Kopel is a party to the dispute, so you cannot keep making the same assertion of fact (in support of a broad and sweeping statement) without providing a reliable third-party source. To repeat, just because Moore has not answered him directly, it does not mean that Moore has not been asked about such criticisms at a different time and place, furnishing journalists with an answer. Why do you insist on turning this into a David Kopel vs. Michael Moore boxing match? Kopel is afforded plenty of room on this article. He is cited 3 different times, and also on the parent article.

On Moore's alleged flip-flop regarding Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden's guilt, we have one source (Christopher Hitchens) who alleges Moore changed his mind [4]; and another source (Stephen Himes) who argues Moore did no such thing. [5] (Himes reproduces a transcript of their conversation, which would suggest that Hitchens misunderstood Moore). Absurdly, instead of allowing readers to follow both sources and to make up their own mind, you make your own determination as to which individual is correct, and proceed to edit this article based on the premise that Moore indeed flip-flopped, and has failed to provide an answer as to why he did so. Instead of describing the controversy, your edits have the unintended effect of actively coming down in favour of one side of it!

So kindly desist with your name calling and threats, and please do not come to my talk page labeling my changes "vandalism". This clearly is a content dispute, and if you would like a third opinion, then I am happy to put my edits to the test. Dynablaster (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't work out whether you're lying, or just partisan. Let me explain the correct analogy. There is a rape case in the news. Now, we use a little thing called "the media" to reference the competing claims and context for the story. Kopel is not excluded because he disagrees with Moore's material. He's still a journalist, and this is still a primary source. We still get to include materials from lawyers (eg, here is what we do on this page for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case with the Johnny Cochran quotes. We quote it, because it's relevant, and then if there are competing claims, we quote/reference them too. We don't say "well, Kopel says mean things about Moore, so he can't be quoted". If you believe the material I sourced from a journalist is wrong, or if there is an alternative side to it, you go and get another source showing either a) where Moore did respond, or b) which claims Moore replied. A journalist who is reporting does not lose his credibility as a source because he says something positive/negative about a story. Now, I'm reporting you to resolve this.122.148.218.27 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kopel is not excluded because he disagrees with Moore's material.

That is exactly right. But we must not deceive ourselves and pretend that Kopel is a neutral "reporter" in this "rape case", when in fact he is one of Moore's most persistent critics. So as Wikipedia editors we learn how to correctly attribute points of view to various different people, Kopel included. You have failed to do this, even now, as your revision makes clear. That is only but one part of the problem.

If you believe the material I sourced from a journalist is wrong, or if there is an alternative side to it, you go and get another source showing either a) where Moore did respond, or b) which claims Moore replied

No, you are arguing backwards. The burden lies with the editor making such sweeping claims. You say Moore has never responded to these and other criticisms. I challenge this dubious statement and demand of you a reliable third-party source (pointing to both Moore and Kopel's website then saying, "gee, I can't find a reply here", is not an acceptable method of sourcing).

Do you even know how much research is required to establish whether Moore has ever addressed these criticisms? Examine briefly this interview with Michael Moore. [6] He is being probed about his most recent film Sicko when, suddenly, Moore is asked to respond to a criticism first made by Christopher Hitchens' that he ambushed actor Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine knowing he had Alzheimer's disease. Moore informs the interviewer that he actually filmed that scene "a year and a half" before Heston publically announce he was ill. So though Moore may not reply directly to every single criticism on his web page, he often does reply at a later time and date. [7] Dynablaster (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply- the local press will tend to be critical of rapists too. Particularly the Editorial staff, who write editorials... since the editorials have a "POV" (as a Moore fan you should know this). That doesn't exclude them as source material, or make it irrelevant to the article. You are the one who wants it backwards, by saying I have to prove Moore did reply (despite media claims he did not). I can't prove a negative, nobody can. Instead you should be the one finding evidence that contradicts my source if you want it removed. Otherwise it stands.JJJ999 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[T]he local press will tend to be critical of rapists too.

This was merely intended to be a simple analogy, but the connotation is too negative to be useful, and supposes in the first instance that Moore has done or said something wrong. In addition, you repeat the bogus argument that Dave Kopel is merely a member of the press, objectively reporting on the situation, when in fact he is a member of the Cato policy institute, a fervent and sustained critic who has appeared on television and in film attacking Michael Moore.

I can't prove a negative, nobody can.

Then stop making impossible claims. Dynablaster (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• You may as well claims that Fox News doesn't count either. Look, it's not a claim the fact is true, merely that it is a held opinion. You then provide the refutation, if it exists. I don't need to prove a negative in order to add it. Sadly you have no interest in this, or the other sources I added. Pity.JJJ999 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't considered a thing I have said. It's impossible to reason with you. Dynablaster (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're first argument was that the material "added nothing". Quickly realising this was untenable, you claimed it was unsourced. Discovering sources existed, you claimed they "didn't count" because they had an axe to grind against Moore (despite the guy working for several independent journalism groups, and being a lifelong democrat. Now you're said you're a troll who is "happy to be baned" and will keep reverting my additions and attempts to improve the sourcing (that you apparently wanted fixed) regardless of what I say. You've now become a vandal, and I'm sorry to tell you that 3R doesn't count to undoing vandalism.JJJ999 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

External comment

• JJJ asked me to comment--let me suggest that the fact that he made no response is a very difficult one to prove, and I think the sources do not show that adequately. That Kopel says Moore has not replied to the criticism made of him could be included, as his opinion. Beyond that, the general statement cannot be made without a truly impartial reliable source, such as an academic study of the controversy,or something equally good. This sort of assertion is notoriously difficult to prove. It can be done--by someone with impeccable credentials making and publishing a thorough investigation of all the places he might have published a reply and evaluating them. Otherwise all we have is the assertion of a Wikipedia ed. that they have found no source, which is acceptable for a talk page but is otherwise OR. I suggest the place for further discussion of this might be the RS or OR noticeboards, as similar issues have been discussed there from time to time. In the meantime, I think it essential that further reverts in either direction of the content not be made. I could formally protect it, but I hope it wont be necessary. DGG (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to edit the text to reflect that it is their opinion, but that's never been the dispute. this guy has never asked for, or tried to get, altered language. He just wants to edit out criticism. I have now changed the text to reflect that it is their claim he has not replied to criticism JJJ999 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

this guy has never asked for, or tried to get, altered language.

Oh, you're quite wrong. I told you that attribution was important earlier. You proceed to ignore me and call my edits vandalism. But right now, I insist on removing the dubious text until the matter is fully resolved on the talk page, as per Wikipedia policy. Dynablaster (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You've never suggested any alternative wording, and all your edits have been to entirely remove my sourced material, as opposed to actually trying to improve it. Looking at your edit history (brief as it is) the reason is obvious. You are a Moore partisan who exists solely to push a certain POV. I've undone your revision for the obvious reason that it's sourced, and I've improved on it as the admin in Q suggested. This is because I actually respond to constructive criticism. If you want to remove accurate, heavily sourced info, then you need to come here first, not the other way around.JJJ999 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not obliged to propose alternative wording. It is your job to consider carefully the objection(s) raised and reply accordingly. You have failed to do this. And one of the reasons why I keep removing the disputed text, is because not all of the sources you keep inserting into the article support the dubious statement you insist on making. So let's break it down.

Kopel and Hitchens are among those who claim that Moore has chosen not to reply to a number of criticisms pertaining to the factual accuracy and perceived hypocrisy of the film, made against him by critics, and that he has declined offers to debate the matter with them.

Kindly provide in your next response a direct quotation from both men that supports exactly the above statement in its entirety. It reeks of WP:SYN. Please also detail in your next response the purpose of the five additional sources you keep spamming this article with.

Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan.

Please justify this edit. Christopher Hitchens argues that Michael Moore changed his mind. Stephen Himes examines the allegation in detail and concludes that Hitchens made a mistake, arguing that Moore did not change his mind. Both are notable sources and we find space for each. But then you barge in with your crappy editorializing, taking the side of Hitchens, and so expecting Moore to explain why "he apparently" changed his mind when, as you can see, we have reliable sources who say Moore did no such thing. I'm sorry, who are you again?

On a separate note, I am getting sick and tired of your constant name calling. Stop it. Dynablaster (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First thing is first. The edits are sourced, so here's what you need to do. You need to establish why they're wrong before you remove them entirely. You do not own this article, and your personal feeling does not = consensus. Now, I will be polite enough to make a slight rewrite, but your criticisms are largely wrong. Let's cover them in depth:

1) Your complaint of my source consists of you getting up and saying "prove they're ok". This does not amount to meaningful criticism, and suggests strongly you haven't even read the sources. If you doubt prima facie good sources from an experienced editor, who if I may say has been around longer than you, then it's up to you to explain what is wrong with them. You don't get to game the system by saying "prove your sources are good before I let you add them". That's absurd.

2) Spamming the article by adding sources. First time I've heard that one.

3) While I'm not going to reply to a vague criticism like "are your sources good enough?", I will note that it's self evident that Kopel is claiming in his article that Moore has not responded, because the entire premise of the article has been to add criticisms, and invite Moore to reply. At the bottom of each "deceit" they have Moore's response (if any). Moore makes no reply to many of the criticisms on his website, so that is true too. Also, as I explained before, clearly relevant.

4) The defence of Himes is not at all as you pupport it to be. Himes does not dispute either 1) that Moore opposed the war initially, or 2) that he suggested Osama should get a fair trial, thus doubted his guilt. Himes simply says that "if" Osama was guilty, Moore would support taking him out. It doesn't affect in any way the stuff I've written, or the lack of explanation as to his change of position (noted by Hitchens and Kopel). I will make a slight reword though. If you have general wording issues, take them here. Stop deleting the whole text, or I'll be going to an admin again with new text.JJJ999 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First thing is first. The edits are sourced, so here's what you need to do. You need to establish why they're wrong before you remove them entirely.

No, stop inventing your own set of rules. WP:BURDEN clearly states that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article..." Your first edit violates WP:SYN because it draws conclusions not directly supported by the two sources. The challenged material reads: "Kopel and Hitchens are among those who claim that Moore has chosen not to reply to a number of criticisms..." Now please point me directly to where both Kopel and Hitchens actually claim Moore has chosen not to reply to a number of criticisms.

I will note that it's self evident that Kopel is claiming in his article that Moore has not responded, because the entire premise of the article has been to add criticisms, and invite Moore to reply.

In other words, Kopel claims no such thing. Rather it is your inference that Moore is aware of this particular rebuttal, your inference that Moore has read it, and your inference that Moore has chosen not to respond directly to it. What rot. And where is your source that shows Hitchens claimed the same thing? I can't see it.

At the bottom of each "deceit" they have Moore's response (if any).

That is not Moore's response to Kopel -- it is simply Kopel copying from the notes and sources that Moore published on his website -- as he does with all of his films -- and incorporating them into his rebuttal. Is that why you are confused?

Now, I will be polite enough to make a slight rewrite, but your criticisms are largely wrong.

You have it backwards. From the the very beginning to this very hour. You have it all backwards. I told you this edit was low quality the moment you made it, and that it was unsupportable. How many rewrites is this for you now? No, you are not being "polite", you are backpedaling.

If you doubt prima facie good sources from an experienced editor, who if I may say has been around longer than you, then it's up to you to explain what is wrong with them.

If you are an experienced editor, then I'm a banana! (I have been here since 2003. Not that it matters.)

The defence of Himes is not at all as you pupport it to be.

Yes, it is. But let's see what you can come up with. Not more arm waving, I hope.

Himes does not dispute either 1) that Moore opposed the war initially, or 2) that he suggested Osama should get a fair trial, thus doubted his guilt.

Himes is lucid and unambiguous. After reproducing a transcript of the debate where Moore is alleged to have flip-flipped, he writes: "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'." That is unequivocal.

Himes simply says that "if" Osama was guilty, Moore would support taking him out. It doesn't affect in any way the stuff I've written, or the lack of explanation as to his change of position (noted by Hitchens and Kopel).

Yes it does. Himes argues that Moore's position is perfectly consistent and that "Hitchens perform[ed] some Clintonian semantic gymnastics", bending Moore's words out of shape. And that is quite enough. Both men are notable and both are allowed to have their say. But you insist on inserting your own interpretation and WP:OR into this page. I fully intend to remove it.

Stop deleting the whole text, or I'll be going to an admin again with new text.

Feel free. I challenged your material days ago. The burden remains on you. Dynablaster (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes your behaviour even worse, is the fact this is a BLP-related article, which immediately disallows a "conjectural interpretation of a source". Please read this page for more information. Dynablaster (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Most of what you write seems to consist of "no, you're wrong", or stuff I've covered above relating to you assigning me some imaginary burden before I can do what every other editor can do anytime they like. Now, there is one thing you say worthy of a reply. Not worthy in the sense that it makes sense, but because it actually shows you haven't read the source. Here is what Kopel says, relying not only on Hitchens (which is also unambiguous), but on Moore's own interviews and websites, which are totally unequivocal in opposing the war in Afghanistan. I have included it below. Don't bother me again.

Most of what you write seems to consist of "no, you're wrong"...

Bald face liar. I'm not talking to you anymore. Shame on you, and every other Wikipedia editor like you. Dynablaster (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A brief add on to this- yeh, sources must be valid, but they are. You haven't explained what about them is wrong, you haven't identified one thing in them that is invalid or questionable. If someone had to argue in this way with someone who didn't read their sources every time they added a source, nothing would be added. If you want a serious response, make a serious issue of a souce.

• Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War

Deceit 32

Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden "a two month head start" by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. (On HBO, Moore explicitly claimed that the U.S. is protecting bin Laden in order to please the Saudis.) However, Moore has not always been so fierce demanding that the Afghanistan War be prosecuted with maximal power in order to get bin Laden:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Hitchens, Slate. That Osama, if captured and tried in an American court, would be entitled to a presumption of innocence (in the sense that the prosecution would have to prove guilt) does not mean that the U.S. should be morally foreclosed from destroying Osama's base in Afghanistan and attempting to capture or kill Osama based on facts demonstrating his guilt.

Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians.

Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2001.

The next day he wrote:

Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.

...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.

"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner.

Are we any safer because the U.S. military eliminated the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, removed a government which did whatever al Qaeda wanted, and killed or captured two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership? Fahrenheit's thesis that the Afghanistan War was solely for the pipeline and to distract attention from Saudi Arabia is inconsistent with the well-known results of the war. A sincere patriot could have opposed the Afghanistan War for a variety of reasons, such as fear that the invasion might stir up even more anti-American sentiment. But the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of any force), and the factually indefensible claim that the results of the war did not help American security or harm terrorists.

[Moore response: none.]JJJ999 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And, once again, I can easily quote other reliable sources (like Chris Parry) who say Moore's position was consistent:

"Although himself opposed to all-out war and repulsed by the prospect of endless bombing campaigns, Moore was never against investigating, pursuing and prosecuting the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks upon the United States... In the part of the film that pertains to Afghanistan, he argues that if the Bush White House was really so determined to send troops to apprehend (or kill) Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, then the president should have seen to it that enough resources were speedily and skillfully directed at fulfilling that aim. Countless experts have made a compelling case that the Bush administration blatantly undermined the effort in Afghanistan in its eagerness to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq... It is not contradictory nor dishonest of Michael Moore to further publicise such a widely held view, or to highlight additional motivations for the intervention, or to express his dissatisfaction that not enough is being done help the people of Afghanistan, however sarcastically."

This view is supported by no less a figure than Michael Moore himself. [8] But that is not the point. The point is, and try and get this through your skull, lacking direct quotes, you are expressing support for one point-of-view and in so doing inserting your origin research into this article. How would you like it if, in synthesis, I added to the page: "Hitchens and Kopel have not explained why they distorted Moore's words out of context", then used Moore's own website as a source? You would scream WP:NPOV in 1 second flat. Dynablaster (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• dude, Moore opposed the war out of his own mouth, and I just quoted alot of it to you. The fact that Moore now claims to be for it is the point of the text. It doesn't change what he said, which was just quoted to you. I mean, it doesn't get any clearer than the quotes I just made above. The quotes don't say "Moore opposed any war, at anytime, by any leader, in Afghanistan. It just says he opposed this war when it began. And he did. He clearly opposed it, that's what the quotes from Moore like "do not declare war" and that the war is senseless and will do nothing are there for. You're determined not to allow any criticism through, and I'm going to ask for you to be blocked from this page.JJJ999 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It must not be apparent to you how Wikipedia works. Look again. What Moore feared, and flatly opposed, was senseless revenge. Read his actual words from his own mouth. [9] Moore was actually in favour of tracking down those suspected of attacking America -- even if it meant sending thousands of troops to Afghanistan. [10] But I have no intention of forcing this into the article, unlike yourself, who has already taken the view that Moore's critics are correct, and that Moore has failed to confess why he changed his mind. Dynablaster (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• The one who doesn't want to see reality is you. Hitchens opinion is plain for anyone to see. It is bizarre to understand how quoting a journalists opinion and sourcing it is "unsourced". As for Moore, youare delluding yourself based on what Moore says now. Yes, he now says he always supported the war, that's the point of the material, to point out that he claims this, but the actual evidence is against that, which I quoted to you. A few rather obvious examples were quoted to you from sources, such as:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....

"do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians"

"Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack"JJJ999 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hitchens opinion is plain for anyone to see

So is Himes' opinion plain for anyone to see, and Himes argues that Moore's position was more nuanced than Hitchens gives credit. So we allow both opinions to be heard.

It is bizarre to understand how quoting a journalists opinion and sourcing it is "unsourced".

It is not bizarre at all, when you understand that you are violating WP:NPOV in order to do so.

As for Moore, youare delluding yourself based on what Moore says now.

No, I am simply allowing various different sources to speak for themselves. That is how Wikipedia works. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to do this without also inserting your own personal opinion (i.e. Hitchens is correct; Himes is incorrect; Moore flip-flopped and he has failed to explain why!). I have provided you with a reliable source that shows Moore feared the president would strike indiscriminately against a broad range of targets. I further provided you with a reliable source that shows Moore was not against tracking down the suspects of the September 11th attacks, even if it meant invading Afghanistan. Your response was to cherry-pick the quotes that supported your position, and to omit the rest! But, and I repeat, this is not important. What is most important, is to let these reliable sources do the talking without inserting our own POV into the article. Now why can't you do that? Dynablaster (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment- I wonder who you think you're fooling. Your opening claim is that we must allow both opinions. In fact, that's exactly what I've done (and which you keep deleting). What you've done is actually remove both opinions, quite aside from the fact that one of those views has been completely misrepresented by you. Moore opposing the war under Bush is still opposing the war, it doesn't matter that he might have supported it under other circumstances, that's never what my edits have shown. Whether Moore might have been in favour of a different attack isn't relevant, the relevant part is that Kopel and Hitchens accuse him of something, and that evidence actually supports it (quite aside from how we are allowed to have their opinions anyway).JJJ999 (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opening claim is that we must allow both opinions. In fact, that's exactly what I've done

No, it is not. You have crossed the line and come down one side of the controversy, siding with Hitchens. I'm not interested in your personal point of view, and more to the point, nor is Wikipedia, which is why I am trying (yet failing) to keep it out of this article.

...the relevant part is that Kopel and Hitchens accuse him of something, and that evidence actually supports it...

Don't you see, this is your POV? I happen to believe the opposite -- that Moore's opinion was more nuanced -- but I'm not going to edit the page in such a way that favours one view over the other. Much better to let the principle sources do the talking. But you are guilty of inserting your own POV into this article. Dynablaster (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

"Now you're said you're a troll who is "happy to be baned" and will keep reverting my additions..."

Here is the edit summary to which I assume user JJJ999 is refering. (diff) "I fully expect a ban, and deservedly so." This is my way of conceding I have lost my cool, breaking the 3RR rule, and therefore have no excuse but to except the obvious penalty. This is not me confessing to the community that I am a troll who is just asking to be banned. Dynablaster (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing confusion

The question of whether Moore refused or evading answering is such a difficult one to make that it would need very firm sourcing, and I do not see how the word of an opponent like Kopel would be relevant for anything more than his personal opinion on that regard. "K. says that M .... " is the strongest I would be prepared to say for any criticism K might make of M. And I would do one sentence for K, and another if there is someone else of equal note, to avoid giving the impression that such is the general viewpoint (whether true or false, I don'ts ee how we can say or imply this unless some neutral person can authoritatively say that such is the general opinion-- "among those who claim" is not; NPOV acceptable terminology. ) Anyway, reading the entire article I don't see how it matters. among the various things that K blames M for, not responding to K's charges is a pretty minor delinquency. My advice to both parties is to let he matter rest altogether, and to work toward NPOV language on the rest of the article. Not everything that can be said need be said, but what is said should be said carefully. As for 3RR, what will help is leaving the issue. If anyone else want to pursue that, be my guest. I'm putting a 24 hour protection on the article for the purpose of preventing this from continuing, and I am not looking to see whether it's the wrong version .... DGG (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The ludicrous thing is, neither Kopel nor Hitchens actually say Moore has refused to answer specific criticism of theirs. User JJJ999 simply infers this from Kopel's lengthy rebuttal, because Moore's "response" is missing. The absence of a response from Moore on website X is being used here as a source for something neither critic actually says. I'm not joking. I asked JJJ999 for quotes some time ago yet he has failed to provide them. Dynablaster (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As Himes doesn't refute all the claims made by Hitchens/Kopel, it is absurd to treat them as though Himes rebuts H/K, because H/K make claims Himes doesn't defend. Such as his initial opposition to the war. I've given you flat out quotes, and you ignore them. Moore opposed the war. It's clear as day. Exactly why, or whether he changed his mind, doesn't affect whether he opposed it initially, which he did. How the quotes don't show that is confusing to say the least.122.148.218.27 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As Himes doesn't refute all the claims made by Hitchens/Kopel, it is absurd to treat them as though Himes rebuts H/K,

That is merely your opinion, for crying out loud. I take the opposite view. Himes' argues that Moore's position was more nuanced, and he shows convincingly that the film director was not against intervening in Afghanistan to apprehend those considered responsible for the attacks on September 11. Moore, by his own words, simply did not want the the U.S. to overreact and start carpet-bombing the place, killing untold numbers of innocent people. But this is only my opinion upon reading the different sources.

You err by (1) making a determination as to which source is correct (2) and by proceeding to edit the article in a slippery manner that attempts, ex post facto, to bolster Hitchens' original criticism in light of Himes' response. You expect of Moore an explanation for his flip-flop, when the film director himself does not believe, and other reliable sources argue, that he has not flip-flopped.

I've given you flat out quotes, and you ignore them

No, what you have given me is cherry-picked quotes from Michael Moore that you believe validates the initial criticism from Kopel and Hitchens. I have already demonstrated that your quotes only tell one fraction of the story.

What I want from you is a direct quote from both Kopel and Hitchens -- verbal or in print -- saying Moore has chosen not to reply to a number of criticisms of theirs. I submit that you have failed to do this; that you cannot do this; which is why you keep conflating issues, and hiding behind huge cut & paste jobs in an effort to throw people off the track.

• "do not declare war"- Moore. Quoted above. Doesn't get much clearer than that. The rest of what he says is in a similar vein. But I guess if I'm a Moore homer I could somehow be foolish enough to believe that by saying that, he really meant he did support it.JJJ999 (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Moore. Quoted above. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

JJJ999 once more demonstrates that he cannot be trusted with source material. Here is the Michael Moore piece in its entirety. [11] As any editor can see for themselves, even at this early stage, the film director does not rule out the possibility of intervention in Afghanistan. Rather, this is an emotional Moore urging an emotional President not to react angrily, and blindly. "You must NOT do this. If only because you do not want to stoop to these mass murderers' level. Yes, find out who did it. Yes, see that they NEVER do it again." In his debate with Christopher Hitchens, Moore stated unequivocally that "if" Osama bin Laden "and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." [12] And there are plenty of other quotes from Moore where he conceeds that military resources will need to be directed at achieving the aim of bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. I can provide quotes where the film director accepts that thousands of troops will be needed in this effort. And of course we hear from Stephen Himes who argues that Moore's position was more nuanced than Hitchens gave credit, and that he was never against intervention.

So what to do? I submit, as a mere editor, that it is simply our job to attribute different points of view to different sources, and that we must do this accurately, without taking sides. I further submit that user JJJ999 have failed to do this in a manner that adheres to WP:NPOV. Dynablaster (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dynablaster appears to be right that the quote simply does not support the statement this. I couldnt find it either. Frankly, JJJ, I think it's your conclusion on the basis of what amounts to OR. I'm not saying you are right, or wrong, which is another matter: There are 2 qys, whether he never answered adequately, or never answered at all. Never answered adequately is a matter of judgment that will always be primarily an expression of opinion about the original issue. Obviously M's supporters will think his answers adequate, and his opponents will not. But never answered at all is hard to show unless he went into total retirement afterwards. I do not condone the way Synablaster dealt with this by repeated reversion, but as for as the article content goes, he seems to have been correct in this particular.

I continue in the discussion above to see a totally inappropriate attempt to answer the question of whether M was right in one issue or another. This is not the role of a Wikipedia article. Since this is the article about the controversy over the film, it is supposed to present the statements made about the film--giving what the film says, what his opponents say, what he or his supporters say. And it stops right there. it does not conclude either directly or by implication whether what he said in the film was true, or was a rhetorical overstatement, or was a mis-statement due to seeing things from his side of the picture, or was a deliberate and calculated untruth. The reader must draw his own conclusion--we just give the information for that. I point out the both M and K are advocates, not neutral reporters. People will generally have the sense to perceive them that way. the point of the article is to tell readers about the controversy, not to decide it. DGG (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Claims made, proposed discussion of terms

In the spirit of what DGG has proposed I am effectively rebooting the conversation here, so that an actual discussion can take place as to how the material should be worded. There are a number of claims to be discussed. If Dynaguy wishes to contribute meaningfully I suggest he/she open by:

a) suggesting exactly what in the parts I have written is problematic and why, and b) propose a way of rewriting it. Lastly, if you're going to challenge source material, you need to do more than say "prove it", you need to explain exactly what about the material is inadequete. I would also ask you to avoid reversions until you actually have consensus here, or this discussion is pointless.

Claims made

1) Moore's detractors claims a) he has not replied to some of their criticims, and b) some of his positions are hypocritical/wrong. Now, remember that this is not the same as saying the detractors are right (though I think it is evident that they are), this is saying that they have said as much. Kopel quite clearly says Moore has not replied to some of his criticisms, and that seems as important as whether a rapist denies his guilt in a murder trial. So while it is difficult to prove Moore has ever replied anywhere or anytime into the future, this would only amount to a need to reword it. I await your suggested rewording. If you just go ahead and revert then you've basically boycotted this process.

2) Did Hitchens challenge Moore to another debate? Yes. Has Moore debated him since then? No. This is a matter of record, do you really disagree with it? Indeed, Hitchens accused Moore of hiding from serious press criticism.

3) Afghanistan- did Moore support the war? It's highly disingenuous to suggest he did, those quotes are nothing like "out of context". Saying he might support killing Bin Laden or whatever doesn't get away from the fact he thought bin laden might be innocent, and said so. Given Bin Laden confessed, it's difficult to understand how his statement really amounts to the contrary position. But even Himes, who offers a partial defence of Moore by saying "he also said he'd get him if he was guilty" still only amounts to an extra phrase we should insert to let the read see it. The way of inserting that phrase is not "Himes disagrees" because Himes doesn't disagree with most of what I wrote. He doesn't suggest Moore supported the war, because that's absurd. He calls it a pointless war against invisible enemies, being conducted by backroom elites, and says he feels it will do nothing to make the country safer (see above). I've never seen any position of Moore from 2001 (when the war began) suggesting he supported it. That he does now is not questioned, indeed it is the point his critics are making. But given the way an intelligent person has to read his quotes, the most you can hope for here is a mild rewording to be discussed with consensus here. I can't for the life of me see any evidence he supported the initial war, and I see quite alot he didn't. I'm sorry I had to use such asmall quote, but it seems you're not reading the ones which are more in depth. Where is the counter quote from 2001 that shows Moore to endorse the war? That would make a major reword needed to show ambiguityJJJ999 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

perhaps I take this a little further, JJJ:

1. exactly who claimed he had not replied to what criticism. Give the exact sentences.
2. From your 2nd point, can we conclude that Moore did not debate Hitchins? First, give an exact quote from a neutral source proving he didnt:, then explain how, if you could find such a quote, it would prove he never debated anyone else, or never repleid to criticism in general
3. Why is the question of whether M supported the war in afganistan relevant here?

DGG (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

1. (a) I am in agreement with editor DGG. Where exactly do Hitchens and Kopel claim that Moore has chosen not to respond to a number of their criticisms? Please reproduce direct quotes from both men. WP:BURDEN really does support any editor that has examined the source material and wishes to challenge it. (b) I don't dispute this part at all. Moore has countless detractors and he is criticized almost daily. This article quotes many people who say Moore is wrong, and that is how it should remain.

2. Hitchens did indeed challenge Moore to a debate, in a piece he wrote for Slate magazine in June 2004. But we have no way of knowing if Moore ever read Hitchens' piece, so I strongly advise against any wording that implies to the reader that Moore went into hiding or ran away from Hitchens' offer. (Moore debated Bill O'Reilly because O'Reilly communicated the offer directly to him. [13]) I am not aware that Kopel also challenged Moore to a debate. Will you kindly provide a direct quotation in support of this statement?

3. I completely disagree with your interpretation of the source material. However -- and this is most important -- our personal opinion is irrelevant. All that matters is we attribute the accusation to Hitchens (since that is whom Kopel quotes). Himes later disputed Hitchens' interpretation of Moore's remarks, so we quote him in succession. There are rules that prevent you from prefacing this particular criticism with your own personal opinion of Moore's stance on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Dynablaster (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick reply: [above material from dynaguy added after my reply]

1) I will go get the text, but it's not a "gotcha" text from Kopel for example, it's simply obvious from the article where he says he will go over all the deceits he finds in the film, that he has invited Moore to reply, and that at the bottom of some of them he notes "no response from Moore". I concede it might need rewording, but to suggest that factual accuracy of what I am saying is in some way off is simply wrong. I invite proposed rewordings while I find the text. It is obvious he hasn't replied to Kopel's specific charges in any place Kopel can find, because Kopel adds Moore's response to the web, and Moore also has a "war room" for replies. Moore has no reply that I can find on searching the archives, but I obviously can't show you the source for something he doesn't say. It worst it seems a reword is in order. Dynauy's mass removal of all the text repeatedly has gotten a bit ridiculous. Kopel notes: "Moore's "War Room" has published a lengthy point-by-point defense of the movie. Some of the points relate to issues I've raised; others do not. For each item below, I'll provide a link to Moore's response, when there is one. Kopel then goes point by point on the criticisms of Moore's film. Now, I know we can't say "Moore has never responded ever", for all I know he responded in his bathroom when nobody was looking. I guess the best edit would be to make it say something like "Moore offered a defence of claimed falsehoods on his website. The defence made by Moore did not respond to a number of criticisms made by Kopel". I agree a reword could actually help bring clarity. But that doesn't seem to be what Dynaguy is after. He just wants to censor criticism.

2) That's not exactly what the text says. Hitchens has challenged Moore to debate him, and it remains true he has not done so. I can't prove a negative. If you wish to remove the part that says in brackets (Moore has not done so) then fine, but it shouldn't be, because it simply remains unsourced that he hasn't done it, it's undoubtedly true he hasn't debated Hitchens (though he may feel he has replied to various points). In my experience, when editors concede something is true, but uncited (in this case because it's proving a negative) there is a short bit added at the end saying "citation needed". The accurate text isn't removed. Is dynaguy really claiming Moore has debated Hitchens since the film? And if he concedes he hasn't why can an edited version of this not survive?

3) It would be relevant somewhere on this article (I'm open to suggestions of where to move it), because of the way Moore's critics have accused him of hypocrisy by suggesting in the film that the war in Iraq is a "distraction" from the real and important war in Afghanistan, yet that was a war he initially opposed. Again, suggestions welcome, but I hope you agree it's obvious he opposed that war initially.JJJ999 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

1. If you say person X claimed Y, then you should have no difficulty providing quotes. The issue is further clouded by Kopel's decision to reproduce the 'Notes & Sources' from Moore's website before re-branding them Moore's "response", when it appears there is nothing in writing from Kopel that suggests Moore has even read his rebuttal. This problem goes away if we can quote Kopel saying that he asked Moore to respond, but that Moore declined to do so. Then there is no question as to the legitimacy of the challenged material.

2. Once again, the problem immediately goes away if we can quote Hitchens saying that Moore declined his offer to debate him. If not, then let's be careful not to imply that Moore hid away from him.

3. See my earlier reply. Dynablaster (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment-Well, it's basically clear that you're gaming the system now. You don't really address any of the points made, or suggest an alternative way of writing it. If the wording is all that is in dispute, you were wrong to entirely delete the material in the first place. I already covered the "here's a way of wording it that might be fairer". You do nothing to add to that process despite requests to do so.

Firstly, it's absurd to think that Moore hasn't heard such a prominent critic, but imagine that he hasn't/can't prove it, why would it matter? What I've pushed for in my proposed alterations is only a recognition that Moore, in his official defence of his film on his website, has not addressed many criticisms. That is true. The fact Moore has responded at all (heck, he might have replied in his bathroom), being unprovable, doesn't need to be argued. The fact that Moore's official defence of his film, on his own website, doesn't respond to key criticisms is still highly relevant, and highly contextual to the film's accuracy. I can give a long list of examples of this, but it seems unecessary when your reply basically concedes all that is required is a reword (but no suggestion from you as to what this rewording will consist of). It would be no different to an accused criminal remaining silent at his trial. He may, for all we know, have responded to the charges elsewhere, but he hasn't in his official reply, which seems pretty darn relevant. It looks like you're just offering a partial defence in the hope of creating just enough justification to avoid being banned as a vandal when you revert it again. Unfortunately you haven't.

It's also ridiculous to suggest Hitchens and Kopel don't accuse Moore of inconsistency on Afghanistan (have you even read the sources?), meaning it isn't OR at all. Kopel puts his name to all of these deceits, he simply quotes Hitchens. He also speaks without Hitchens quotes on some of this. You also don't answer my question, indeed you dodge it entirely. It is obvious he opposed the war from the above quotes, irrespective of his future position (that's kind of the point in fact), making it relevant. Himes does not in any way dispute the fact that Moore was against the war. You have never addressed this even once.

I will lastly add that your (irrelevant to this discussion) reasons for why he was willing to debate O'Rielly are OR, and nonsense. Indeed, Moore pretty much had to be hounded down and forced into that interview, and he only agreed subject to conditions. Hitchens noted that he had refused to take "hostile" media interviews. My personal feeling (not that it matters) is that he agreed because O'Rielly is not a serious journalist, and he'd feel right at home in a shouting match.JJJ999 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Both editor DGG and myself have addressed all of the points that matter. We have requested direct quotations from the two principle sources, as per WP:VERIFY, because we are unable to find them. You said that you would provide these quotes. I will ask you one more time: Where are they? Dynablaster (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Source- I add this from Joe Scarborough (already a source on this page for other reasons). Sounds like Moore refused to debate him or Hitchens:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5344115/ SCARBOROUGH: Well, well, well, Michael Moore is running scared. It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.” After boldly proclaiming that he is going to debate anybody anytime anyplace anywhere, Michael Moore is proving once again that he is not a man of his word. Now, of course, you know we have challenged Mr. Moore to debate on our show for months now. We have asked him to come on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY and defend his April 2004 statements declaring that the United Nations should not send troops to Iraq because more Americans need to bleed and die there, and that those killing Americans in Iraq aren‘t the enemy, but rather they are the revolution the and Minutemen, who are sure to win their battle against the occupation. Now, we know that Moore‘s claim on “David Letterman” and other shows about debating us was just another lie, but we were really surprised today when we learned now that Michael Moore‘s spokesman is afraid to come on our show not just to debate us, but debate “Vanity Fair”‘s Christopher Hitchens.JJJ999 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Such sources are not difficult to find, indeed you never were willing to challenge the factual accuracy of my material. You simply are a Moore partisan who wants to remove criticism.JJJ999 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We request of you direct quotations from Hitchens and Kopel. You have had four days to show that both men say what you claim they do. Dynablaster (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

comment- you don't speak for DGG, and you're clearly gaming the system. Since you have ignored the requests for comment on rephrasing, I am going to go ahead and do it myself.JJJ999 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now changed the wording to better reflect the text and to remove POV. Your suggestions are welcome. You have 4 days to explain why tags shouldn't be removed. You may want to actually provide reasons on how the improved text and sources "don't count" (if you beleive that) and await discussion here if you don't want to be blocked. I notice you ignore the source from Joe Scarborough. What a shock.JJJ999 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice you ignore the source from Joe Scarborough. What a shock.

I have no objection to the Scarborough quote. It appears fine. The objection (above) concerned your putting words in Kopel and Hitchens' mouths. Dynablaster (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

with the current wording

the material seems fairly presented. I don't see the significance myself-- in a controversy between A & B, they each generally says that each others' answers are inadequate, & that the other side wont debate on fair terms & it's just surrounding rhetoric to the real questions at issue, but still, the people did say what they are referenced as saying, and peopler can judge the importance for themselves. Leave this alone now, please. work on the rest--try to get rid of the phrase "critics say" Nobody is likely to be blocked, at least by me, but this is not the place to talk about user conduct, nor to accuse other editors of prejudice. DGG (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It remains a mess, and I will be returning to the subject in several days, when I have more time. Dynablaster (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the consensus (and sourced material) is in favour of the current version, please avoid an edit war and make sure you get consensus on this talk page before you alter any of the disputed sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable and irrelevant sources

Kopel and Hitchens make a number of criticisms of Moore, regarding alleged factual accuracy and hypocrisy of the film.^{[14][15][16][17][18][19]} Joe Scarborough alleges that Moore has ducked criticism and dodged interviews from both himself and Hitchens.

It is my intention to remove the sources listed above, added by User:JJJ999 on the 2nd November, (diff) because three are unreliable and three are irrelevant to the statement at hand. Dynablaster (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you need a basis for why they are "irrelevant" or "unreliable". You also phrase it as "remove the sources", implying you will remove all the sources, despite saying only some have problems (they don't, but putting that aside for a moment). If you want to remove them, state you case here, and build consensus to do so. I think they're very relevant, and DGG has already noted that the sources say what the article claims, so I think you have a pretty big burden to show otherwise, not just state "they're not". And why is the 2nd sentence included, when you don't list the footnote? The number of each footnote doesn't correlate to the article, making it hard to understand which footnotes you oppose, let alone why...JJJ999 (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on this issue: WP:RELIABLE

• 12 A public letters page. Not a reliable source.
• 13 Self-published source. Also unreliable.
• 14 This reliable source does not mention Christopher Hitchens or Dave Kopel once. Wikipedia states that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made."
• 15 Visitors need to take out a subscription to read this piece, something Wikipedia discourages.
• 16 An opinion piece that mentions Dave Kopel only briefly.

If the main page claims that both "Kopel and Hitchens make a number of criticisms of Moore", then we need only cite Kopel and Hitchens to demonstrate that point. Reference number 17 is perfectly fine as it is a transcript of Hitchens doing precisely that. Dynablaster (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• You really are a piece of work. You ignore the fact you have no consensus, revise all the material without even waiting for me or others to reply, and then have the gall to ask me not to change your new version until after I've got consensus? You are one odd guy. I'm going to have this page locked if you continue in committing 3R again. On the plus side, at least you provide some reasons this time. Before I get to that, it really is necessary to notice how you don't even try to defend some of the revisions you've made against consensus. You delete a source on Kopel for no reason on line 25 unconnected to this. Why? Worse, you delete the whole section on Scarborough which is sourced about ducking debates. No reason is offered. Typical. These are but a few of the unjustified changes you make.
• 1) The "self published" criticism has some merit to the article you apply it to, but generally speaking something that is by a prominent author/journalist which is there only to cite the fact they said it is not "self published". That's absurd. It would be like claiming we can't reference an autobiography of George Bush to establish that Bush said certain things in his autobiography. Preposterous. Before you reply, I realise there is some ground for reconsidering the single source which you list as "self published", but I'm assuming since you've provided no reason that something bizarre like this is the basis for you removing sources from Kopel, Scarborough, etc... you know, since you never gave one.
• 2) A letters page of a publication is a "reliable source" for proving that a fact was claimed, not that the fact it true, so it's fine. Again, removal of 1 or 2 sources lets you delete the whole section why?
• 3) An online article on an opinion editorial publication site is not "unreliable", you just assert it, but I don't see why.
• 4) The Australian article is critical of Moore, it repeats the same criticisms made by both of them. This would be a case for altering the wording to include criticism from them as well, eg "Hitchens, Kopel and others make a number of criticisms of Moore", it is not ground to either remove a useful source from the page or rewrite the whole sentence/delete criticism. You can propose a new wording as I just did, but why do I get the feeling you have no interest in doing so (maybe because you've proved as much).
• 5) A subscription is no bar, you seem to know this, so there is no reason to remove it.
• 6) A brief mention is still worth having as a source.

*At any rate, your reasons don't explain your mass alterations and revisions, which fly in the face of both the past discussion and your reasons. You need consensus here first, before you alter the previous sourced consensus! Jesus. Do you want to get blocked?

• I seriously have a question for you. Do you actually challenge the veracity of the claims made? Forget "footnote is no good", which is wrong anyway, but for arguments sake. Do you challenge the veracity of the material? I don't think you ever have, which means even if you could kill off every source (and how can you kill off sources like Scarborough, Hitchens, Kopel, etc saying they criticise him?), all that would mean is you would add a little footnote saying "citation needed".JJJ999 (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already? Apparently not, because now you falsely accuse me of "delet[ing] the whole section on Scarborough which is sourced about ducking debates" when, in fact, it is obvious to everyone with eyeballs that I did no such thing. Please examine revision 12:56, 28 November 2008. Contrary to your claim, I did not delete a single word of text regarding Joe Scarborough.

My edits had combined effect of improving this section. The Christopher Hitchens transcript was relocated to the line where his name is first mentioned, which is entirely correct and proper. (diff) Similarly, the Dave Kopel citation was moved to the line where Kopel's name is first mentioned. (diff) The Joe Scarborough reference remained in place at the end of the sentence concerning Scarborough. (See revision above.) The four remaining sources were deleted for the previously stated reasons. If you honestly believe that a letter from Joe Bloggs and a personal website are reliable sources, then there is nothing more to be said here. Now kindly desist from stuffing this page with random, unreliable and irrelevant sources. Thankyou. Dynablaster (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not notice the moving of some of the info, I noticed it was not there, and at a glance it appared to have been deleted on reviewing the massive revisions you had made. However you should not be surprised by the response given the bad faith in which you have conducted yourself to date. If you want to make reasonable alterations, I am all for that, but you need to get consensus here, because so far both DGG and I have said the current version is fine, and when something has been disputed or if you wish to dispute something (adding tags, altering sections, rewriting it) you should first get consensus. I am happy to go along with that effort, and DGG has shown themselves to be able to act in good faith as a broker, but you have to do it here first. Please propose your alterations and why, and highlight exactly which parts you want to remove.JJJ999 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up / Sock puppetry

For reasons only JJJ999 can explain, he has twice undone the helpful edits of other individuals. User Coruscant tried to alert editors to the fact Controversy about the film's content needed cleaning up (diff) before JJJ999 unexpectedly removed his tag. (diff) And today, user HairyWombat attempted to clean up the section himself, removing duplicated sentences and sources (diff) before JJJ999 once more reverted these improvements. (diff)

Rather than examine the section that needed attention, JJJ999 asked a separate editor to perform a Check User request on yours truly, the result of which you can read here. Dynablaster (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I see my name here, I will contribute. I have never seen the film, and have no opinion as to its merits. I deleted stuff from the article because I saw that there was an entire paragraph repeated almost verbatim. This seriously detracts from the usefulness of the article. If JJJ999 (or anybody else) objects to me deleting repeated chunks then they must delete them. You simply can't have paragraphs repeated in an article. If anybody can't see that then editing encyclopaedia articles is not for them. I now return you to your edit war. HairyWombat (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this section up because it is in the way of the main discussion.JJJ999 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

JJJ999: [W]hen something has been disputed or if you wish to dispute something (adding tags, altering sections, rewriting it) you should first get consensus.

That is not necessary. Please see "How consensus emerges during the editing process" for accurate information. Users are not required to spell out their every intention on the talk page, and certainly not to tag the main article (an implicit disagreement, where consensus often cannot be reached). For example, I remain dissatisfied with what I perceive to be POV pushing in the Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence subsection, and await considered feedback from other users. So you really have no business removing that tag until the matter is addressed independently of the previous dispute(s). The Fahrenheit 9/11 film director supported a concerted effort to bring the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks to justice, even if that meant dispatching troops overseas. That is not the same thing as saying Michael Moore supports the "war" effort and everything it entails. We should more accurately attribute this view to Christopher Hitchens, without editorializing (e.g. "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan...", suggesting he now supports it, has flip-flopped, and failed to explain why etc.) Dynablaster (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore what appears to be you adding the POV tag with a second account for now in favour of addressing what you say above. A POV tag is only necessary in this case if a) there is a real dispute (so far you've got little credibility on this, and b) if it relates to content. As far as I can see your only remaining disputes relate to sourcing issues, none of which merit such tags. DGG said flat out "the sources say what they claim" and that includes Hitchens. If you want to challenge that consensus, you need arguments, not vague stuff about "I am unhappy with the POV pushing". What Hitchens accuses him of is included. What Himes says is also included. The only editorialising I can see is from you, trying to moderate Moore's position and justify it. The only substantive dispute you've made to date about this section is to say that Himes should "refute" Hitchens premise. It was explained to you, and DGG agreed, that since Himes didn't "refute" what Hitchens said, only add a qualifier to it, that was an absurd way to write it.JJJ999 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been drawn to your attention before, and you didn't have an answer for it then either. Here is the website quote of Kopel, where he quotes Moore's view. It shows both a) Moore didn't support the war, and more importantly b) Kopel says he didn't support the war (we can plan this game with Hitch too, but one at a time). Now I'm confused as to how you can argue either a) Moore wasn't initially in opposition, and more importantly b) that Kopel hasn't accused him of being in opposition, which is what the text says (making it fairly irrelevant if Moore supported it or not, though the sourcing makes it clear he didn't). The fact Moore has changed his position since then (ie, he is a demagogue) is sort of the point of the text. We don't write the article as though we need to try and "defend" Mike's POV, we write what his critics accuse him of. And since he refuses to respond directly to much of Kopel and Hitchen's criticisms (a claim both you and Joe Scarborough have gone to lengths to point out on this discussion) it would be OR for us to try and discover the reasons he changed his mind (because as far as one can tell from a guy who ducks interviews, he appears to believe his position is consistent). The fairest way is to quote peoples opinions. We have Hitchens, Kopel's, Himes, etc. All there. The reason we don't have a respected journalist talking about how Moore's position is consistent is probably because his position isn't, which is why you haven't been able to find sources saying it.

JJJ999: I'll ignore what appears to be you adding the POV tag with a second account for now in favour of addressing what you say above.

No, go right ahead. I'm dying to hear your conspiracy theory.

JJJ999: A POV tag is only necessary in this case if a) there is a real dispute (so far you've got little credibility on this, and b) if it relates to content.

No credibility! Says who? You have lost every single argument on this talk page thus far. It must not be apparent just how silly you look right now. You have made several false accusations and backtracked umpteen times. It's beyond embarrassing.

JJJ999: DGG said flat out "the sources say what they claim" and that includes Hitchens

DGG's brief comment referred directly to only one of the three disputed areas.

JJJ999: The only editorialising I can see is from you

That is because you're an inexperienced editor. Or a shameless one.

JJJ999: It was explained to you, and DGG agreed, that since Himes didn't "refute" what Hitchens said, only add a qualifier to it, that was an absurd way to write it

More fabrication on your part. Shameless indeed.

JJJ999: [Kopel] shows both a) Moore didn't support the war, and more importantly b) Kopel says he didn't support the war...

That is because Moore has never fully supported the "war" and its wider aims; then as now, he supports a serious effort to bring the perpetrator(s) of the attacks to justice. The film director has constantly ridiculed many aspects of the intervention. You make a serious error by conflating the view of Hitchens and Kopel with your own personal opinion. Please learn how to attribute points of view correctly without POV pushing.

JJJ999: Now I'm confused as to how you can argue a) Moore wasn't initially in opposition, and more importantly b) that Kopel hasn't accused him of being in opposition

(a) I have not once argued that Moore wasn't initially in opposition. (b) Nor have I ever argued that Kopel "hasn't accused him of being in opposition". This is your invention, your strawman, literally.

JJJ999: The fact Moore has changed his position since then (ie, he is a demagogue) is sort of the point of the text.

Rather, making Moore out to be a demagogue is the point of your POV pushing, since what you describe as "fact" is not fact at all (hence the 'disputed' tag).

JJJ999: The reason we don't have a respected journalist talking about how Moore's position is consistent is probably because his position isn't

Or because there is nothing to explain, and yours is a logical fallacy. Dynablaster (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians.

Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2001.

The next day he wrote:

Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.

...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.

"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner.JJJ999 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep reproducing meaningless quotes. Are you trying to win a strawman argument? Dynablaster (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absurd. You come on every few weeks and post a different criticism, it gets rebuffed, and you come back with a different complaint (in this case one that you ran away from over a month ago) and expect wikipedia to recognise a "content dispute" which you aren't even around to make. Go away. Seriously. It won't matter if you post under different identities or with anonymous IPs, or if you wait a month before you come back, I will keep on undoing your vandalism and attempts to erase criticism every time.JJJ999 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have raised several objections. All of them legitimate. Did it not occur to you that I might be too busy to respond at length? Isn't that what I basically told you 3 weeks ago? (diff) Now stop pretending that POV pushing is acceptable and cease deleing the tag. Dynablaster (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

• Ok, first of all this will be your only warning about editing in a way that alters my post. It's not acceptable behaviour for your to post in between every bit of my post just because you're too lazy to read it, then reply.
• Secondly, I'll leave the check user to an admin, though I have to wonder why a no-name account with about 8 edits, which has been defunct for a year or so, is making your edits for you.
• As for the claim you are too busy to reply, it's obviously untrue. Firstly, you were presented with the text from Moore a month ago (literally), and since then you have made all manner of edits on wikipedia including on this page, but never replied to it.
• Your misrepresentation of DGGs remarks is also absurd. DGG was involved in all the disputes, which included the Osama one, and he said it all matched the sources under the revisions I made. Basically, you're just asserting stuff with one liners, hoping it flies, and then you'll run away again. There was a long section which contained a number of disputes, including the Osama one, and at the end of it (after you ran away) I made revisions and presented them to DGG in a new section which asked for input to the new wording. DGGs reply to the changes, which included the Osama change, was: "the material seems fairly presented. I don't see the significance myself-- in a controversy between A & B, they each generally says that each others' answers are inadequate, & that the other side wont debate on fair terms & it's just surrounding rhetoric to the real questions at issue, but still, the people did say what they are referenced as saying, and peopler can judge the importance for themselves" No more lying please.
• As for the argument, you just dodge everything that was said per usual. The text currently says what the sources say. You don't dispute the veracity of this, you simply want us to defend Moore apparently. Tell me, where are the sources from Moore or credible 3rd party sources that say what you want us to say? The closest you've come to saying what you want is this bit here "We should more accurately attribute this view to Christopher Hitchens, without editorializing (e.g. "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan...", suggesting he now supports it, has flip-flopped, and failed to explain why etc.). The thing you don't seem to get is that a) the current text attributes this opinion to Hitchens (and you concede above it is a true account of Moore's position at the time in your latest reply, meaning we don't even have to attribute it as Hitchen's opinion), and b) wanting us to explain why he hasn't "flip-flopped, and failed to explain why, etc" would be OR unless you have sources to show this. I've asked for them, and indeed much of your earlier posting on this page is an argument to the effect that he never addresses Hitchens or Kopel (when it suited you to argue this), meaning you know full well you don't have sources to support your position. Again, you want it all ways, just like you concede in your new post that Moore didn't initially support the war, but your previous quoted objection was that it should read only as Hitchen's opinion. Again, you are not serious. As for the sources, you've never presented them, just like you've never proposed an alternative text. If you want to be taken seriously, in your next post say exactly what you propose the rewrite should be, and provide sources to support it. You keep saying Hitchens and Kopel misrepresent his position. I've provided the sources for Hitchens and Kopel (and others) takes. Where is the source from you to support the text you assumedly want inserted about Moore's position on the war? You've never provided it. Do so, or go away.JJJ999 (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999: It's not acceptable behaviour for your to post in between every bit of my post just because you're too lazy to read it, then reply.

It is standard practice to post a response after every preceding entry, below the comment to which it applies. Indentation is tricky because you keep reproducing poorly formatted, cherry-picked passages from Michael Moore, with liitle or no warning, and without a wiki quotation tag. When a user signs their comment, editors are entitled to post a reply beneath it. I choose to format my reply point-by-point, leaving aside anything of no relevance to the dispute. I have, at a glance, incorrectly split up your response on a single occasion, once, so I don't much care for your "warning".

JJJ999: I have to wonder why a no-name account with about 8 edits, which has been defunct for a year or so, is making your edits for you.

Let me explaining the situation for others, since you remain clueless. As anybody can see from this revision, JJJ999 made a total mess of the Controversy about the film's content section, unwittingly duplicating various passages and sources. Perhaps fearing that the aforementioned user had taken ownership of the page, a passing editor tagged the section, requesting simply that it be cleaned up. (diff) Falsely believing that editors first need to seek his permission before tagging the main page, JJJ999 deleted the tag (diff) and then asked an administrator to perform a Check User on myself, because he suspects I am using an alternative account to undo his changes. (diff) This is a clear example of disruptive behaviour as we ever likely to see.

JJJ999: As for the claim you are too busy to reply, it's obviously untrue. [...] since [a month ago] you have made all manner of edits on wikipedia including on this page.

I have engaged in light editing on Wikipedia over said duration, because I did not -- and still do not -- have enough spare time to go around cleaning up after your mess. If I were to remove your POV pushing from this page, you would rapidly reinsert it, and then I would be drawn in to a protracted debate about your foolery. Sound familiar? Much better to tag the page until we hear from a few different editors.

JJJ999: Your misrepresentation of DGGs remarks is also absurd.

Nothing in DGG's contribution (diff) makes clear that he was responding to the third and final dispute. Indeed this "...I don't see the significance myself -- in a controversy between A & B, they each generally says that each others' answers are inadequate, & that the other side wont debate on fair terms..." is a clear reference to the first of the three disputes, when you were asked (and failed) to provide direct quotes from both Hitchens and Kopel saying that Moore had declined to debate them. Furthermore, you omit the most important part of his response, "Leave this alone now, please. work on the rest...", which is an unambiguous reference to other disputed areas. How dare you misrepresent DGG's remarks so openly before falsely accusing me of doing so.

JJJ999: As for the argument, you just dodge everything that was said per usual. The text currently says what the sources say. You don't dispute the veracity of this...

No, you are wrong. Take the following two sentences for example: "Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan." Please in your next response produce direct quotations from both men in support of the above statement. Do not ignore this request as you did countless times earlier. Secondly, and just as importantly, this is a reductive misrepresentation of Moore's actual position, because the film director has never fully supported the "war" in Afghanistan, or anything like it. As I have pointed out to you, with direct quotes from Moore himself, he supported a serious effort to apprehend the plotter(s) behind the attacks, who took refuge in Afghanistan. That is not the same thing as saying he fully supported the "war" in Afghanistan (a "war" he has constantly attacked in print). The section is made intolerable by your editorializing, when writing that "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan", because this gives credence to the claim that his critics are right, and that Moore now supports the "war" in Afghanistan -- a position that can only be accepted by ignoring Moore's actual words.

JJJ999: Tell me, where are the sources from [...] 3rd party sources that say what you want us to say?

I am not interested in adding alternative view points until all POV pushing is removed from the section. Following that, we might hear from Stephen Himes who, on the Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence, says:

He [Moore] is 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."

And we also have entertainment journalist and film critic Chris Parry:[20]

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. Moore's point was clear - in order to make a military move on another government, people or person, you need to have your ducks lined up legally. [...] If you've got to build a case against Jeffery Dahmer, you've got to build a case against Bin Laden.

But I have no intention of adding these to the page until neutrality is restored.

JJJ999: [Y]our previous quoted objection was that it should read only as Hitchen's opinion.

That is correct. Attributed to Hitchens minus your POV pushing. What part of that don't you understand? These arguments aren't exclusive of each other. I will try and improve the section over the next few days, but it is to be hoped that other editors not involved in the dispute will see the 'dispute' tag, comment and/improve the section first. Dynablaster (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the 'disputed' tag again, I will not hesitate to restore it. Dynablaster (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply

Oh come on. "A Passing user". The account that did your dirty work for you has made about half a dozen edits in 3 years. If it's not your back-up account, I'm sure you know whose it is.

You then misrepresent DGGs reply. Strangely enough I'm not the one with a credibility problem on misrepresenting him, because you've done it before. I told DGG, and he came in and surprise surprise he didn't support your POV. You then claim you won't provide an alternative text! Look, if you want I offered to let DGG (who has been quite nuetral through this) be the arbiter of the proposed revisions to the text, which we can discuss at length here. But you don't want that because you know your view is in defiance of the sources. You got this offer weeks and weeks ago, and you never took it up. You just ran off, and then when you thought I wasn't looking you went back to your old tricks of editing the page without the consensus you claim to want. I'm sorry but if you want a POV tag while you wait for other editors, you have to actually provide examples of the lack of nuetrality, and how you'd fix it. You refuse to do this once more. As I said, not serious.

After your refusal to engage, it gets downright wierd. You challenge me to show stuff that was shown long ago (a scroll down the talk page would make it clear, or even reading the sources once in a while), and tell me to source this claim "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan". Of course, that sentence appears nowhere in the disputed section. Nowhere. It (by which I mean a similar sentiment, worded entirely differently) appears only as part of Hitchens opinion that he opposed then subsequently supported the war. Bizarre again. Another claim that is silly is here. You don't want me to say "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan" yet you concede on the talk page earlier: "I have not once argued that Moore wasn't initially in opposition". It's also stupid because a) It's plain as day he opposes the war from the source material (eg, "do not declare war"), and b) it's been written in a way that comes off as Hitchen's opinion. You provide only one source, and it says the same thing Himes says. It doesn't address Moore's comments on his website that outright condemn the war (which has always been more telling than his shifty remarks in the Hitchen's debate), nor his absurd comparison of the Iraq resistance to the minutemen. If you want to add it, propose the wording here and add a sentence right after Himes saying "person X thinks what Moore really meant was 'capture' Bin Laden", Looks like you're headed for that ban finally.JJJ999 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care for your conspiracy theory. A check user request has been denied. Coruscant was trying to be helpful by having someone clean up your dirty work, not mine, and you had no right to remove his tag. Anyone interested in this dispute can read DGG's words for themselves, and match to what individual section they applied. (diff) In reference to the first sourcing dispute (Controversy about the film's content), I was not obligated to correct the offending material for you, so it was simply removed (an action checked with a separate editor, who agreed). Following several days of stalemate (i.e. you rejected Wikipedia policy in favour of your own set of rules), I made a number of attempts to improve the section myself, but you kept reverting my efforts, claiming that there was nothing wrong with the material as it was. At no point did I "run away" from the dispute; rather, I became too busy to engage with you at length. But once the dust had settled, who eventually won both of those disagreements? Me. And now we come to the third and final area of dispute (Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence). This involves 1. Your continued failure to produce direct quotes upon request ("Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt") and 2. Your blatant editorializing ("Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan"). How many times do I have to spell things out for you? The biggest problem is not that Hitchens accuses Moore of changing his mind on Osama and Afghanistan. It is that you, as a mere Wikipedia editor, by saying "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan" (emphasis mine), unwittingly mean to suggest that Hitchens is correct, and that at some point Moore did indeed changed his mind, later coming out in support of war in Afghanistan, when he has done no such thing. How can one propose alternate wording if you don't agree on this basic error? Moore has consistently opposed Bush Administration action in Afghanistan, and has printed enough anti-war sentiment on his homepage, but he was willing to support a serious effort to nab Osama bin Laden and put him on trial.[21][22]

It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice.

— Michael Moore

[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. [...] So for all their talk about wanting to get bin Laden, they made a half-hearted attempt to do it, because they didn't want to divert resources from what their main goal was, which was to go in and invade Iraq.

— Michael Moore

What I said on November 2nd still holds true today: "Instead of allowing readers to follow both sources and to make up their own mind, you make your own determination as to which individual is correct, and proceed to edit this article based on the premise that Moore indeed flip-flopped, and has failed to provide an answer as to why he did so. Instead of describing the controversy, your edits have the unintended effect of actively coming down in favour of one side of it!" Now, do you agree that the section is disputed and needs improvement -- yes or no? Dynablaster (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply- I can't work out if you can't read or don't want to. All the evidence you ask for was provided long ago. That was settled long ago. Some of the quotes you ask for are in the text of the section you want to dispute. I don't know what more there is to say. To describe yourself as having "won" the argument here is also disingenuous at best. You started off trying to mass remove criticism, then you tried to mass remove sources, now you're down to trying to get a tag installed. Someone has indeed been forced to back down, but it wasn't me.

As for the demand to know if I believe the article can do with improvement, of course it can, most articles can do with improvement. But they don't get there by having partisans like you slap tags on and refuse to propose alternative rewrites to be debated civilly on the talk page, then implemented. I keep asking you for rewrites, you don't propose any here. The problem with your last attempt was you didn't get consensus as asked, you went and randomly did it by yourself.

As I noted above, you keep claiming stuff that isn't true, and you ignore my previous post pretty much entirely. I pointed out that the claim you complain of is made nowhere in that section. It is also stupid because I quote you agreeing that the claim is false, and saying earlier you would never dispute it. It's also stupid because the way it is written now imputes it as no more than Hitchen's opinion. And seriously, don't waste my time asking yet again for a quote that Hitch or Kopel say this. They've been provided over and over again. And pasted on this page over and over again. It's just getting wearying. They don't say exactly what the text says, but that's because it's not a quote, it is a paraphrase. A paraphrase of stuff that has been repeatedly explained to you and quoted all over this page. As a helpful hint, most of the quotes you don't address about Moore being initially opposed to the war come from Moore's own mouth, on Sept 15 on his own blog in 2001. I'm not sure how much more "initial", since those comments precede the war. Kopel and Hitchens obviously agree, because that's their take on his position, quoted to you ad naseum.JJJ999 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that user JJJ999 has once more failed to provide direct quotes. He keeps waving his arms in the air, insisting they exist somewhere on the page. The rest is falsehood and incomprehensible gibberish. "I pointed out that the claim you complain of is made nowhere in that section. It is also stupid because I quote you agreeing that the claim is false, and saying earlier you would never dispute it. It's also stupid because the way it is written now imputes it as no more than Hitchen's opinion." Say what? And then he comes out with this nugget: "They [Hitchens and Kopel] don't say exactly what the text says, but that's because it's not a quote, it is a paraphrase". Inaccurately paraphrased, I put forward. Furthermore, he was advised by a third editor not to remove the 'dispute' tag if it happened to be restored. (diff) He ignored that counsel and deleted the tag regardless (so much for consensus building). His edit summary is a real blast. (diff) I have explained my objection to this particular section many more times than is necessary. I cannot be held at fault if JJJ999 cannot understand why his editing is not quite up to scratch (a fact he seems to acknowledge by asking for alternative wording). Of course everything must be run by him first, because he owns this page, and nobody is allowed to do anything without his permission first, lest you be accused of sock puppetry or being a Moore partisan. Dynablaster (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• What you just wrote is so convuluted, it's astounding. Your reply of "say what?" and then an irrelevent ramble is unhelpful to say the least. Nor have I asked for your help to revise it, I merely say you need to provide an alternative text if you want it revised. And you do. Otherwise there is no discussion process. The part about Hitchens being paraphrased you obviously didn't understand, because it has no relevance to the point you think it does. The rest of what you say is rubbish or was dealt with. Let's limit this to one claim at a time, so hopefully by the time 2 days is up you have gotten somewhere productive. While you're thinking up the proposed wording changes, here is my first question that I want answered in your next post (we'll get through your other claims one by one). And by asking it, I'm not inviting you to respond with a straw man. I posted above the following:
• You don't want me to say "Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan" yet you concede on the talk page earlier: "I have not once argued that Moore wasn't initially in opposition".
• Now, for your first act of reply please tell me how your two statements are consistent, and whether you dispute the veracity of the claim that Moore opposed the war initially. This is one of your more obvious inconsistencies, and I'd like an answer for it straight up thanks.JJJ999 (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have got a nerve, after the intoxicated drivel you posted this morning, to say my response is convoluted. But okay, let's try again. Firstly, there is no "2 day" deadline. Template messages are not decorative ornaments. The purpose is, in part, to alert editors to an ongoing area of dispute, encouraging them to visit the talk page and share their thoughts. A message on the bottom of the tag says: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Therefore the tag stays in place until the dispute is fully resolved.

Here is the disputed text:

Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a 'fair trial', drawing doubt on his guilt. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan.

My first argument, simply put, is that the adverb "initially" opposed (at first; in the first place; at the beginning) is being used here to imply a shift in Michael Moore's position regarding "the war in Afghanistan" (i.e. Moore later reversed himself and came out in support of the war). This is the argument advanced by Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel. As editors, we must be careful to use neutral language, not supporting or favouring either side. Your edit is unhelpful because it attaches value to the argument of the aforementioned critics.

A second concern is sourcing. I have read both Hitchens and Kopel, yet am unable to find where they charge that "Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan." This, it seems to me, is a poor rendering of their actual written work. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that you are putting words in their mouth. I will happily withdraw my second objection if you produce a source, otherwise let us accurately describe what it is they have to say.

Once these areas of dispute are settled, we might then begin to consider implementing some counter viewpoints. Stephen Himes and Chris Parry both argue that Michael Moore never changed his mind on Osama's guilt, and that he was simply trying to make a case for due process. The weekend is almost over, and I have a busy week ahead of me, but I will try and respond as soon as possible, if someone else doesn't intervene in the mean time. Dynablaster (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Tags don't stay if there is no dispute, and if you go back to duck and cover tactics where you don't engage, then there is no dispute in any meaningful sense. I'll say no more on this because your rants are taking up a substantial amount of space.
  • Let's be very clear with each of your claims:

1) ::My first argument, simply put, is that the adverb "initially" opposed (at first; in the first place; at the beginning) is being used here to imply a shift in Michael Moore's position regarding "the war in Afghanistan" (i.e. Moore later reversed himself and came out in support of the war). This is the argument advanced by Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel. As editors, we must be careful to use neutral language, not supporting or favouring either side. Your edit is unhelpful because it attaches value to the argument of the aforementioned critics.

Reply-a) I am going to try not to call you a weasel, but you're making it hard. I asked you balls out in relation to this very point in my last post how you justified this remark given you had previously expressed the exact opposite view. In fact, it was the only question I asked you to address in your reply. You have not done so. So, to point out (once more) the reasons:

a) You admitted yourself only a few posts ago "I have not once argued that Moore wasn't initially in opposition". Given you say this, you don't seem to dispute the veracity.

b) The reason you didn't question the veracity earlier is because I posted a number of very long quotes from Moore's own webpage (which Kopel reproduces on his webpage too) where he says stuff like "do not go to war" etc. When I quoted this mass of evidence to you, your reply was "Why do you keep reproducing meaningless quotes. Are you trying to win a strawman argument?" I could charitably assume you're just very confused? Anyway, the first and most damning collection of these quotes from Moore come from September the 15th 2001. It's hard to get much more initial than that. I have certainly never seen anything from Moore pre-2003 in favour of the Afghanistan war. If you can find it, please show us. My "interpretation" (which is written in a way that imputes that view to Hitch and Kopel anyway, but let's brush that aside a moment) is the same interpretation Kopel, Hitchens, Scarborough, etc are taking, it also happens to be what Moore says out of his own mouth, and what you conceded only 2 posts ago.

c) What is particularly annoying is this continual Himes and Co business. I'll explain politely and clearly why they are irrelevant. The claim you have a problem with is that Moore initially opposed the war. The thing is, the meat of that claim comes from Moore's own lips. Himes and Co are replying to an incident during a debate with Hitchens. The two are separate. The most obvious proof of his opposition to the war comes from his quotes. The remark he made about Bin Laden being "innocent until proven guilty" is relevant for being an inconsistent comment, but not because that comment in and of itself indicated support for, or against, the war (though Hitchens certainly imputed it to). This is one of the main reasons Himes view on the text of the debate is mentioned (I included it) but unhelpful. Because he never rebuts the claim that Moore initially opposed the war in all those other places, just as he never defends Moore from numerous charges of lying in his film. All he does is say that the single claim that Osama was "innocent until proven guilty" did not amount to opposition to the war. But while that statement is an important criticism in itself, we don't actually need it to prove Moore initially opposed the war. As you admitted yourself (and have refused to address)- "I have not once argued that Moore wasn't initially in opposition". The text doesn't say "Moore's remarks at the debate prove he initially opposed the war", it says only that he "initially" supported the war period (not because of that remark), and is written in a way that most readers would impute to be Hitchen's opinion anyway (not that it needs to be, given the mass of sources showing it to be true). If you dispute this premise, which you assured me earlier you didn't, then you have to actually address the mass of evidence (like Moore's own words), which all show he opposed it.

2)Your last claim about Hitchens and Kopel is too absurd to put into words. I will provide a brief reply because I want to focus on one argument at a time, because in my experience with you that's all you can handle without derailing it. Hitchens certainly references Kopel's work, and a quote Hitch has in the very paragraph you refer to has his thoughts on this and how "he believes he understands the convenience of this late conversion" or something to that effect. Kopel reproduces Moore's quotes en masse and accuses him of inconsistency, so a rebuttal to this second point really requires you to address the first one anyway. The section on Kopel from Afghanistan is very clear on this:

Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and (emphasis added) Opposed the Afghanistan War

Deceit 32

Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden "a two month head start" by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. (On HBO, Moore explicitly claimed that the U.S. is protecting bin Laden in order to please the Saudis.) However, Moore has not always been so fierce demanding that the Afghanistan War be prosecuted with maximal power in order to get bin Laden.

Kopel then quotes Moore as I have done above, exact same quotes literally, and then adds after covering this in depth "[Moore response: none.]" There could be much more added to this claim in the way of evidence, the Scarborough interview would be another good example of Hitch for example coming out and saying he has flip flopped and ducked him, but let's stick to the first claim. In fact, I am not going to get bogged down in this second claim at all, or respond seriously to claims for masses of evidence, until you address the first claim properly.JJJ999 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999: The claim you have a problem with is that Moore initially opposed the war. The thing is, the meat of that claim comes from Moore's own lips.

False dichotomy. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between someone who initially opposed the war before reversing themselves and supporting the war, and someone whose position has remained consistent, by opposed the war from the beginning to the present time. You also appear incapable of understanding the difference between someone who supports intervention on very specific grounds -- to apprehend the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks -- and someone who supports military intervention for the much boarder goals espoused by the Bush Administration. Moore has invariably ridiculed and criticised the war effort. Therefore it is prejudicial language to say "Moore initially opposed the war" when there is nothing concrete to say he changed his mind along the way. Instead that view must be attributed to Hitchens and Kopel without POV pushing from you. Good grief, this is not difficult to understand. Read WP:NPOV.

JJJ999: Himes and Co are replying to an incident during a debate with Hitchens. The two are separate.

No, they are inextricably linked. Their debate at the Telluride Film Festival is at the very heart of the matter. Allow me to quote Christopher Hitchens from his 2004 Slate magazine piece "Unfairenheit 9/11":

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him.

And now Stephen Himes in his reply to Hitchens:

Hitchens' Slate article "Unfairenheit 9/11: The Lies of Michael Moore" was a rocket-propelled grenade launched directly at the Moore convoy... So what's got him so riled up? The source of pure venom in the article -- indeed, of his media blitz against Moore since 2002 -- seems to stem from a confrontation in late 2002 at the Telluride Film Festival.

And Christopher Parry:

Slate's resident Bush apologist [...] Chris Hitchens, pulled an absolute kneecap job on Michael Moore yesterday with an article entitled Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore. In it, he wrote all manner of allegation about Moore's new film, peeing on it from a great height, calling it "crap"... Well, I couldn't let that stand...

JJJ999: Hitchens certainly references Kopel's work

You have it backwards. Kopel references Hitchens article, not the other way around.

JJJ999: I am not going to get bogged down in this second claim at all, or respond seriously to claims for masses of evidence, until you address the first claim properly

I have addressed the first issue to you, several times in fact; you are just incapable of understanding logic. I am trying to boil this dispute down to its most basic sticking points, whereas you expect me to address some non-contradiction in my earlier reply to you. Stop running around in circles. If you want to say that Moore initially opposed the war, then you need to show that Moore subsequently supported the war. You obviously cannot do this, therefore we need to move on to discuss and agree on neutral wording. Then we can attribute notable viewpoints to each respective individual. Dynablaster (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• You just conceded the entire argument

Your remark here shows how much you've missed the point: False dichotomy. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between someone who initially opposed the war before reversing themselves and supporting the war, and someone whose position has remained consistent, by opposed the war from the beginning to the present time.

You've gone back to making vague criticisms that dodge the quotes. You seem to flat out concede in this remark that he initially opposed the war, then go on to talk about changing positions or whatever. How his future position remains relevant is unclear to me, as the text of the first and relevant part of the disputed material reads: Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a "fair trial", drawing doubt on his guilt. You don't seem to oppose at all that he initially opposed the war. You certainly don't dispute he said Osama should receive a fair trial. I'm confused what part of this you have established any doubt over. What you claimed to be the problem was the word "initially", yet you've conceded several times now that he did. Nothing in that sentence imputes Moore to have not changed his mind, indeed the sentence makes it clear he has. You have also predictably dodged my earlier challenge (again).

Second claim- "You also appear incapable of understanding the difference between someone who supports intervention on very specific grounds -- to apprehend the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks -- and someone who supports military intervention for the much boarder goals espoused by the Bush Administration."

This one is actually more bizarre because you move no closer to addressing my many quotes on this. I provided the flood of material from Moore claiming he opposed any war, and you don't address why such obvious remarks as "do not go to war", etc, shouldn't be taken at face value. The common way of reading them seems to be the way Kopel, Hitchens, and everyone has read them. Himes offers no defence of his Sept 15 remarks. You provide no counter point from Moore, and none of Himes material and so on defends the quotes and material I've used. Therefore imputing an alternative view as you want, that his position is other than he says, would be OR, unless Himes and Co actually defend the remarks he made on Sept 15th, which they don't. That's why it's not relevant to the first point. Why is it not relevant to the 2nd bit of text (ie, "Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan"). It's evident why it doesn't touch on this part because this part is written as Hitch and Kopel's opinion, which is sourced.

Conclusion- Here are the things you have failed to do, and need to do soon, in order to establish a POV problem:

a) Go back and read the repeatedly quoted material from Moore. I will post it again at the end of this edit. Once you read it, you need to explain where the refutation or doubt is in those statements because that is the core of the claim he opposed the war initially. So far you've avoided mentioning it once.

b) Provide a single line, or more preferably, from Himes or anyone which shows that they dispute Moore's quotes on S-15 2001. Your most recent extracts show they dispute Hitchens article (though they don't actual contain any substance), and so they do. They also dispute the interpretation of his claim vis Osama's guilt. What they don't do is dispute in any way that Moore's blog openly opposed the war initially. Therefore they represent only a partial defence of Moore, by saying "well, he didn't oppose it when he said X" (but nothing about whether he opposed it when he said Y or Z). Remember, the text doesn't say "Moore opposed catching Bin Laden, or that he opposed military operations, or whatever. It says he initially opposed a war against Afghanistan. And he did. You concede this, which is just confused.

Part you haven't addressed:

Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:

"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians.

Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2001.

The next day he wrote:

Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.

...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.

"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner. JJJ999 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Section

JJJ999: How his future position remains relevant is unclear to me.

Then I will try once more to help you understand because this point is fundamental to the dispute. I believe you are cherry picking quotes from Michael Moore in order to show that he opposed the Afghanistan war in 2001, without also pointing out to readers that he still opposes the war today. I'm British, so imagine if I were to write: "Tony Blair initially supported the war in Afghanistan." Uninformed readers might infer from this statement that Tony Blair subsequently shifted his position, turning against the war at a later point in time. It is not necessary to say that Person X initially opposed/supported the war if their position has not altered. In Michael Moore's case, he supported police/military action to bring the 9/11 culprits to justice, but he did not, and still does not, support the wider war aims declared by the Bush Administration, nor the unstated reasons for going to war. Moore believes that energy development was an additional motivating factor in the intervention, remember; and he has incessantly criticized the massive aerial campaign, which he predicted would kill too many innocent people, enflaming the situation and increasing the likelihood of greater acts of terrorism.

What makes this undue emphasis (on the word "initially" opposed) all the more unacceptable, is that it just so happens to correlate with the claim Hitchens and Kopel make, that Moore altered his stance in order to bash President Bush. We can quite easily quote Hitchens and Kopel to that effect -- and let readers decide for themselves -- but as Wikipedia editors we must be careful to describe the controversy from a neutral point of view.

JJJ999: The common way of reading them [Moore's remarks] seems to be the way Kopel, Hitchens, and everyone has read them. Himes offers no defence of his Sept 15 remarks. You provide no counter point from Moore, and none of Himes material and so on defends the quotes and material I've used.

Christopher Hitchens does not make a single reference to Moore's September 15 remarks. The literary critic refers instead to his debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival in the summer of 2002. And both Stephen Himes and Christopher Parry respond to Hitchens' Slate piece. Himes even reproduces a partial transcript of their debate at Telluride, where Moore says that the United States has a right to bring those they suspect of orchestrating the attacks to justice, before adding a crucial qualifier:

It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice. ... [A]ll people are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Even the worst piece of scum. (i.e. Osama bin Laden)

The first person Dave Kopel quotes in his criticism of Michael Moore's alleged flip-flop is Christopher Hitchens, from exactly the same Slate article, so as I pointed out to you earlier, the controversy is inextricably linked.

JJJ999: Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner.

Yes, but only with the specific intent of tracking down Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, as Moore himself pointed out:

[If] 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. They kept our Special Forces from going in the part of Afghanistan where bin Laden was. They kept the Special Forces out of there for two months. ... So for all their talk about wanting to get bin Laden, they made a half-hearted attempt to do it, because they didn't want to divert resources from what their main goal was, which was to go in and invade Iraq.

All of this is taking us away from the first area of dispute (in this, the third and final section). A second sticking point is obtaining precise quotations, but let us leave that to one side for the moment. I hope I have gone some way to helping you understand why we must not use prejudicial language when describing a controversy. Pay special attention to the imaginary passage on Tony Blair. Dynablaster (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply
• Just wow. I don't know where to begin. It seems like what you really want is a rewrite to show how inconsistent Moore is. I'm all for this, but it certainly wouldn't hinge on the word "initially". I will explain why.

Your latest complaint- "You act like Moore hasn't always opposed the war". I do not pretend to know what goes on inside the mind of Michael "Demagogue" Moore. If it were true that Moore had always opposed the war, there might even be some basis to reword it slightly. However that's patently false. I honestly didn't realise you were making such an insane claim. I thought you were still arguing that Moore didn't oppose the war initially. You were certainly not clear about what you did think. The distinction you now want to make to save Moore using a dictionary to define the term "war" as something else is, on the face of it, an absurd way of reading everything Moore has said. Examples:

a) There is no way to read Moore's views of 2001 as being in favour of "intervention" by the US, but just not a "war" to anyone who understands what the term "war" means. You don't support an intervention when you call Al-Queda and the Taleban Government "an invisible enemy" (he adds for good measure "Declare war?" War against whom?", an attack on whom will "do nothing". In one sense you are right. Moore contradicts himself about once per public statement, twice per interview and three times per movie. In the very same paragraph he makes a contradictory claim that we should get "the Israeli's" to kill Bin Laden. How they would accomplish this without a war is unclear (Moore apparently supports assassinating Bin Laden without a trial, but not invading a country to capture him without a trial). War doesn't have to mean going in to a country for years, it can be really short. There are all sorts of nuances about defining a war. But when you send in well over 11,000 land troops against a countries will, knowing the other country will fight you, to "arrest" someone who is effectively a government minister, you've crossed the line from nuance into "definition of a war". I mean, by your (and Michael Moore's) logic the 6 day war wasn't a war either. Because it didn't take long. This leads to the 2nd evidence of import here;

b) Moore, in the film F9-11, does 2 things. First, he mocks the number of troops sent. Let's read part of the transcript of the film:

Well, what they did was slow and small.

They put only 11,000 troops into Afghanistan.

There are more police here in Manhattan.

More in Manhattan than there are U.S. Troops in Afghanistan.

The president botched the response. He should have gone after bin Laden.

The U.S. Special Forces didn't get into the area where bin Laden was...

...for two months. - Two months?

A mass murderer [so much for that 'innocent till proven guilty' thing] who attacked the United States...

... was given a two-month head start?

Who in their right mind would do that?

- Dang! Anybody say "nice shot"? - Nice shot.

Hell of a shot.

Or was the war in Afghanistan

really about something else? [cue sinister music and oil pipeline conspiracy, and yet another contradiction, he's now opposed to the war again because it was really about oil...]

So Moore apparently now supports a force of over 11,000 troops invading Afghanistan against the will of the Government of Afghanistan... this isn't a war apparently? I'm loath to have to go and drag out some definitions of the term war, but I think sending an army (assumedly substantially bigger than 11,000) into another country against their will (eg, an invasion) in order to "capture" someone who was effectively a Government minister at the time, who the Govt had refused to hand over, qualifies as a war. If there is an argument here, it wouldn't be to change the word initially, it would be to change the word "war" to "intervention", though it's just absurd to suggest that he can oppose sending troops to fight an "invisible enemy" in Afghanistan, yet support sending an army into the country (knowing it will be resisted) and claim the 2 positions are consistent.

The 2nd thing Moore does in the film is hold Richard Clarke up as the hero of S-11 and so on. He even has interviews, one of which you can link to here (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/25/lt.04.html) where he comes out and says Clarke is right on, and he and Clarke are of one mind. Yet Richard Clarke (among other things that contradict Moore's position) has always been in favour of wiping out Al-Queda in Afghanistan (not just "bin Laden" by himself). You obviously can't do that without invading, given Al-Queda was effectively the Government. To wipe them out you are necessarily declaring war on that Government.

Now if you want this reword to reflect that Moore is a hypocrite whose position shifts repeatedly, rather than just someone whose position was initially X, and is now Y, then I am happy to oblige. But to claim his position has been consistent is absurd to the point of comedy. I agree that Moore has claimed all sorts of things at all sorts of points, from opposing to supporting the war. But the basis of your objection is that you don't like the insinuation that he shifted position. I'm afraid you are on hopeless ground there.

The last objection of relevance you make, that Hitchens doesn't reference the S-15th remarks, is probably why that sentence doesn't claim he did reference the S-15th remarks.

Just to summarise, you assumedly will be happy with a new section that reads along the lines of- Moore initially opposed a "war" on Afghanistan (quotes used) but since 2001 he has supported:

• A) Violating Afghanistan's sovereignty
• B) Sending in a force well in excess of 11,000 (he has been derisive of 11,000 as such a small force)
• C) Ignoring the wishes of the Afghan Govt, and fighting them if necessary (which it will be). However,
• D) He is opposed to staying in Afghanistan forever.

Wow, he is so anti-war. I can see how that position won't come off as at all as inconsistent in a rewrite.

JJJ999 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999: Your latest complaint- "You act like Moore hasn't always opposed the war".

Summarise my argument by all means, but do so accurately. Please do not fabricate quotes.

JJJ999: I do not pretend to know what goes on inside the mind of Michael "Demagogue" Moore

Kindly also stop name calling.

JJJ999: If it were true that Moore had always opposed the war, there might even be some basis to reword it slightly. However that's patently false.

Well, I can only go on the available record, and on this point, Michael Moore's position is abundantly clear. In response to terrorist crimes, he was willing to support military/police action to bring the perpetrators to justice, but he flatly opposed George Bush's "democracy" promotion agenda; opposed carpet-bombing the place; and opposed ulterior motives the president may have had for declaring war. He feared overreaction and unilateralism. No person familiar with Moore's output would seriously dispute any of this.

JJJ999: I thought you were still arguing that Moore didn't oppose the war initially. You were certainly not clear about what you did think.

I have tried to exaplain my objection so that anyone with the slightest understanding of Wikipedia policy may understand it. But I fear that you are 1) not familiar with the rules, and 2) so blinded by your hatred for Michael Moore that you could not see the obvious before today.

JJJ999: There is no way to read Moore's views of 2001 as being in favour of "intervention" by the US...

This is what Moore had to say four days after the attacks, when emotions were running high:

The man who occupies the White House cried today. Good. Keep crying, Mr. Bush. The more you cry, the less you will go to that dark side in all humans where anger rages to a point where we want to blindly kill. Your dad's and Reagan's old cronies -- Eagleberger, Baker, Schultz -- are all calling for you to bomb first and ask questions later. You must NOT do this. If only because you do not want to stoop to these mass murderers' level. Yes, find out who did it. Yes, see that they NEVER do it again. But GET A GRIP, man. "Declare war?" War against whom?

There is some ambiguity there.

JJJ999: In the very same paragraph he makes a contradictory claim that we should get "the Israeli's" to kill Bin Laden.

I am well aware that Moore suggested the Israelis take out Osama bin Laden, presumably because they are quite adept at that kind of thing.

If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man!

It's not clear whether he was joking or not. (If Moore was being entirely serious, then it makes a mockery of Christopher Hitchens' claim that the director was unwilling to use serious force in pursuit of Bin Laden). What is clear, however, is that Moore swiftly backed a serious effort to apprehend the perpetrators and put them on trial.

Need I remind you that Christopher Hitchens' claim rests on a conversation with the director at the Telluride Film Festival in 2002. Hitchens nowhere mentions these 2001 remarks, and neither does Kopel, so the Israeli proffer is considered original research (WP:OR). Stephen Himes and Christopher Parry are not expected to rebut your personal observations, or what you think of Mr. Moore as a person.

JJJ999: There are all sorts of nuances about defining a war.

All the more reason not to insert ones POV into this particular aspect of the controversy. As much as I believe you are misguided on this matter, I have no intention of breaking an important Wikipedia rule (WP:NPOV) by prefacing the controversy with my own interpretation of Moore's remarks. It's sad that you can't do the same.

JJJ999: But when you send in well over 11,000 land troops [...] to "arrest" someone who is effectively a government minister, you've crossed the line from nuance into "definition of a war".

Osama bin Laden sought refuge in Afghanistan. He was was not "effectively" a government minister of any kind.

JJJ999: Now if you want this reword to reflect that Moore is a hypocrite whose position shifts repeatedly, rather than just someone whose position was initially X, and is now Y, then I am happy to oblige.

I'm sure you are. Dynablaster (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Conclusion- well, none of what you write above bears on anything I said, making discussions with you further moot. You obviously don't understand what a demagogue is. Yes, Moore opposed the war. He also supported it at the same time. The fact he wants it two ways on every issue isn't something you were in favour of pushing, but apparently that is now what you want reflected (since that's obviously how it's going to read when it says he "opposes war" but supports "X, Y and Z". Now that you have outlined what you actually believe, it is an easy matter to edit the text accordingly. I would wait for input for you, but I've called for your input repeatedly. If you wish to propose alternative texts, feel free to show me. Since you've continually refused to engage on a rewrite it falls to me to "clarify" Moore's position. Feel free to add Carson or whoever with their POV (provided you have quotes)JJJ999 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely too long

I was asked to come here and give an opinion on the above exchanges. Way too long. You guys seem to be debating the facts of the matter instead of how to present them. Both sides seem to be making the case that Moore did this or did that. That's original research... What needs to happen here is that if there is controversy, teach the controversy. Present well sourced statements (from critics, Moore himself, fans, trade press, political analysis, whatever) that support the various points of view about the facts, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Arguing here about the facts themselves won't get you there. Please try a bit harder. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Talk Pages are discuss the articles, and how to improve them vis a vis WP policy. They are not for editors to discuss their own viewpoints of that material. Nightscream (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that the only way to resolve this is with a RFAr. What a waste of their valuable time to have to go that route for such as stupid and childish argument. --causa sui ^talk 18:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be much quicker if one of you chaps were kindly to examine the disputed section yourselves (i.e. "Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence") I agree 100% with what Lar says above: We must be careful not to force our own personal interpretation of the affair into the main article; instead, we must accurately attribute viewpoints accordingly, to each notable individual. User User:JJJ999 is unwilling to do this. Simply examine this diff for example: "...his current position appears to be", "...in fact...". JJJ999 further refuses to provide a source for the passage that reads: "Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore [...] has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt." Dynablaster (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

Criticism of Michael Moore stems from Christopher Hitchens. Their debate at the Telluride Film Festival is at the very heart of the matter:[23]

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell.

Dave Kopel also criticised Moore:[24]

Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner.

Stephen Himes offered a different interpretation of Moore's stated position, and actually reproduces a transcript of the Hitchens-Moore Telluride debate.[25]

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.

Christopher Parry also reaches a different conclusion:

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. [...] Moore's point was clear - in order to make a military move on another government, people or person, you need to have your ducks lined up legally. You can't just say "he's evil, so we're gonna get him," no matter how evil he may actually be. If you've got to build a case against Jeffery Dahmer, you've got to build a case against Bin Laden.

And, finally, Michael Moore himself responded to the controversy:[26]

[I]if 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. They kept our Special Forces from going in the part of Afghanistan where bin Laden was. They kept the Special Forces out of there for two months. ... So for all their talk about wanting to get bin Laden, they made a half-hearted attempt to do it, because they didn't want to divert resources from what their main goal was, which was to go in and invade Iraq.

I submit that we quote each individual respectively, allowing readers to reach their own conclusion. Dynablaster (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• 1) That isn't a proposal, because you don't propose what the text would be. A proposal highlights the part of text to be rewritten, then shows you what the new text would look like. Looking over your "proposal" it is entirely unclear if you're proposing that the whole paragraph be reduced to a handful of sentences, or that each large quote be included. Either would be a ridiculous way to write an article. You don't need to source every single word. Once statements of fact are agreed upon, we can paraphrase them. This is an encyclopaedia.
• 2) You can't propose something that edits out most of what is said (if that is the extreme you're advocating, the other extreme is unacceptable too). Instead of ignoring what is said, when you propose a new text one customarily highlights the parts of the text that are wrong, and explains why. You gloss over that here, there is no explanation of any facts being wrong.
• 3) The one thing you do address directly (at the end of the last segment) has been debunked to you about ten times now. Again, for the umpeenth time, here is Kopel saying exactly what the source says he does (deceit 32); "But the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of any force), and the factually indefensible claim that the results of the war did not help American security or harm terrorists. "JJJ999 (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• The part about Hitchen's accusing him of inconsistency has been quoted to you so many times, I'm not sure what there is to be gained from quoting it again. I've left a longer quote from him below, but his own article makes it plain as day he accuses him of inconsistency.
• For example, here is the latter half of the paragraph (you've never touched the first half, so I won't bother to address it):
  • "His current position appears to be that while he always opposed the war, he supports the US violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty in 2001, and sending in armed forces to find Bin Laden, irrespective of whether the Afghanistan Government agreed. In fact, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore's current position is inconsistent with opposition for the war, and that he has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt. Kopel says Moore has switched from opposing any use of force in Afghanistan, to supporting certain types of intervention[11] [16] Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty."
• Now, are any of these statements untrue? That is the first issue your reply should probably address. Seriously, you need to highlight what are agreed upon facts. Not keep dodging such questions.
• I'm not opposed to Parry being used as a source, but while he defends Moore, none of his defence is pertinent to most of the claims you want it to defend. You've said yourself, and I don't think you even dispute, that Moore has no problem violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty for example, and supported an intervention. Parry's remarks are not relevant except to the "innocent till proven guilty" stuff, and that's only a small part of the "here's why Moore is inconsistent" argument. The primary part of it has always stemmed from Moore's own words. Parry never hits that aspect. I've explained this before ad naseumJJJ999 (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'll leave you with yet another demonstration of Hitch's opinion, but Lord knows if you'll read it. I've shown it to you many times:
  • "HITCHENS: That‘s why I looked to see if I still had the tape, because I thought, now, a guy who was 100 percent opposed to the war in Afghanistan at the time—that‘s Michael Moore—he thought it was a war for oil, a war for pipelines, an unjust war—why is he suddenly saying he is against the Iraq war because it‘s the distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden? You follow my point here?

• • SCARBOROUGH: Of course.

• • HITCHENS: Why does someone who thought that Osama was innocent and Afghanistan was no problem suddenly switch in this way? Because unless he says that he was dead wrong all along and Osama Laden was innocent and wronged, he can‘t say that everything else is a distraction from the hunt for Osama.

• • So it‘s bait and switch. It‘s the work of a moral cretin and a political idiot. And it‘s up to the Democratic National Committee to say, do they want to continue being photographed with this man as we go into a very important election, not just in the United States, I might add, but first Democratic elections to be held in Iraq and in Afghanistan?

• • In a few months, we will know the outcome of all these. In all three cases, Michael Moore says that the enemy is George Bush and Saddam Hussein and Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Bin Laden are no problem. Indeed, they are—what a wonderful way to celebrate the Fourth of July weekend, by the way. Indeed, they are the Minutemen. They‘re the staunch American revolutionaries."
    • "Appears to be" was a concession to you. The better text would be "his position is" since you concede as much, and the sources have too. In fact, something akin to that was originally endorsed by DGG for that very reason no doubt.JJJ999 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wording the section should be easy, once you understand why your present input contravenes WP:NPOV and WP:OR. "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." With that in mind, let me spell it out for you one last time:

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a "fair trial". His current position appears to be that while he always opposed the war, he supports the US violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty in 2001, and sending in armed forces to find Bin Laden, irrespective of whether the Afghanistan Government agreed. In fact, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore's current position is inconsistent with opposition for the war, and that he has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt. Kopel says Moore has switched from opposing any use of force in Afghanistan, to supporting certain types of intervention Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty.

This is not a fair and unbiased presentation of Michael Moore's position. "Initially opposed" is a value judgment, giving readers the impression that the Fahrenheit 9/11 film director flip-flopped (precisely the claim Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel make). Where is the nuance? There is a difference between someone who is willing to support intervention on narrow grounds -- to apprehend the suspected perpetrators of the September 11 attacks -- and someone who supports military intervention for the much boarder goals espoused by the Bush Administration. A persuasive argument can be made that Moore has always opposed the war in Afghanistan. He has invariably ridiculed and criticised President Bush's "democracy promotion" agenda; he believes that energy development was an additional motivating factor in the intervention; he has attacked the massive aerial campaign, which he predicted would kill too many innocent people, enflaming the situation and increasing the likelihood of greater acts of terrorism. I can easily provide sources for each one of these assertions, and re-write the section in a way favourable to Michael Moore. But I have absolutely no intention of doing so. Why? Because the way to correct POV pushing is not by pushing harder in the opposite direction.

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a "fair trial". His current position appears to be that while he always opposed the war, he supports the US violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty in 2001, and sending in armed forces to find Bin Laden, irrespective of whether the Afghanistan Government agreed. In fact, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore's current position is inconsistent with opposition for the war, and that he has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt. Kopel says Moore has switched from opposing any use of force in Afghanistan, to supporting certain types of intervention Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty.

His current position appears to be. No, this is wrong. Moore acknowledged that the United States had a right to pursue and apprehend those considered responsible for the September 11 attacks six years ago, in 2002, and possibly earlier. To quote him directly: "It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice." [27] He later attacked George Bush in his film for messing this up; the one aspect of intervention he was willing to support.

[H]e supports the US violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty in 2001. And this is original research. Seriously, where did you get it from?

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a "fair trial". His current position appears to be that while he always opposed the war, he supports the US violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty in 2001, and sending in armed forces to find Bin Laden, irrespective of whether the Afghanistan Government agreed. In fact, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore's current position is inconsistent with opposition for the war, and that he has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt. Kopel says Moore has switched from opposing any use of force in Afghanistan, to supporting certain types of intervention Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty.

In fact. And now you juxtapose a statement of objective fact with your earlier misrepresentation of Moore's stated position, giving readers the impression that none of this is in any doubt, further detracting from the neutral tone of the article.

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a "fair trial". His current position appears to be that while he always opposed the war, he supports the US violating Afghanistan's soveriegnty in 2001, and sending in armed forces to find Bin Laden, irrespective of whether the Afghanistan Government agreed. In fact, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore [...] has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt. Kopel says Moore has switched from opposing any use of force in Afghanistan, to supporting certain types of intervention Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty.

I have asked politely, many times, that you supply direct quotes from both sources in support of this sentence. Today, you finally produced something concrete from Dave Kopel's website. Unfortunately, Kopel does not say what you claim he says, nor anything near. And you dismissed my request for a similar quotation from Hitchens altogether, reproducing passages that have no bearing on the challenged material. Dynablaster (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Response

Try to stay on the top 3 levels of this pyramid. Right now, <-- you are somewhere between 4 and 6. --causa sui ^talk 06:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as usual there is alot wrong with what you've said. I'll try to keep it as short as possible.
• 1) In noting the "bias" of the current wording, you write; "There is a difference between someone who is willing to support intervention on narrow grounds -- to apprehend the suspected perpetrators of the September 11 attacks -- and someone who supports military intervention for the much boarder goals espoused by the Bush Administration". I don't know what you think those "goals" are, because nowhere in the article is there mention of them. Yes, I know what Moore thinks they are, that's not the point. It simply says he opposed the war initially, which you don't dispute. The reason he's been criticised is because the only way he resolves his initial opposition to the war is to use a dictionary. It is not POV pushing to write something which is factually correct. His initial position is in broad contradiction with his subsequent position to the extent that it isn't merely "an opinion" or OR, it is simply an account of facts which are not disputed in any way by Moore or your sources. If you imagine it makes him sound like a flip flopper, it is probably more telling of what your honest assessment of him is than of the way the text is written.
• 2) Imagine if the section were to be rewritten for a moment. What would it look like? It would need to explicitly point out the contradiction betweem Moore opposing a "war", but supporting a violation of Afghanistan's soveriegnty, without the "delay" of the Bush administration, and using well over 11,000 troops. I'm sorry to confuse you again, but that is the definition of a war. It isn't OR for us to apply basic concepts of the English language in writing about his position. It is plainly inconsistent.
• 3) The rest of what you say about Hitchens/Kopel, etc, is so tenuous and disingenuous I can't be bothered replying to it. You didn't really address my quotes, you didn't reply to the key questions I asked (are certain facts conceded by you?, what text exactly should go and exactly what should replace it?) Instead of prompting yet more lengthly back and forth, I am going to propose a new text below that nullifies your imagined complaints once and for all.JJJ999 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've repeated the arguments so much that I see little benefit doing so again and again, only for him to ignore the questions I ask again and again. I often ask Dynadude "do you believe X" or "I have only one question for you, Y", and as usual those issues are not addressed. I'm going to move forward by proposing a text which is beyond criticism. Of course, the new text is more critical of Moore, so Dynadude will be annoyed. But the criticisms of Moore are now almost entirely reduced to quotes.122.148.218.27 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1) You are still taking sides. It is important to describe Michael Moore's position as accurately as possible, without framing the controversy in a way favourable to one side. If we can show that Moore supported a concerted effort to bring the suspected plotters to justice, while opposing the war more broadly, then that is the position we must describe. (Moore wasn't alone in this. Many other people argued that the Afghanistan intervention should have been prosecuted like a "police operation", resorting to force when necessary in support of that goal. See military historian Michael Howard writing in Foreign Affairs for example. [28] But that is besides the point.) You have no right to redact Moore's stated position, or make a personal judgement as to its validity, siding, as you have, with two of his most fierce critics, then writing the section in an overtly lopsided manner, where anyone who fails to see Moore's "hypocrisy" is relegated to a mere handful of words. If I wrote "George Bush initially supported the war", or "Tony Blair initially supported the war", or "John Howard initially supported the war", editors could reasonably revert the article.

2) This is your POV. Don't you see? You are telling me that Moore's position "is plainly inconsistent" and that we "need to explicitly point out the contradiction" to readers! It's bad enough that you dictate the tone of this section, having decided that Moore is incorrect and his critics correct, but you further add personal observations regarding Afghanistan's "sovereignty", which is nowhere mentioned by the principle sources. Your rewrite is untenable and in contravention of two core Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

3) You need to produce direct quotes in support of the text. If you say Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel charge that "he [Moore] has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt", then you should have no difficulty reproducing the relevant portions of text in support of said statement. Dynablaster (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

New version

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, notes that Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." Hitchens and Kopel note that Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and "he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty...The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified." Joe Scarborough criticises Moore for inconsistency, noting Moore argues "that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy." Moore claims that while he always opposed the war, he supported the US incursion into Afghanistan, in fact in the film, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel also charge that Moore's position on the war has been inconsistent. Hitchens asks "Why does someone who thought that Osama was innocent and Afghanistan was no problem suddenly switch in this way? Because unless he says that he was dead wrong all along and Osama Laden was innocent and wronged, he can‘t say that everything else is a distraction from the hunt for Osama. So it‘s bait and switch. It‘s the work of a moral cretin and a political idiot." Kopel writes that "Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner...the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of any force)" Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty. Hitchens has challenged Moore to debate the issue with him several times.

This has exactly the same problems highlighted previously. You need to read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Dynablaster (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculously inadequete and absurd response to a largely rewritten and complex paragraph. It shows once more how you are not serious about improving this section, or engaging constructively.JJJ999 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The only discernible difference between this version and the last version, is you have added more criticism of Moore. I explained in detail why your edits break two core Wikipedia policies (see reply above your post) but you walked right by. Dynablaster (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I want to find a way to say something other than "you're lying", but it's proving hard. This version varies considerably from previous ones. People now only say things via quotes or sources, which was your key point of contention. You can't just offer a glib sentence in reply and run off again.JJJ999 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

User JJJ999 correctly removed a link (arguing in support of Michael Moore) to a homepage from the main article, explaining in his edit summary: "[S]omebodies blog is not a source with sufficient gravitas to be used". (diff) But in his very next edit, he adds a bunch of links that are critical of Michael Moore, that include personal homepages and letters pages! (diff) Dynablaster (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • While you're posting left, right and center, would you mind commenting on the new text above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• While we're at it, how about Parry? He is not a credible source at all. Let's cover him, then we'll move to the sources you mass deleted without any evidence. DGG didn't oppose the version with them included. In fact, while we're at it let's get this tag nonsense out of the way. You want to add sources that are the contrary position? Fine. But you can't just tag it with a one line assertion of "unbalanced" in the edit line. DGG cleared the previous version, which has the same proportion of criticism to praise as this one.JJJ999 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Parry is a perfectly valid source. There are 98 references to eFilmCritic on Wikipedia. Parry is quoted because he reviewed Fahrenheit 9/11 and contended that Hitchens misconstrued several key points in the film. Dynablaster (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• • 98 wrongs don't make a right. It reads like a blog, and I don't think this man has any credentials as a 3rd party source.JJJ999 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And btw, out of sheer curiousity can I please see the evidence that there are exactly 98 references to efilmcritic on wikipedia. Not that it matters, but I want to see it.JJJ999 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see here Dynablaster (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced section

JJJ999: [L]et's get this tag nonsense out of the way. You want to add sources that are the contrary position? Fine. But you can't just tag it with a one line assertion of "unbalanced" in the edit line. DGG cleared the previous version, which has the same proportion of criticism to praise as this one.

Stop dragging DGG's name into this. His contribution was limited to a single area of dispute, which he helped to settle (in my favour), but has had no further input since November 6, and is not folowing the matter. (diff) The edit(s) that prompted tagging were made yesterday, on December 17.

In the opening section alone, Christopher Hitchens is cited 6 times; Dave Kopel 3 times; Ed Koch 1 time. All get to call Fahrenheit 9/11 "propaganda". Hitchens also calls Moore a "completely promiscuous opportunist" and "an extremely callous person". Joe Scarborough is cited twice, critical of Moore on both occasions. Bernard-Henri Levy is also critical. Andrew Exum calls the film a "simplistic" rant, adding "the film is biased, unfair and maddening". Only 2 people are quoted in defence of the film, but both also agree that Moore's film is "propaganda". There are plenty of sources who speak positively of Moore's work. Where are they? The section is unbalanced. It should not take long to correct this (I will try and pay some attention to this aspect at the weekend). Until such time as balance is restored, please do not remove the tag. Dynablaster (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence beyond your personal feeling that many people have defended Moore. You need to produce sources. Please remember, that praise of the film if not the same as defending the integrity of the film from the criticism within this section. A reviewer writing "this wasa very enjoyable film, I really liked the pacing too" is not pertinent to a discussion about the criticisms of Moore's films. You need to produce more than mere "praise", you need to produce sources that defend Moore from the charges made. I don't think this has ever been done seriously on any sort of scale, probably because more people realised very quickly they weren't defensible. The only defences I have seen offered are all of the Holding variety (which is mentioned btw), namely "the film is deceptive... but I think we need some left wing propoganda". Now it's fine to include such defences, but I'm not convinced the sort you imagine exist do.JJJ999 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried looking? Obviously not. ' Moore's film is a piece of garbage, and the reason there is much negativity on the page, is because Moore's film is a piece of garbage'. That is circular reasoning, my friend. I am prepared to restore balance, to the best extent possible, when I'm not wasting my limited time replying to you! Dynablaster (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• As the person who has added most of the sources to this page in the last few months I think I have considerable credibility on the "have I looked at sources" front. On the other hand you've added nothing substantive in your many attempts to defend Moore beyond an "e-critic"/blog source, that probably doesn't merit 3rd party status.JJJ999 (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You keep writing these long replies, yet claim you have no time to find these "easy to find" sources. It sounded silly the first time, it's just gotten to be a farce at this point. If you lack the time to engage in constructive editing here, then the dispute ends. Present these alternative sources, or go away.JJJ999 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cooling-off period

I'm blocking you both for 55 hours so you can cool off. I hope you return after your blocks willing to negotiate. --causa sui ^talk 07:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

Both of your blocks have now expired, but I'm leaving this page protected. You have until the page protection is expired to propose changes here and discuss your revisions. After page protection is expired, I will not protect it again in the event of edit warring, but will simply block edit warring parties. So let's use this time to get a real discussion going.

As I understand it, we have an objection that is missing positive reviews of the film. Where are these reviews? I've taken the liberty of making some categories that we can fill out. Please list them here and we'll talk about which sources merit inclusion and it what manner. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] ^talk 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the main area of contention. The section that has generated most heat is Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence. Might we approach that issue first and come back to this shortly afterward? Dynablaster (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Positive reviews already in the article

1. one
2. two
3. three

Negative reviews already in the article

1. one
2. two
3. three

Positive reviews not in the article

1. one
2. two
3. three

Negative reviews not in the article

1. one
2. two
3. three

• I actually have no issue with the article as it is now presented (except that like all articles it can be improved over time). Thus, I think this role falls to Dynaguy, and I will correct him by adding or removing reviews if I feel he has missed something. The thing is, there are simply too many reviews and comments on this subject to give you an exhaustive list. I personally feel that as far as the subject matter of this article (the integrity of the film) the reviews have been overwhelmingly negative. As such I would not expect an equal amount of positive defence of the film. If Dynaguy can find examples to gainsay me then I'm happy for them to be added. However he has shown no interest in this. The majority of the reviews which "defend" the film are of the following variety:
  • a) The film is really enjoyable, I give it 5 stars, and
  • b) Moore's film is propoganda... but I think the Left needs a propogandist.
• I really haven't seen the independent 3rd party sources who defend Moore. I'd like to, for intellectual curiousity as much as anything, but every media coverage I have read has been absent a real defence as regards the criticisms made (lack of balance in the film, lack of integrity and journalistic standards, film contains misinformation, etc).
• The second issue of dispute is the paragraph above which I asked Dynaguy for commentary on, and which he has declined to criticise. It is just above, and I would appreciate a commentary on whether it accurately reflects the sources (which is what is disputed). I have reproduced the paragraph here:

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, notes that Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." Hitchens and Kopel note that Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and "he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty...The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified." Joe Scarborough criticises Moore for inconsistency, noting Moore argues "that Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country. Complete hypocrisy." Moore claims that while he always opposed the war, he supported the US incursion into Afghanistan, in fact in the film, he criticises the US for sending "only" 11,000 troops. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel also charge that Moore's position on the war has been inconsistent. Hitchens asks "Why does someone who thought that Osama was innocent and Afghanistan was no problem suddenly switch in this way? Because unless he says that he was dead wrong all along and Osama Laden was innocent and wronged, he can‘t say that everything else is a distraction from the hunt for Osama. So it‘s bait and switch. It‘s the work of a moral cretin and a political idiot." Kopel writes that "Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner...the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of any force)" Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty. Hitchens has challenged Moore to debate the issue with him several times.

JJJ999 (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've asked me repeatedly to comment on this, but I have hesitated to do so because I am concerned that it would interfere with my capacity to act as any kind of moderator in this dispute. That is, if I made comments critical of your revision, it may create the image that I have somehow sided with Dynaguy, which is not an impression I want to make. I have my own opinions, but right now I want to get this resolved through civil discussion between the interested editors and I am loathe to become a party in this content dispute. As this has the potential to become more serious, it's important that I don't undermine the legitimacy of my using sysop rights to get it resolved. --causa sui ^talk 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Look, I'm all for discussion, but Dynaguy is not. Where is he? He's literally written no more than a sentence in reply to the next text, and he's offered no new sources. At some point you have to put up or shut up. But he just keeps gaming the system. I'm not going to do his job for him. If he doesn't find any new sources by the time the protection on the page is over, I feel the tag should go. What is your view? How long does he get? He's had weeks so far, and there's been no sources offered.JJJ999 (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I work in retail and Christmas is a busy period. Please bear with me. I am prepared to add other viewpoints in an effort to restore balance, but we need help resolving the main conflict, and the tag should remain in place until the dispute is settled. Dynablaster (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses. You've had weeks. You can't just hold out indefinitely like this.JJJ999 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Had weeks for what, exactly? You cannot seriously be suggesting that I have ignored you. Dynablaster (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Depends which failure we're talking about. You've had months and months to propose something constructive. Obviously you've had less time than that to provide sources which support your claims vis balance. Either way, your record of engagement here is poor to say the least. If you haven't provided meaningful engagement by the time the protection wears off, then as far as I'm concerned you've failed your burden to keep them. And just so we're clear, nothing you've done so far approaches engagement on the questions I've posed.JJJ999 (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)