Jump to content

Talk:The Path to 9/11/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Scene with Sandy Berger

This text is very confusing. Tenet "called off an operation which never ever happened in the first place"? How can you call off a non-existing operation? Please clarify. --KarlFrei 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarified and re-wrote the paragraph. Hope this helps. I shoulda been more specific. This is just like being in English Comp again. :) TabascoMan77 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh and other NPOV issues

I deleted a series of one-sided, unfair, and unsourced series of comments, and tried to make the artical more factual and less opinionated and biased. :Please sign your posts in talk pages. JTrattner 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my rollback based on the above, but think that it might be best to come to consensus here prior to making large deletes such as the one just done. Kukini 05:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I feel there are significant issues with objectivity here. There are several assertions that are made that are unsourced (e.g. about a producer being Rush Limbaugh's friend, about copies of the documentary being shown to "right wing" outlets and not "left wing" ones, etc, etc). There is a clear attempt to report your opinion instead of factual information.JTrattner 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It was not my writing, but that of another author. You might consider putting [citation needed] next to the statements in question instead of deleting paragraphs without discussion in the future as well. Kukini 06:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I am kind of new to this. I just found the NPOV tags, etc. How do I get the artical back to add the appropriate tags?Jeff Trattner 06:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tags I added since my change was put back in. Thanks for the help. Jeff Trattner 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I will add the first tag to show you how. Best, Kukini 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I JUST got done adding a detailed explanation of the controversy with all the links I could find that support it. No partisan opinion here. These are the facts. I'm just not sure why ABC could run this thing without fact-checking. TabascoMan77 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am moving the Rush Limbaugh section down to the controversy section since it does not belong in the overall summary of the film. I heard the broadcast where Mr. Limbaugh referred to his advanced copy and talk of the writer, Cyrus, being a "dear friend". I will cite that for you as soon as I find the date. I am deleting section stating that left-wing individuals were denied advanced copies due to the fact that I can find no articles supporting this assertion. I will leave the alleged Sandy Berger cancellation of a Bin Laden capture plan since the 9/11 Commission 9/11 Commission report clearly states that Mr. Berger was informed of the plan, but gave no order to terminate the operation. Details are fuzzy on who made the call. Whether it was the CSG, NSC, George Tenet, or the White House (a cabinet level official) is not firmly asserted in the report. Angelo Vescio IV 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Jenzwick 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)jenzwick

Producers

I put in the list from ABC, but the credits of night 2 indicate several other producers. Jeff Trattner 09:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Composite characters? Compressed timelines?

I came to this article searching for some (universally agreed) facts that revealed which characters were deliberately composited, purely for the sake of creative and time constraints. The warning is given throughout the show but nowhere is a catalogue of corrections/clarifications presented. Wikipedia would be an ideal starting point. A simple list of undisputed facts would aid an uninitiated viewer who had just switched on the show because it was interesting, but normally wouldn't be interested in historical topics. Wikipedia is more suited to be a historical resource than a TV show, which must (sometimes, not always) make compromises between entertainment and unlimited disclosure. Whophd 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Stone did the same thing in "JFK". Something as complicated as 9/11 or JFK's assassination would require such composites, etc, unless the movie was to be 15 hours long, and starring 300 actors. Dubc0724 02:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OK but I'm not complaining about the fact it happened. I'm asking for a list of major differences from reality to be canvassed here, in Wikipedia.Whophd 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimers aired during the movie?

I watched about one hour and thirty minutes of the first half in the UK on BBC2. There was a disclaimer at the beginning of the program, however, there were none in the part I watched within the program itself. Doubly so since BBC2 don't show 'adverts' in the middle of an airing.

Is it true that the BBC2 version was shown without a disclaimer during the airing? If so, where do I put this in the article? PeterCT 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know on ABC the disclaimer was shown once an hour during and before and after the showing of the first segment. Why would BBC edit out the disclaimers?--Exander 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
They may have been included after the program was given to the BBC. I could have simply missed them though, hence the question ;) PeterCT 07:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Seven Network Australia showed one warning before each night's broadcast. Both nights included normal commercial breaks as with any other TV show.Whophd 13:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How the film was marketed

Without getting into whether the film was factual or not, shouldn't a section on its, let's say, unusual marketing be discussed? I don't think we have seen many dramatized films advertised as "exactly what happened". Wouldn't that be notable? I'm looking for guidance on how and where to place such a section. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that something like that should be added. As discussed further up the page, internationally it seems the film was portrayed as a much more accurate account than it was in the US. While I don't have any video links or anything, the promotion in New Zealand from TV One was very much in the 'see how it all came to be' direction. Basically implying genuine accuracy. The disclaimers were present at the beginning of both programmes (although only once per programme).
The Channel 7 trailer in Australia advertised this as the "official true story" of 9/11 (video here). According to bloggers, online ads touting the program's "truth" were not pulled before broadcast. Sandover 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I started a section called Advertising discrepancies. Please feel free to improve it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

It looks like all references to Republicans, conservatives, and former Bush administration officials who have criticised the show have been removed from the article. Explanation, please? I'm going to put at least the Bill Bennett reference back-- Infrogmation 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are sourced, add as much back as is necessary. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Moved section into controversy Jeff Trattner 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

International Version

Does anyone know if the Australian and NZ version is the unedited original? Those copies were apparently shipped before the controversy started in the US, and therefore remain unedited. It will also air before the US gets a chance to see it (given the time difference). A section should exist US / International broadcast differences. 11:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If its any help, the BBC have said the following - "The BBC are broadcasting the Path To 9/11 as planned. We will be showing the same version as is shown in the US." This is from the Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/57867 PeterCT 13:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just fnished watching the New Zealand release of the series, the removed section seems to still be included in this release. However I don't have the edited version to compare. If anyone has contacts would be worth checking up on. Adam 10:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what was meant to be edited out, but the TVNZ website says this:
"This series has aroused a storm of controversy in the United States, about the level of accuracy in some of the events depicted. As a result, the American network ABC made some late edits to the mini-series. TVNZ is screening the edited version, [...]" --Sycophant 10:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I also have just watched the entire second parter in Australia and have the whole thing on disk. I will be online for the next few hours so please, feed me questions at ckent at progsoc dot org, and we can update this wikipedia page sooner rather than later. Whophd 14:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain, but I don't recall there being a disclaimer before Part 1 of the Australian screening, but the "this is a docu-drama not a documentary," disclaimer was repeated 4 or 5 times on the second night. If anyone has the Australian version, can confirm that? 10:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing my title and quotes about veiled threat

I created a section about the controversy regarding a letter that some viewed as threatening to ABC's license. Someone keeps removing any mention of why this is controversial. Please lets work this out here and stop just deleting the section I created.Jeff Trattner 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no idea who was changing this section earlier (not me), but I just reworded it now, so I guess I will talk to you. That letter is quite obviously not a threat in any way shape or form. No hint of future action appears anywhere in the letter, which is merely an appeal to what those Senators considered to be ABC's duty to promote honest debate based on a license that was issued based on a recognition of public benefit and service. Even if one just looks at this logically, the thought that this was a threat is laughable. The FCC has the power to revoke licenses not the Senate, and the Democrats are currently in the minority in the Senate anyway. Furthermore, no senator would ever attempt to do something as silly as revoking the license of one of the major broadcasting networks. Just because one blog decided to use a rather spurious headline does not mean that anyone with half a brain would consider the letter a threat to anything. Indrian 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop insulting people. This isn't about if there was a real threat, it about the controversy whereby many people including Rush Limbaugh refer to the action as threating ABC's license. Hence its in the controversy section.
I have edited this section a couple of times, the first few times was because it was making claims about the letter's content that are not in the actual letter and disingenuous selective quoting, readers can decide for themselves if the letter's contents constitute a threat, however, since there are no consequences mentioned that even imply that their license will be revoked if the miniseries is aired, then there is no threat of any kind, veiled or otherwise. I have also edited recently because the claim that many believe it makes a threat wasn't backed up, instead an article was linked to which has the letter and a title that makes the claim, yet no-where in the blog post linked to is there anything explaining the threat that the letter doesn't contain, nor any paraphrasing demonstrating a threat contained in the letter. I'm going to out on a limb here and posit that this could be because the letter does not contain any consequences. However, since Limbaugh has such a wide reach, I left this in to explain that some claim there is a threat. This should help people decide if there is one by comparing the text from the letter and Limbaugh's statement.
It is verifiable that the letter contains no threat, it is verifiable that Limbaugh claims there is a threat. It is not verifiable, and is opinion that the letter has a threat of some kind and that many believe the *text* of the letter contains or constitutes a threat. Limbaugh has put forth some controversy, but to say that the letter is a veiled threat is simply un-encyclopaedic. To put it simply, while you may believe there is a threat, you cannot show others any of the text of the letter and say, there is the threat, right there, because a threat, by *definition* is an expression of intent to do harm. It is unverifiable and therefore, doesn't belong on wikipedia. I hope you will view my edits as a encyclopaedic compromise. PeterCT 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A talk radio personality's naked opinion of whether the Democrats' letter was a threat is non-notable. Would you post Howard Stern's opinion about it if he said something? Enough said. Further, to characterize it as a threat is without basis *unless* Disney or ABC or someone directly involved with this matter came out and said something like "We take this as a threat". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Its no more or less notable than the extensive one-sided comments in the Criticism section. Many conservatives viewed the letter as a threat, thats what I am saying. That is part of the controversy. Removing that is unencyclopedic.Jeff Trattner 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A veiled threat is not verifiable, since there is no threat in the letter by the very definition of the word 'threat'. Look just below the edit box when you change something. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. 82.16.91.162 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) - whoops, this was me, and this is just to explain why its wrong to put in the title that a veiled threat was made,. as this is unverifiable. PeterCT 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The verifiable thing is that some people viewed it as a veiled threat. Does that make sense? I agree that the title needed to be changed, but not the overall message. Jeff Trattner 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Like I mention, my edits of late were changes to the title. I'm glad at least you and I have come to a compromise. PeterCT 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence that "some people viewed it as a veiled threat". It only included a highly biased individual, Limbaugh, and "some people" isn't sourced. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ordering the Controversies sections

Why place the defense of the production ahead, in the sequence of the article, of the critics that the production is being defended against? That looks backwards -- as a matter of logic, we need to explain the criticism in order to establish context for the defense against it. --GGreeneVa 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this yesterday. Thanks for bringing this up. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
this was totally out of order: removed from an irrelevant section

he dramatized content in question is said by former Clinton Administration officials and leading Democrats, as well as some conservatives and prominent historians, to cast a negative light on the attitudes and actions of members of the Clinton Administration.[citation needed] The concerns of these critics include the degree of dramatic license taken in these scenes, the use of fabrications, and charges that the miniseries would leave viewers with an incorrect impression of what actually occurred.[citation needed]

In an official statement released on September 7, 2006, ABC defined the film as a docu-drama based on the 9/11 Commission report and clarified that it was "a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including The 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and from personal interviews".[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=60898

Edit summaries!!!

Please people, do not make massive changes to this article without clarifying what you are doing (and why) in the edit summary that accompanies that change! Much thanks, Kukini 23:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently had to roll back some deletes that came with no explanation. I saw this as necessary, in part, due to the fact that they were deleted without explanation in the edit summary. Kukini 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been doing the same. IP users can be forgiven for not knowing but many registered users are still not posting any explanations for their edits. Please use edit summaries! Gdo01 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I am concerned, IP users ALSO need to learn how to edit within the norms and rules of the wikicommunity. Kukini 01:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on cleaning up the External links section? It seems to be more a dumping ground for links that didn't make it as a source in the article and really appears to be against the external links policy. The 'supporters' seem to have undo weight (there's more of them), most of the links are to non-neutral opinion pieces (both for and against), and there's just too many links in general. As for what I think should stay: The official mini-series website, 9/11 commission report, the Think Progress tag link, and one link to a "supporter" site that is similar to the Think Progress link. --Bobblehead 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a much tighter external links section. With all references to blogs and other unofficial sources only referenced within the article's footnotes, as appropriate. Kukini 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider official sources? WP:EL does allow for links to directory type pages. Just have to make sure NPOV is maintained. --Bobblehead 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What should be linked to

  1. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link.
  2. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)
  4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
  5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.
Ah, okay. That's what I was thinking as well. Just wasn't clear if you meant some other sort of official.;) --Bobblehead 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for my shorthand. I will work on improving that. Best, Kukini 18:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With all the trouble I have had adding conservative links (and even text) here (they — and none other — kept getting summarily deleted), I admit to finding the discussion about getting rid of external links slightly distasteful.

Where links are concerned, I am for more rather than for less. A dead tree book can not suffer for an overabundance in the bibliography section or the notes section, which are "add-ons" most readers skip anyway, and which can only serve as useful guideposts to the (more) interested reader.

But never mind. I added two hyperlinks five minutes ago, one being Cyrus Nowrasteh's The Path to Hysteria, the screenwriter's reply to his critics, and the other being Robert Tumminello's (in my opinion) very level-headed, pretty neutral, and entirely admirable piece, in which he not only compares "The Path to 9/11" to Patton, to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and to Shakespeare (not to mention Emmanuel Leutze's Washington Crossing the Delaware!), he also wonders what a Dole administration would have done differently (had Bob Dole won the 1996 election) and what a Gore administration might have done differently (had Al Gore prevailed in the 2000 election). (Answer: probably not that much.) I've seen this in-depth analysis nowhere else, and I think it deserves to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs) .

Signing your posts is a good thing. Please do so by adding four tildas (~~~~) to your posts. But now that the formalities are out of the way. The External Links section isn't a dumping ground for content that an editor couldn't get added into the article. If you can't get the edits your trying to input to stick, bring your complaints to either this article's talk page, or the talk page of the person that removed it and ask for an explanation as to why it was removed. Please read the criteria Kukini posted at the top of this subsection and identify which criteria the links your adding meet. --Bobblehead 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As a beginner, I will try to remember the four tildes.

I am all for rules. Having said that, it often seems a lot of (too many?) people get touchy about the rules only when alleged conservative hyperlinks start appearing; they do not seem to have much of a problem when there is an (over?)abundance of (shall we call them) liberal viewpoints (check out the external links of Ann Coulter's Treason, every one of which (even William Buckley's) is slightly to totally negative. (Note that I have no problems with anticonservative viewpoints — and websites — but maybe a bit of balance ain't that bad, either.)

The hyperlinks for Ann Coulter's book are all book reviews. The hyperlinks I added here are all reviews of "The Path to 9/11" or commentary on the controversy which the movie had engendered (a controversy which is what most of this page is devoted to). Where is the difference? (PS: I don't care if there are 20 reviews of one of Ann Coulter's book, all of them negative; why couldn't even two reviews in favor of this movie remain here for five minutes without being deleted?)

Which brings us to this page. One day, I bring a paragraph on conservative responses to liberal criticism of this ABC movie. Within five minutes, it is deleted, along with the two hyperlinks I had provided (see "Let's not let the consevatives have too much of a say, now" above).

After much hassle and jostling, they are finally accepted (or they seem to be accepted; see below). Having given up adding any text, I then add a handful of other hyperlinks, thinking that with roughly 95% of the text and the external links being anti-ABC and pro-Clinton, maybe this section can support having some conservative thoughts and comment (through indirect links not taking up a lot of space). The following day, every single one of them is deleted (see "This is either totally outrageous or totally insane…" above).

I then wrote that I was going to put the hyperlinks (including two from the Wall Street Journal, one positive, the other negative) back in: "My argument being that if you have 95% of an article in favor of a certain point of view, it cannot harm those browsing the web too much if they have a few other POV, especially as these are not part of the article's text but form after-page addendums that the interested reader (and only he) will have to take some effort to go to. Or is that asking too much?"

Now that I do not seem to be a person taking this gratuitous entry-deleting sitting down, all of a sudden there are calls for following rules and toning down the external links (something you don't happen to see often for Ann Coulter's books), which are suddenly saddled with negative descriptions ("dumping grounds") taking the derogatory aspect of said links for granted and making "dumping ground" appear as a given. The effect of this "cleaning up" will happen — just by chance — to leave this page with the (aforementioned) 95% pro-Clinton, anti-ABC content. Well, ladies and gents, you will excuse me, but I happen to find this a bit fishy and I cannot help but wonder if this sudden enthusiasm for the rules does not somehow turn out to be self-serving. ˜˜˜˜

Questioning the motivations for the applications of policies and guidelines is not going to get anyone anywhere. Everyone has their own triggers for deciding when the rules have to be enforced. Just let it be. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't say why WP:EL isn't being enforced on other articles as I don't monitor all the articles on Wikipedia. As for the links I've removed from this article, they were all already mentioned in the article. You may also want to see the portion of WP:EL where it says one or two reviews of a creative art should be included. There are currently far more than that. It is on that basis that I'll be removing other links from the EL section in the future. It's a shame townhall.com doesn't have a tagging system similar to Think Progress's site. If it did, we could link to that tag and be done with it. Wouldn't happen to know of a conservative site that has a directory of sorts for conservative commentaries on Path to 9/11, would you? --Bobblehead 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Background of writer/producer Controversy

This controversy section is very confusing to me. Under the section "Background of writer/producer" it doesn't list anything controversial about the writer/producer, unless somehow you are required to be a Liberal in order to write movies. As far as I know, there is no law stating you must not be Libertarian/conservative to write something.JettaMann (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's funny, ABC expected two responses" says Cyrus Nowrasteh in his Interview with Investor's Business Daily. "They expected a response from the Bush administration and they expected a response from CARE … We thought there might be a fuss from the Clinton people; we just didn't expect that they would take up all of the oxygen. Which they did!" Asteriks (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added (a reference link to) the deleted scane at Investor's Business Daily. Asteriks (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


YWAM Relationship

What is the reason for mentioning the director's YWAM affiliation. What does that have to do with anything? Saksjn (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is The Path to 9/11 on DVD?

Is The Path to 9/11 on DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiaaz (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and you are not likely to see a DVD of the movie (certainly not until Hillary Clinton leaves the scene, whether in early March 2008, in 2012, or in 2016), due to political pressure from the Clintonistas, at least according to Cyrus Nowrasteh (towards the end of his interview with Investor's Business Daily). Asteriks (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This should be in the article under controversies. I recall local Radio Host, John Ziegler commenting on this very same point. Ryratt (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?

So we spend perhaps 70% of the page discussing the controversy around the film? Shouldn't an encyclopedic article specifically about the film include a little more detail on the content of the movie? I'm not saying get rid of the controversy section, but people likely don't want this page to inform them of how inaccurate the movie may be. Maybe putting the controversies under a separate article would solve the problem? Or in the name of efficiency, just increasing the amount of detail on the movie's content. Thanks! Undomiel 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed almost all of that. It was in some parts well-supported and in many parts very poorly supported. It was almost always poorly written and I found myself wondering... who wrote this and why do that HATE this movie? Axe grinding is not what Wikipedia is about. Gingermint (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Safe to say "controversial" now

This movie has garnered more controversy than any in recent times, but most importantly its being aired on broadcast TV as factual.

  • Fox News ! correspondent grills the innacuracies

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CNN-Bennett-ABC.mov

  • Another conservative lashing out

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CNN-Bennett-ABC.mov

  • Its own actors come out in defense of the critisism

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Fox-and-Friends-Wallace-ABC.mov

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/911_keitel.mov


  • Screenwriter admits making up scenes that critics say defame

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-Most-Greg-Mi.mov


There should be no question about this. Noticing how 80% of the article is under the banner Controversy :p --Lamrock 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
There's absolutely no question that this is controversial, especially because it's infactual information being presented as "the true story". Goebbels would be proud. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely controversial. I have not seen a real contention of the facts however. Mostly a lot of complaints seems to be about the dramatization of events but not the events themselves. For example, complaining that a phone call never happened between Tenet and Berger about an operation in Afghanistan. But the facts about it did and aren't disputed. Namely, the operation existed. Neither Tenet or Berger (or higher) would sign off on it. The operation was therefore cancelled. Whether it was done over the phone, through email or lunch in the Hamptons seems to be somewhat irrelevant. I think we need to be careful about how we use the term inaccurate in the article to specify whether it's inaccurate in terms of historical record or inaccurate due to dramatization. --Tbeatty 05:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that "dramatizing something that didn't happen", considered a lie by most, would still be considered "not a lie" by a few. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Question for you users: Why is it OK to cite the "controversial" references on the talk page, but when the reference is inserted into the article, your cronies remove it. Hmmm...could it be because your "source" is a self-proclaimed liberal, left leaning blog? If you are going to proclaim it controversial, then why will you not stand behind it? Either cite your source in the article or please remove the term.--207.230.48.88 02:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the other comments on this section. Let me quote Lamrock:"There should be no question about this. Noticing how 80% of the article is under the banner Controversy :p" Isn't this proof enough? Gdo01 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you are using a banner as a source? Who placed the banner on the page? Can we cite that user as a source? That is saying "A" proves "B" which proves "A". So what is your source for "A"? Answer: "B". What is your source for "B"? Answer: "A". If you use a consensus as a verifiable source, which is what appears to be going on, then you are not basing it on fact, but are injecting an unconscious bias into the article, which is an editorial. "Controversial" is being used as a weasel word unless you can cite it. Please cite or remove.--207.230.48.88 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The large, and relatively well-cited Controversy section is clear evidence that this film is considered controversial by many. Kukini 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An enormous and poorly-researched and poorly written section was written. It was largely eliminated for encyclopedic and intellectual necessity. Gingermint (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

"overly incorrect impression".... Wow. Perhaps the DNC will manage to get it edited enough to constitute a "minimally incorrect impression." Gee, I hope so. The dignity of the Clinton administration is just so important to my self respect.

Please consider signing your posts on talk pages. Otherwise, the post seems pretty "weasily." Kukini 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason its says overly incorrect is that its a drama. There is admitted inaccuracies like time compression and composite characters. So strictly speaking its going to be inaccurate, whats important is that the overall jist of it is accurate. Jeff Trattner 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, this movie may not be any good. Maybe. But someone HATES it! The section on controversies went on forever and was full of weasel words when it wasn't full of bile. I've gone ahead and fixed this article but only here and there. I suspect more needs to be doneGingermint (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy representation

I've not yet seen this program and came to the article to help decide whether to watch it. I thinks it's inevitable that the surrounding controversy is an important part of any report about it, not to mention part of how to judge its merits. But I've no idea from this article what the criticisms of the miniseries were. The criticism and controversy sections include one one-line complaint about an unspecified misrepresentation of the 9/11 commission from one of its members. This is followed followed by five to six paragraphs of various sources defending the series against unknown and unmentioned criticisms, alongside some conspiracy theory involving the influence of the Clintons. I think the Clinton theory only needs one mention rather than several supported by three or four different quotes.

Also, does Michael Sheuer know that his Weekly Standard article is being used as "film corroboration", because his article makes no mention of the "Path to 9/11" miniseries? This section seems like an attempt by supporters of the film to use Wikipedia to expand on the film's message with additional arguments that were never part of it; it surely has no business in an encyclopaedia article never mind the criticism section.

I don't think this a neutral entry, or even an informative one. Maybe including some description of which content is so controversial would make the it more clear. --Krevno (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ratings?

The article claims that it was beaten by an NFL football game that night, and that it only had 13 million viewers. However, [http:// www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/05/18/cia-vindicates-path-911-clinton-claim this article] claims that it actually ranked #1 on its first night, and that its viewership was actually closer to 28 million viewers. Can someone please try to explain the discrepency and note it in the article? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Balance

Why is 90% of the "Controversy" section devoted to conservative rebuttals of claims of bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.106.58 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Some whitewashed it, removing all criticism of the factual misrepresentations in the series. I restored it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirn59 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you high? this is the most clinton biases article on wikipedia. It doesn't even give the slightest pretense its not a pro Clinton hatchet job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.133.67 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Article cleanup tags

Hey all, So a few things on this article:

  1. It pretty obviously needs a restructuring. For one, the controversy sections (I'm including the support section) take up 90% of the article. If this article should be called "The Path to 9/11 Controversy," then someone should suggest a move, but until then there shouldn't be more information about the plot in the controversy section than there is the plot section.
    1. This includes the Broadcasting section ... which should definitely not be in sections (and arguably shouldn't be in the article at all)
  2. There's a bit of redundancy - Albright's views for examples, are mentioned multiple times in different places.
  3. There's some undue weight on fringe views.
  4. The cast section is over-long ("Gabe Fazio....J.P. O'Neill (Son of John O'Neill)" ... seriously?)

That's about covering it.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Path_to_9/11/Archive_1&oldid=1137240011"