Talk:The Path to 9/11/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 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) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf</ref
 * Thank you TabascoMan77 for supplying the letter links to the Albright and Berger requests. I will not touch those edits, I promise. The Albright letter might need to be researched a little more thoroughly however, considering that it is in an editable word document. It also contains no form of an official letterhead. The Sandy Berger letter appears legit, the URL does raise an eyebrow but I would deem it as acceptable for wikipedia until proved otherwise. One more thing, I am revising my previous talking point which stated that the details on who turned off the operation were fuzzy since I can now see that George Tenet admits to this in the report. Angelo Vescio IV 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the citation needed from the dramatization portion in the movie summary. The definition of dramatization is merely the act of adapting a story (be it true or otherwise) for theatrical presentation. It is not a pejorative word, just the description of an act. Angelo Vescio IV 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you find any links which are questionable (such as the "letters"), let me know. I am interested in the truth, not fabrication. Also, I moved and rewrote the "Rush Limbaugh friend" bit to the BEGINNING of the controversy article since it didn't fit right in the middle of the part where Albright and Berger weren't receiving their movies. I will clarify the rest as I keep rereading.TabascoMan77 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I still believe that the comments about only right-wing individuals and their blogger counterparts were offered copies of the film, while left-wingers were denied should be removed. While Ms. Albright and Mr. Berger's letters indicated that they had not received a copy yet, there is no evidence (at least none cited) that indicates a concerted effort by ABC to deny copies to any select group. Once again, I propose to leave the letters and corresponding comment in play because there is nothing that disputes their factuality but we should remove the aforemetioned "denial" portion. Please reply YEA or NAY to this proposal, I will check back tomorrow to see the results. Angelo Vescio IV 08:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest it but I could re-write it. Just tell me what you think. TabascoMan77 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps put your suggested change here and see if you all cannot come to an agreement on appropriate verbiage. I have a good feeling that a number of you all will be back here tomorrow to work on this more. Kukini 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All fixed. What's more, I re-wrote...AND provided a source. I've also provided a source for the bit about Rush being a friend of the writer. It's an article that includes a small transcript from Rush's statement on the matter. It may be that Rush is just posturing to get in on the Hollywood scene but it's the best I could do. ALSO, I removed the tiny bit about Berger not being contacted to advise on the movie. It's just needless since the point has already been driven home that he is not happy with what is going on. TabascoMan77 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Neutrality Dispute???"
I don't get this. WHY is the neutrality being disputed? There IS a movie being produced, is there not? There IS a ton of controversy surrounding it.

I would correct it and say the ACCURACY may be in dispute. This article is VERY fair, thus far, and I would LOVE to hear the other side of the story, regarding what the right has to say about this. TabascoMan77 1:46 7 September, 2006 {UTC}
 * Removed the tag, the article seems to be reasonably NPOV. --KarlFrei 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am creating a footnote section to make it easier to read. Kukini 08:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a NPOV tag on an older version that contained no citations and was clearly written to favor one side. There were major changes to the article since then and I will reserve judgment on POV until I read it. Jeff Trattner 03:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Web Information on The Production Company Is Being Scrubbed
If you go to us.imdb.com and look up the movie, it was made by a group called UHP productions. Throughout filming, Paths was known as Untitled History Project. (UHP). There are a few articles scattered over the web on the project, most give very few details other than who's in it, and filming locations.

Apparently director David Cunninham is involved in a group to transform Hollywood from within, to make it a more godly kind of industry. Note the following, from someone connected to "Youth with a Mission":


 * "As we have looked around, we've noticed a lot of big-mouthed giants running around, but not many young warriors brave enough to stake everything on God.


 * So that's what we've decided to do. Starting in July, along with our 'normal' discipleship efforts in YWAM, we will officially join The Film Institute - a new auxiliary branch of Youth With A Mission focused on tranforming film and television from the inside out. TFI's first project is a doozy: simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!


 * Our goal is to help filmmakers, actors, technicians, etc. realize their God given potential and purpose in perhaps the most influential sphere of modern culture - film and television."

That was up at this address, yesterday - http://www.markandkrista.com/4559.html Today, it's gone, but still findable in Google's cache.

Yesterday, if you plugged "untitled history project" into IMDB's search, it would send you straight to the Path to 9/11 page. Today it won't - but if you do a Google search on the term, the IMDB page comes up #1 in the search. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.88.245 (talk • contribs).


 * WP:NOR. JBKramer 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Check MRC website
Well done on sourcing, but there are still three unsourced statements left. All of them are in the section for conservative responses, and some of them mention quotes by L. Brent Bozell. I am asking whoever wrote that section to check the Media Research Center website, www.mrc.org. If the quotes match, please source them. I could erase the unsourced statements, but they are relevant to the entry, so I won't do it.--Desmond Hobson 22:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the sources on this page; please ignore the earlier announcement. Thank you.--Desmond Hobson 22:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not let the conservatives have too much of a say, now
Well, that didn't last long…

I thought I read a previous comment about people being interested in what the conservatives had to say about this matter. And so, I added one paragraph along with two external links. But apparently, TabascoMan77 is alone.

Because five minutes later, every one of my additions was deleted.

Charming…

(In case anybody is interested, here is the paragraph, followed by the hyperlinks.  Hopefully (?) noone will delete that here.)

Conservatives commentators have taken issue with the controversy as well, with Hugh Hewitt presenting the program as "a very accurate docudrama [that] has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine" and dismissing the charges as "self-serving complaints." Brent Bozell points out that both "Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before 9-11. Indeed, the film drives home the point that from our enemies' perspective, it's irrelevant who is in the White House. […] They simply want to kill Americans and destroy America. The film doesn't play favorites, and the Bush administration takes its lumps as well." Hewitt adds that the "program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship --or lack thereof-- of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that. Rather the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy. "


 * A compelling "Path to 9-11" by Brent Bozell
 * Why Does the Left Hate "The Path to 9/11"? by Hugh Hewitt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.66.12 (talk • contribs).


 * I am interested, my friend. I don't really have a problem with your paragraph, so much as I have a problem with the sources. Both Bozell and Hewitt conveniently gloss over just WHAT the Democrats are complaining about and do not directly respond to the charges that scenes portraying Albright and Berger are made up out of thin air. I mean, at this point, the movie needs to be re-examined. It's not that I wouldn't like to see yet ANOTHER movie about 9/11 (we've had about eight zillion specials on the matter plus two movies and a ton of documentaries on the subject), it's just that it's highly misleading to make up scenes about real people. Those two scenes, alone, should be edited out of the movie if they did not happen. If they're kept in, then this is truly a bash-the-Dems piece. From what I've heard, the Bush pieces are without criticism. I've heard that Condy is trying to tell people that Bush is "very concerned" to anybody who will listen...but there's nothing to verify this nor, at any time, was Bush all that seemingly concerned with what was going on. Rice, herself, has said that she didn't find the memo all that striking.


 * All in all, the mini-series should NOT be allowed to air if there are scenes here that depict Berger and Albright doing things they didn't do.


 * Scholastic and ABC just announced study materials that suggest that Iraq is linked to 9/11 and WMD's...I mean, how far does this go? TabascoMan77


 * Au contraire. Both Brent Bozell and Hugh Hewitt do not gloss over, conveniently or otherwise, just what the Democrats are complaining about.


 * If, as you put it, they do not directly respond to the charges that scenes portraying Albright and Berger are made up out of thin air, it is simply because, as Brent Bozell points out, they think that the accusations are preposterous (or exagerrated) in view of the fact that the dems are hardly alone: "Condoleezza Rice, for one, takes a hit. Among other things, she is presented as foolishly demoting National Security Council counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to a smaller role devoted to cyber-security."


 * What these articles amount to is putting the program in perspective, which includes dismissing, rightly or otherwise, the objections thereto (in Hugh Hewitt's words) as "self-serving complaints". Bozell, again: both  "Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before 9-11."


 * So it would appear that, contrary to what some people have heard, it is not true that "the Bush pieces are without criticism". Insofar as "the Bush administration takes its lumps as well," it is altogether appropriate to list these men's objections to the movie being portrayed  as a "bash-the-Dems piece". And those are voices that deserve to be listed in the piece.


 * Added a summary of the controversy. I think the controversy section is entirely too long and goes into unnecessary detail. Jeff Trattner 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So, that's the big comeback to address the point? "That's preposterous because Condy took a hit, too"? That's ridiculous. The hit on Berger is NEEDLESS seeing as how IT NEVER HAPPENED. The "hit" on Condy you are referring to is when Condoleeza Rice is trying to convince everyone and anyone that the President has "read the memo and is concerned with it". THAT ISN'T ACCURATE! Bush was off FISHING! So, generally, you have Berger looking like an ass and Condy looking like she TRIED. That's not "self-serving". THAT is inaccuracy. What you should be seeing is Berger NOT taking a hit...and the entire Bush Administration taking the hit as a WHOLE. That's the problem here. The movie is taking fake "shots" at Bush and real shots at Clinton...when shots don't need to be taken at Clinton at all. The other mindless talking point you're putting up is "Clinton was in office longer". Doesn't matter. Bush was in office when 9/11 occurred. Clinton had thwarted several attacks. It was Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott that did NOT allow Clinton to go all the way for the touchdown, so to speak. Both of them told him he couldn't have terrorist wiretaps or freeze bank accounts or some of the things that Bush has now. They said that they didn't find the funding "feasible". Is THAT included in the movie? I would LOVE to know that because THAT happened. Bush failed to thwart this attack, the biggest one on American soil since Pearl Harbor.
 * Now, keeping this debate in the discussion forums, I wouldn't mind seeing your paragraph in the article because what you've written sports a fairly good other side to the debate. I just cannot believe that Bozell and Hewitt actually TabascoMan77 11:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I take issue with, the sentence, "...before the film has even aired, some individuals, that have not seen it, have made accusations that it is somewhat unfair in its portrayal of the Clinton Administration's attitudes and actions regrading terrorism." This is simply inaccurate. These accusations come from people who have heard what other screeners have already seen. ABC and the screenwriters have ALSO admitted to the mistakes in the movie even going so far to claim that it was "improvised". The sentence SHOULD say, "Before the film has aired, screeners have claimed that certain scenes do not match the real-life events on which they are based. Liberal and progressive figures (many of which have yet to see the movie) have picked up on this and accused ABC of being unfair in its portrayal of the Clinton Administration's attitudes and actions regrading terrorism." TabascoMan77 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs).
 * Actually, there are some issues with what you stated. First you are not identifying these mysterious "Screeners" that make these claims, so I have no way of judging their credibility. Second, what "they" saw was a rough cut of the film, at best. ABC has clearly stated that comments on the specifics of the film are irresponsible since no one has seen the final cut. For all we know they have cut all the scenes in question. Plus, if it is dramatized, and they have appropriate disclaimers, frequently enough, I don't really see an issue. Several articals I read by people who saw the rough cuts said it was a great film, but I am reserving judgement until I see it. I have never seen such controversy over a film before its release (although a few instances come close). I say we wait till the final cut airs tonight and Monday, and then analyze it. Jeff Trattner 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will put the para back in, making a few changes that bear in mind your comments. (Also notice that all their arguments are quoted – not presented as fact — and that I put the external links at the very bottom of the list.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asteriks (talk • contribs).

I concur, if you aren't a full fledged liberal, sadly aren't welcome on WIkipedia, these extremists will delte even my additions, and I am a moderate. That is why every day I take this site less eriously, the "voting" used to work but now its just biased liberals "voting" down every other idea.Vohod 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to the complaint that the conservatives "do not directly respond to the charges that scenes portraying Albright and Berger are made up out of thin air" and that ABC has been "dramatizing something that didn't happen", two points stand out.

First of all, it is somewhat similar to another issue (it is one that is commonly used by libertarians, but that's the best I could come up with).

If someone defends the banning of smoking in public venues because of health concerns and someone else is against it because the ban involves the government (any government, national, state, federal, American, foreign, whatever) invading private space, that second person has in no way addressed the issue of the health concerns of tobacco.

But that (to some extent) is the point. To him (or her), the health concern doesn't matter or, at best, it is a secondary issue. Is that not an acceptable counter-opinion to the first point, even if it does not seem to address the first person's issue (he, in turn, does not seem very interested in the second person's issue, by the way, that of letting government regulate private behavior)?

Second, what conservatives seem to be irked about is summed out succinctly by Tbeatty when he makes a distinction between dramatic license and expressions such as "made up out of thin air" and "dramatizing something that didn't happen" : "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."

Getting upset over (what they see as) hardly relevant details is what conservatives like Hewitt and Kevin McCullough, rightly or wrongly, are responding to.

In that respect, I have put back Hugh Hewitt's external link, along with two others, in the External Links section. I really don't think that we should remove those anymore. First of all, there are now over 10 links and all but one of them is (or seems) either neutral or in favor of the criticism. There ought to be some balance, don't you think? Second of all, indeed, we should allow readers to mull the issues for themselves and come to their own conclusion. The two links I am adding to the Hewitt piece (again, towards the bottom) are
 * Did Clinton cause 9/11? Ask Sandy Berger by Maggie Gallagher and
 * Pathetic liberal sissies by Kevin McCullough

Plot Outline
Anyone willing to do a plot outline (like the one on the Farenheit 9/11 page) after the miniseries is finished?--Exander 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual Support Section
Seeing how 75% of the article is criticisms, lets put aside our differences and set up a section on what in the show was factual, dramatized, and what is fiction.

Let us establish a clear-cut section that goes down the list, saying what in the show is factual, what is dramatization, and what is fiction. That is the truly NPOV replacement for an elaborate criticisms section where there are POV digressions in parenthesis following every other sentence. Besides, these little captions in the parenthesis, while cited somewhat, are making alleged links that actually have nothing to do with what was in this show. Plus, statements by single persons, be they Bill O'Reilly or Madeleine Albright, are not enough. You can never take what a person says as fact right off the bat.--Exander 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. It sounds like a very fair way to deal with the issues: Just lay everything out bare. Anyone want to take that task up? Porlob 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Cast
It would be usful to have the character's position/role in the cast section. I tried to make a start of it but it needs a lot more work. josh (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited?
I saw on tv that ABC is editing out parts of TPT9/11 that reflect badly on Bill Clinton and Clinton Administration. But there is nothing about this on the web.

Are they going to show it as it was made? Or will ABC puss out?*

* (a reference to the South Park episode Cartoon Wars Part I & Cartoon Wars Part II)

Does anybody know?

72.82.205.98 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If they did "puss out" then we need to get a list of scenes deleted and written up in the article. I know several media types (both liberal and conservative) have pre-release copies, so it should be easy to verify.  Can anyone get a hold of that info?


 * There was a little Monica Lewinsky stuff in the show showing how it really was an idiotic bandwagon, further distracting the President. The show kind of levels it out, putting blame on conservatives who were putting the impeachment of the President first and on the President himself, on his inaction.--Exander 08:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it seems ABC did puss out. Here is the MSNBC article about the edits.  Its fairly comprehensive and should be put into the article, although the AP source should be referenced.  http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=233545&GT1=7703.  Bytebear 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Airline Inaccuracy
I added a section about the incorrect airline cited in the show. It was deleted but I don't know why so I re-posted it. I also seperated the existant section about airline security from the Albright section because it didn't seem to belong there. Jenzwick 04:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)jenzwick, 9:26 seattle time 9/11
 * It is just a user trying to push their POV, I believe I readded correctly. Be bold and fix anything I might not have restored. Gdo01 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

63.150.149.226
Someone has to deal with User:63.150.149.226. User contributions. The user has not explained his/her edits and seems to want to push a "blame the liberals" pov. I already have 4 or more reverts here and I frankly don't care about this topic enough to risk blocking. Could this user at least explain their changes. Gdo01 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am brand new to Wikipedia. How would that user's posts be managed? Jenzwick 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)jenzwick
 * A 24 hour block to allow the user to cool off and come back and edit more productively has been given, as the user continued the POV edits post a third request. Kukini 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the user with the above IP. I apologize for not understanding the various workings of Wikipedia and did not know of any problem with my edits until the blocking (just thought I wasn't saving properly).

My request for unblocking is at this link: []

There I also include the following, along with my edits which are intended to make the article more neutral and less reliant on unverified accusations.

"Not sure how to do this, but am seeking to unblock. Although quite familiar with editing of journalism, am not familiar with the procedures of the Wikipedia site. I apologize for not knowing how to see your messages sooner.

This is a controversial article and I am attempting to remove unverified (by objective sources) content, and also highly charged words that create an unfair slant against one party. There were significant and well-documented errors made by every US administration up to September 11, 2001 in confronting terrorism (as well as many since then by the current administration). This article has been hijacked by those seeking to prevent any assessment of the Clinton administration (which I supported) and seeks to portray this program as part of an imaginary right wing conspiracy (which I don't support).

My edited content is as follows. Please let me know specific concerns that you have with the edits I have made. Thank you. BTW, I agree with Wikipedia's assessment that this is an "unreliable article". The cited sources, especially certain blogs, often contain completely unverified and unvetted allegations. Thanks again.
 * You are welcome. I am not sure who you are, but I think the version up right now is much more clearly organized.Jeff Trattner 06:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have just discovered your neutral content policy. Thank you for having that. However, I think you will have to agree that the Path article is anything but neutral."

As you can tell, I made my request for examples prior to discovering this forum. Thanks to Wikipedia for providing all of these avenues to discuss and check topics.

Lawyers make money
Now that the miniseries aired, what will it cost ABC to settle out of court with libelled parties Clinton, Albright, Sandy Berger, etc.? Ten million, 50 million, 100 million USD? What is the usual amount in America?

Would ABC dare to sell the series abroad? European courts are notoriusly hard on punishing libel. Not even truth is absolute defence.

These are interesting questions to explain in the article. 195.70.32.136 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's presuming that something libelous exists in the movie, isn't it? Couldn't the Bushes also sue?  The second half of the film is supposed to be at least as critical of Bush, if not moreso. Methinks the libel claims are premature and loosely grounded. Dubc0724 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The second half deals with the broad themes of under-resourced and overloaded, lots of facts and chatter with nobody doing anything, and also the Northern Alliance being dicked around for resources as well as not being listened to (even if the advice had typical-spy vagueness). The film ends with a text on-screen criticism of the failure to follow the Commission's directions, listing some of the "D"s and "F"s the Bush admin has got.Whophd 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. So why are only the Clinton people screaming?  The movie (like the 9/11 Commission) largely whitewashed any failures from 93-00.  Dubc0724 18:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Many conservatives, such as William Bennett, have criticized the film. The Wikipedia is supposed to be a dispassionate, neutral work. Please don't POV push. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the film is found to have misrepresentations or libel regarding Clinton or Bush, they are fair game for this article, as long as they are sourced. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, if libel suits are filed, they will be reported about, and accounts of those, with sources, can be placed in the article. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Official true story?
Apparently, this is being marketed outside the U.S. as the "official true story", with special emphasis on a factually disputed scene with Clinton choosing not to go after bin Laden (by the way, the same guy in reality Bush refuses to go after for five straight years since 9/11). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bush hasn't stopped going after bin Laden. It is just that we won't sacrifice everything to go get them when we have items that take precedents.  Do police departments stop going after shoplifter and bank robbers just because one murderer is on the loose, or do they seek to get them all?  For all we know bin Ladin may have been killed in a cave rockslide, but due to the terrain in Afghanistan, we'll never know.--Bedford 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, considering what bin Laden did, I think it's reasonable that a greater effort would be expected, especially by the 9/11 victims. And there's that Tora Bora thing, where bin Laden actually was in our sights, and effectively let go. What's happening here is a projection by the Bush camp, to blame Clinton for letting bin Laden go (when there's no facts behind that) to cover up the fact that Bush did in reality let him go.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * THis is not a blog. Please don't argue policy here.  This talk page should focus on the article which is  a move.  --Tbeatty 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a direct link to an Australian TV listing where it states "the story of exactly what happened". This marketing campaign needs to be covered in this article if it's not already.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I opened the link and see no quote as you state. Seems you are not so verifiable on your sources.  Try again. 68.4.235.241 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heres a trailer video available on Youtube that says true story at about the 00:10 mark . I believe this is the same video as the two links above, posting them here again . I'll try to find a better source but that ad seems completely legitimate.Gdo01 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The link I provided works fine. You go to the page and click the link that reads "A worldwide broadcast The Path to 9/11", then a picture loads that did include the text "the story of exactly what happened" but now says "The thrilling dramatised investigation" instead.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is another you tube link, that clearly states "Official True Story" at 00:08 seconds. I added a reference to this video in the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry, to put ABC's local "docu-drama" statements in a worldwide context. 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. 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.

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".

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 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 Verifiability and 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 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.
 * The above is what i meant. Kukini 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CNN-Bennett-ABC.mov
 * Fox News ! correspondent grills the innacuracies


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061012014405/http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com:80/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/albright%20letter.doc to http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/albright%20letter.doc

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929125543/http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/Berger%20letter.pdf to http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/Berger%20letter.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ywam.org/articles/article.asp?bhjs=-1&AID=368

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Path to 9/11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120517091219/http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091106/content/rushmakesnews.guest.html to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091106/content/rushmakesnews.guest.html

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922135703/http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html to http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=462
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423032225/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

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

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

Article cleanup tags
Hey all, So a few things on this article: That's about covering it.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 2) This includes the Broadcasting section ... which should definitely not be in sections (and arguably shouldn't be in the article at all)
 * 3) There's a bit of redundancy - Albright's views for examples, are mentioned multiple times in different places.
 * 4) There's some undue weight on fringe views.
 * 5) The cast section is over-long ("Gabe Fazio....J.P. O'Neill (Son of John O'Neill)" ... seriously?)