Jump to content

Talk:The Path to 9/11

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

Producer credits

[edit]

One more thing...IMDB lists the producers work as the following:

  1. Nappily Ever After (2008) (announced) (producer)
  2. Wanted (2008) (announced) (producer)
  3. Book of Leo (2007) (announced) (producer)
  4. The Dark Is Rising (2007) (announced) (producer)
  5. Untitled Kirsten Dunst Project (2007) (announced) (producer)
  6. Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life (2006) (announced) (producer)
  7. Untitled Kristin Chenoweth/Dusty Springfield Project (2006) (announced) (producer)
  8. The Path to 9/11 (2006) (TV) (completed) (executive producer)
  9. Once Upon a Mattress (2005) (TV) (executive producer)
  10. The Perfect Man (2005) (producer) (as Marc Platt)
  11. Empire Falls (2005) (TV) (executive producer)
  12. Happy Endings (2005) (co-producer) (as Marc Platt)
  13. Honey (2003/I) (producer)
  14. Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003) (producer) (as Marc Platt)
  15. Legally Blonde (2003) (TV) (executive producer)
  16. Mr. Ambassador (2003) (TV) (executive producer)
  17. "MDs" (2002) TV Series (executive producer)
  18. Legally Blonde (2001) (producer) (as Marc Platt)
  19. Josie and the Pussycats (2001) (producer) (as Marc Platt)
  20. Closure (2001/I) (producer)
  21. Campus Man (1987) (executive producer)

A citation

[edit]

There is a note in "Production History" that a citation is needed for sources.

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/about.html

says:

Former ABC News anchor John Miller, now the FBI's Assistant Director of Public Affairs, was also a consultant on the project. His book, The Cell, co-authored with Michael Stone, was optioned by ABC for use in the teleplay. In addition, The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz was also optioned.

I suppose that that does not specifically say that they were used.

Please delete this if innappropriate or after changes are made.

This is either totally outrageous or totally insane…

[edit]

What with the trouble I had getting one single paragraph okay'ed (I am Asteriks, the basic author of "Responses from the Right" and the above-mentioned "Let's not let the consevatives have too much of a say, now", albeit writing from another computer), I had given up on presenting any kind of conservative response. I thought, however,it would be okay with everybody if someone added a few links (the ones below, to which I have added two or three), so readers could make up their minds for themselves (if that's okay with anybody). But no, they were all deleted — every one of them!

A quick look at this Wikipedia article would show that it is now, I would say, 95% pro-Clinton and con-the-movie-and-the-right (who are apparently such a hateful bunch, they hardly deserve any say), as is the list of external links, thanks to the above portion thereof having been terminated without any explanation whatsoever. (Insofar as anybody thinks they need to be eliminated, do you think that person might present some arguments to that effect?) I am going to put it back in (in fact, I am so mad that I am even going to add an Ann Coulter article on the TV movie to the list!). 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?

PS: Asteriks again: I have kind enough to add the conservative items at the very bottom of the list (you know, after the entries such as Scolastic and the Colbert Report which seemingly break all Wikipedia's (unwritten?) rules by making them an unpalatable three to four lines long — in order to really explain how terrible the people behind the movie are). Hopefully putting them at the very bottom is acceptable and people can live with that (sarcasm off)…

  • If this thing has to be dramatized, then facts are being changed/hidden. The truth doesn't need to be dramatized. When it's shot like a movie it's a little hard to take seriously. MJ @ Mon Sep 18 16:28:53 2006
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 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) 21:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Path_to_9/11&oldid=1234736916"