Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-26 Power of Nightmares

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-03-26 Power of Nightmares 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.3.1 AGF 1.3.2 AGF and CIVIL 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-03-26 Power of Nightmares

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: noosphere 03:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The Power of Nightmares

Who's involved?

noosphere

Wolfkeeper

What's going on?

In a 2006-03-22 13:33:55 UTC edit Wolfkeeper changed the introduction of the article so that it referred to politicians in general rather than neoconservatives in particular. This set off an edit war between Wolfkeeper and myself, with various recriminations regarding violations of Wikipedia policy. The relevant talk page entries start here and proceed down the rest of the page.

In the end Wolfkeeper deleted the entire existing introduction to the article. I requested help on WP:3o, and Fagstein advised us against continuing to edit war. I was persuaded and have let Wolfkeeper's deletion of the article's introduction stand, sought to engage him in further dialogue and implored other editors to voice their views on the issue so that we could come to a consensus. However, since I stopped reverting his edits Wolfkeeper has ignored me and no other editors have addressed the issue at hand.

I have also placed a plea for help on WP:WQA, the only result of which was Jon Awbrey further advising us against reverting.

What would you like to change about that?

It would be nice if someone could help us resolve this disagreement beyond merely telling us not to edit war. In order to achieve this I hope Wolfkeeper can be persuaded to answer each of the specific points I raised during our discussion in full instead of ignoring me, or responding with a one-line accusation of violation of NPOV. It would also be nice if some uninvolved editors could give their view on this issue. Finally, I would like Wolfkeeper to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in his future interactions on Wikipedia.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I am fine with working out in the open. I can be reached on my talk page.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I am interested, but I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment. I may give it a shot sometime in the future, however.

[edit] Mediator response

I really would like to help you two find a compromise, but I'm afraid I'll have to close the mediation if you insist on making it personal. If you'd like to make a case against the other party, consider a RfC or the Mediation Committee, but I think it'd be better (for both of you) if you could set bad faith and personal dislike aside and act civil. --Keitei (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] AGF

noosphere 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGF and CIVIL

noosphere 06:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

I consider the current situation where the authors own words summarise the piece- to be a reasonable compromise. If Noosphere has any disagreements with it, he is free to add rather than remove comments in the article (but not the summary), in accordance with correct NPOV. I have absolutely no problem with that. I do have problems when users apparently arbitrarily repeat points within one paragraph whilst removing well founded, more general points about the piece- that actually violates NPOV. Noosphere has not shown the point I made to to be false, and whist I edited his work, I did so in a way that at no point denied that neoconservatives were indeed important in the documentary.WolfKeeper 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page. --Keitei (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

Writing as someone who is very familiar with the work of Adam Curtis and has used this text with an academic context I would say that the introduction proposed by Wolfkeeper is accurate. To limit the introduction to neo-conservatives ignores the important framing thesis and is less informative;

This documentary argues that politicians have benefited from exaggerating the scale of the terrorist threat from which they offer to protect their people, as they have tried to benefit by exaggerating the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s; that the fortunes of politicians (particularly neo-conservatives) and radical Islamism are closely connected; and that some popular beliefs about these groups are inaccurate.

Curtis explicitly includes Tony Blair and British interests as beneficiaries of the exaggeration of the scale of the terrorist threat . Although the documentary focuses primarily on the "neo-conservatives" it is left in no doubt that there is a wider framework, telling a story of the role of international politicians in the modern climate. --Zleitzen 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this issue, Zleitzen. Could you state whether, in your opinion, the documentary said that it was politicians in general who "exaggerated the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s", or did the documentary focus on a group of neoconservatives in particular being responsible for that specific exaggeration? I am not denying the documentary did mention politicians in general exaggerate terorrist threats (as did Bush and Blair). However, with respect to the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s, I believe the documentary was very explicit about a group of neoconservatives being the ones to make that exaggeration (about communism in the 1970s and 80s), not Bush, Blair, or politicians in general. -- noosphere 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go myself, how does it read?--Zleitzen 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Now let's see what the other editors think. -- noosphere 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Re: Wolfkeeper's 11:04, 30 March 2006 "compromise offer". This is no sort of compromise at all. This is where we were before this Mediation Cabal case was even opened. Wolfkeeper unilaterally deleted the summary, against my objections, and now he calls it a "compromise". -- noosphere 02:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, even prior to this case opening I considered the deletion of the article's summary to be clear vandalism, as you can see from the article's talk page. -- noosphere 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The real situation is that 'Noosphere' has been repeatedly violating NPOV both by inaccurate precis of a 3hr documentary that actually covers a fair amount of ground; but also by repeatedly removing my contributions without any due cause.

Well, just to repeat what I've already said on the article's talk page: the summary need not describe everything that happens in a documentary to be accurate. Most of the movie deals with the neocons and islamists, thus to describe it as being about that is accurate, even if the documentary mentions other people.

That's called a 'lie of omission'. You cannot lie and be accurate at the same time. So I fundamentally disagree on your point.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the documentary also mentions the year 1949, the town Greely, Colorado; crassness; corruption; vulgarity; movie stars; automobile prices; and lawn care (and this is a far from exhaustive list of topic just from the first five minutes of the documentary). Does that mean that if all of these things are not mentioned we will be committing the 'lie of omission'? I don't think so. Clearly we have to be selective.

Yes, I do think that if they are not mentioned this is a bad thing. I'm thinking that the summary should in principle cover that too, in the most general possible terms. For example you could mention 'traditional american values' or some such thing.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"the year 1949, the town Greely, Colorado; crassness; corruption; vulgarity; movie stars; automobile prices; and lawn care" should be described as "traditional american values"? But this is a summary. Just a few paragraphs ago you were arguing not mentioning something was a "lie of omission". Now your summary certainly does not mention, say, automobile prices. It omits it. So isn't this a contradiction? You attacked having a summary earlier, but now you're just fine with it.

Besides, your summary of those items is POV. Perhaps crassness, corruption, and vulgarity are "traditional american values" in your eyes (which is POV), but automobile prices? What do automobile prices have to do with moral values?

And even if you could fairly summarize all these different things, that's just a random 30 second fragment of the film... there is much, much, much more mentioned in the movie. So, a "summary" that omits nothing will no longer be a summary, but will likely become an article in its own right.

That's why the summary should cover what the series spends most of its time on and not every little thing that's mentioned in it. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How do we select what should be mentioned in the summary? There's a very good objective way of doing that: mention that which the documentary spends most of its time discussing. Namely, the neocons and islamists, as was mentioned in the original version of the summary. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not a good scheme. Just because a documentary spends most of its time discussing something doesn't necessarily make it the point of the piece, although the fact that it does so may make it noteable. A since sentence or paragraph at the end of the piece can change the entire intent. In this piece fully the final half of the final episode hardly mentions neoconservatives at all. The end of a piece is very important, as is the very beginning. These parts do not align well with your summary.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether the beginning or end of the series is "very important" is POV. What is not POV is what the series spends most of its time covering (the relationship between the neoconservatives and islamists, as described in the original summary). We should summarize what the film mostly concerns itself with, not every little thing mentioned in it. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Second, obviously we disagree about what counts as "due cause". I believe you were adding contributions without due cause. I also don't see any violations of NPOV on my part. If you think I've violated NPOV, please tell us how. -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You've removed my POV; namely that the piece is about more than neoconservative politicians. You can do that in some cases, but you would need to show that my POV was incorrect. Since the piece actually does talk about non neoconservative politicians and their use of nightmares, your edits violate NPOV.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed your POV, as you're not notable and your views are not verifiable. However, that the documentary spends most of its time on islamists and neocons, as describe in the summary, is verifiable. Your opinion that the documentary is about politicians in general is no more notable or verifiable than someone else believing that this documentary is about lawn care. Yes, it's mentioned, but only in passing. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But my views are obviously very similar to those of Curtis. He is the author, and his view is noteable; an author's POV may not necessarily be definitive, but I happen to think that in this case it is. Your POV that only a subset of his views are important is not noteable. That is why the current summary is fairer. I would have been happy with the version that I edited, but you disagreed.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That your views are "very similar to those of Curtis" is POV. I agree that Curtis is notable, and his views are fully represented in the article. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My position is that the documentary very definitely does talk quite a lot about neoconservatives, but that the piece is primarily about politicians, on both sides of the atlantic, as well as terrorists, and the use of fear by politicians and terrorists. It may be noted that neoconservative politicians do not exist in the UK; but that British politicians are mentioned in the piece, for example the third episode, as can be found in the transcript[1]. In addition, the actions of George W. Bush and are mentioned throughout the piece, it may be considered to be in alignment with the central thesis of the piece. George W. Bush is not generally considered to be a neoconservative either.

Yes, the documentary does "talk quite a lot" about neoconservatives. In fact, it spends most of it's time talking about them and the islamists. Yet you believe the "piece is primarily about politicians". Please provide evidence for this view, other than your opinion. Note, I am not asking for evidence that politicians in general were merely mentioned, or even mentioned as having benefited. Could you show us some concrete evidence that the "piece is primarily about politicians"?

No, saying that it is primarily about something is wrong. The piece is a connected set of facts, about law enforcement, government agencies, courts, politicians, terrorist, public opinion and on. The summary should try to *cover* the piece, not say that it is only something when it says more than that. The introduction I edited said that it was more or less only about neoconservatives and terrorists, but the documentary tries to be more general than that, and contains information you have for your own POV reasons decided is completely beside the point. That does the wikipedia and potential readers of the article a diservice. We need to strive for accuracy in general and NPOV.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To "cover the piece" the summary has to summarize. It's curious that on the one hand you maintain that "saying that it is primarily about something is wrong" and yet you edited the summary to say it was primarily about politicians in general. So is having a summary "wrong" only when you disagree with it? Or is having a summary always wrong? If having a summary is not wrong, then why is "saying that it is primarily about something wrong"? They are one and the same. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you claimed documentary is "primarily about politicians". Now you're claiming that "saying that it is primarily about something is wrong". Do you see the contradiction?

The summary does "cover" the piece, in that it SUMMARIZES it, which does indeed entail saying what it's about: namely, that which the documentary spends most of its time covering (ie. the connection between the neocons and islamists).

We are striving to adhere to the NPOV policy. But that policy says nothing about including every POV under the sun. The policy clearly says that the POV should be notable and verifiable. Your POV is neither. It's certainly not notable. And it's no more verifyable than to claim the documentary is about lawn care. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My version of the POV has more verifiable agreement with Curtis's than yours.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement itself is POV. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can provide evidence that it's about neocons and islamists. Namely, that most of the series is about them, as you admit. Furthermore, even the director of the series in his introduction which you so highly value says:

"At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists."

So, wouldn't you say that if the documentary spends most of it's time focusing on neocons and islamists, and the director himself admits that they're "at the heart" of his documentary, that that's what the documentary is about? If not, please provide evidence that it's "primarily about politicians".

It's only your POV that the piece is primarily about neoconservative politicians. Curtis nowhere says that so far as I am aware. Making something the evidencial heart of the piece doesn't mean that the author isn't making a more general point; and he clearly is.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Curtis does not need to say what the documentary is about for us to summarize the documentary. It's quite clear what the majority of the documentary spends its time on: the connection between the islamists and neocons, and **not** on politicians in general. Saying that it spends most of its time on politicians in general is completely misleading. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Majority != primacy. WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. They are synonymous. Here is a list of synonyms for 'primarily' from thesaurus.com:

"above all, basically, chiefly, especially, essentially, fundamentally, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, principally" -- noosphere 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Next, whether neocons exist in the UK is irrelevant. I never claimed that they did. I never claimed that Blair, Bush, or British politicians in general were neocons. Nor did I claim that British politicians, Bush, or politicians in general weren't mentioned in the series. In fact, I repeatedly admitted they were mentioned. However, just because they're mentioned doesn't mean the documentary is about them. The documentary also mentions music. Does that make the documention about music? I don't think so. -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, different music wouldn't change the meaning of the piece. Your phraseology of the piece implies things that aren't true. It's a lie of omission. And perhaps you don't intend it but that lie shades the meaning of the introduction.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To lie is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". By accusing me of intending to decieve you've once again violated WP:AGF.

You may not agree with what I've said (as I don't agree with what you've said), and one of us may well be wrong. But that doesn't mean either one of us has lied. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. t doesn't mean that absolutely necessarily.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the transcript:

VO: But those dreams collapsed, and politicians like Tony Blair became more like managers of public life, their policies determined often by focus groups. But now, the war on terror allowed politicians like Blair to portray a new, grand vision of the future. But this vision was a dark one of imagined threats, and a new force began to drive politics: the fear of an imagined future.

TONY BLAIR : Not a conventional fear about a conventional threat, but the fear that one day these new threats of weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, and international terrorism combine to deliver a catastrophe to our world. And then the shame of knowing that I saw that threat, day after day, and did nothing to stop it.

Tony Blair isn't a neoconservative. We don't even have them in Britain. Much of the last episode is like this. Noosphere has therefore repeatedly misrepresented the documentary in the summary, and has also engaged in bad faith edits by repeatedly removing this well founded generalisation made by myself, and by Adam Curtis the author of the documentary in his own introduction and in the documentary.

Ok, so I make edits "without due cause" while your edits are "well founded"? This means I edit in "bad faith"? From my point of view it's the other way around: you're the one making edits that aren't "well founded". Does my opinion of how well founded your edits are mean that your edits are made in "bad faith"? Well, let's see what WP:AGF has to say on the matter:

"Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either; it means they annoy you. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent."

So, as you can see, bad faith is a judgement of intent. How can you possibly know my intent? How can I know yours? Just because we disagree with one another's edits? If that was the case every disagreement would be evidence of bad faith, and Wikipedia would quickly devolve in to acrimony. -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I initially assumed good faith (as always), but the evidence has mounted to the contrary, both from his violation of NPOV as well as his excessive reverts. I now no longer ascribe good faith to his actions; indeed my suspicion is that they are motivated by partisan motivations of some kind. Since I'm not American (British), I personally feel I may well be more balanced on this topic; but nevertherless I decided that Adam's own words speak best about what the documentary is about.

Well, I believe you violated NPOV yourself (by trying to push your own opinion of what the documentary waas about, without a shred of evidence, in to the summary).

Putting POV into the wikipedia is not a problem. Removing other's POV *is* a problem. I did not remove your POV with my edit, since your POV is a subset of Curtis's points.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting POV into Wikipedia is a problem when it's not notable or verified, in which case it should be removed. If you had said that the documentary mentions politicians that would be one thing. Then we could discuss it's relevance to the summary, which should not be a catalogue of everything mentioned in the documentary, but at least that statement would be accurate. However, you maintain that not only does the documentary mention politicians, but it's about them, which it isn't, any more than it's about lawn care.

The original summary, on the other hand, was not POV. It's a simple fact that the majority of the documentary spends its time exploring the connection between the neocons and islamists. Therefore that's what it's about. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No. The summary did not say that the majority of the documentary was exploring that connection. And if it had said that it would not necessarily be noteable. And just because it did spend most of the time doing so, doesn't mean that is what the piece is about. That's muddled thinking. WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this, please. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you showed bad faith? How would you apply your own standards for what makes for bad faith to your own actions? As far as reverts, you reverted exactly as many times as I did. Again, does that mean you showed bad faith?

Some people may well believe that. I do not. If I had removed your POV that would be a fair accusation. You are the one removing POV.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As to your suspicions regarding my motivations, please see WP:AGF about judging intent. I could attribute all sorts of motives to your own actions, but I don't since I, unlike you assume good faith. I also believe in maintaining a civil dialogue, and when we start getting personal about people's motives civility quickly crumbles.

As far as the director's opinion of what the documentary is about, I've already showed how it supports the original summary (ie. that the series is about neocons and islamists).

But there are parts of the documentary and Curtis's summary that are not supported by your summary.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A summary can't mention everyting. Please see above. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There are all sorts of things in the documentary that simply cannot be mentioned in a summary and have the "summary" remain a summary rather than the script to the entire movie. A summary has to summarize. Therefore it simply can't mention everything. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

True. But it should summarize everything. A good summary involves not missing out things.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It should summarize what most of the documentary is about, not every little thing. Please see above. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

However, I've also pointed out that Wikipedia should not be held hostage to what a director thinks of his own work.

Not held hostage, but his is still a noteable POV. And you removed it from the introduction. That's not NPOV. NPOV is about capturing different POV, including the directors. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" Therefore any edit of yours that violates this is removable. Since the directors opinion of what the piece is, is an opinion. And in effect you're saying the director is wrong on that, when the documentary contains quotes by non neoconservative politicians using fear for political ends. Yours is a lie of omission.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

First, let's make it clear that your edit did not quote Curtis. Therefore I did not remove Curtis' POV.

Second, even though Curtis' introduction mentions politicians in general, it does not say that the film is about politicians in general. There is only one sentence in Curtis' introduction which addresses what the film is about: "This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits." Your edit did not include this quote (or any quotes from Curtis, so I wasn't exluding his view of what the documentary is about).

Third, Curtis' view is already included in the article. The transcript of the introduction has been part of the article for a long time, and I've never so much as touched it. And, in fact, I am all for retaining it. What I am against is deleting the summary or trying to shift the description of focus of the documentary away from the neocons and islamists in particular and on to politicians in general, which is your POV, not Curtis'. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

(You haven't addressed this issue either, by the way) We have a duty to our readers to provide an accurate summary for them, not to simply parrot what the director said (though we do that as well, as we should accoring to NPOV), especially when his introduction is as long-winded as it is. The original summary was ideal. It was concise and accurate. Deleting it, as I've mentioned before, amounts to vandalism, in my opinion. -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to your POV on that; but the wikipedia needs to contain multiple POVs.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As it says in Wikipedia:Assume good faith:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring."

It takes two to edit war. As far as vandalism goes, if anything's vandalism deleting an article's summary surely counts, if anything does. -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I only did this after you had repeatedly deleted opposing POV information, and the new summary was atleast easily supportable from the documentary, whilst the old one evidently did not cover the piece.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That you vandalized after you saw that we disagreed does not excuse the vandalism. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have repeatedly removed information from the wikipedia; that was justifiable information, and that I have justified. It seems to me a vandalisation is a purely negative edit. In no sense are any of my edits vandalisations. I do not believe that you can say the same.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That your edits were "justifiable" is your POV. As is the rest of your statement. -- noosphere

I very much accused him of lack of good faith, but only when I had reasonable evidence. I therefore do not consider myself to be in violation of this partiular edict, after his multiple reverts and violation of NPOV. Indeed he has also accused me of vandalism. My edits are in no way consistent with that. See: [2]

How about the edit where you deleted the summary? -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But the 'new' summary does actually summarise the piece, so cannot be considered vandalism, it's editing.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no new summary. You've deleted the summary. Deleting the summary is vandalism, and that's what I'm talking about. You did not add content at that point but simply deleted the summary. The transcript of Curtis' introduction was already in the article. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I formed it into a new summary, one that contains your point.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider the current situation where the authors own words summarise the piece- to be a reasonable compromise. If Noosphere has any disagreements with it, he is free to add rather than remove comments in the article (but not the summary), in accordance with correct NPOV. I have absolutely no problem with that. I do have problems when users apparently arbitrarily repeat points within one paragraph whilst removing well founded, more general points about the piece- that actually violates NPOV. Noosphere has not shown the point I made to to be false, and whist I edited his work, I did so in a way that at no point denied that neoconservatives were indeed important in the documentary.WolfKeeper 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already addressed this "compromise" above. Now, let's talk about the things you didn't mention. Such as your violation of WP:CIVIL. I notice you haven't denied you violated this policy. Do you have any comments?

Second, the original summary stated that according to the documentary it was the neocons who "tried to benefit by exaggerating the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s". Your original edit attributed that to "politicians" in general. What evidence do you have that the documentary is talking about politicians in general in respect to this particular issue?

Um:

a) Adam Curtis says so in his introduction

b) The fact that the documentary talks and contains quotes by several politicians that are not neoconservatives, such as Bush and Blair that show their use of fear.

But let me turn the question back on you- what evidence do you have that the documentary is *only* about neoconservative politicians? Because if not, why the heck should we oversummarise that away?WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your point "a": Please quote the introduction to the effect that it was politicians in general who "tried to benefit by exaggerating the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s".

Second, even if Curtis' introduction had said anything like that, which it doesn't (since it doesn't even mention communism in the 1970s and 80s), his lack of specificity regarding these politicians certainly would not be obligatory on Wikipedia, since, having seen the documentary we're free to say precisely who it was that the documentary claims "tried to benefit by exaggerating the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s": namely, certain neocons.

Regarding your point "b": This is absolutely not relevant to my question, which was regarding who the documentary claimed "tried to benefit by exaggerating the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s". Are you asserting that it was Bush and Blair?

Regarding your question regarding what evidence I have that the documentary is "**only** about neoconservative politicians"? First, I never claimed that it was. I said it was primarily about the connection between neoconservatives and islamists, as described in the original summary. Describing what a documentary is primarily about should be the job of a summary, not describing everything that is mentioned.

The evidence that I have that the documentary is primarily about the connection between neoconservatives and islamists, as described in the original summary is that that's what the documentary spends most of it's time on. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if that is so; the piece isn't ONLY about that. The summary you wrote says that it is. That is a misrepresentation.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The series mentions all sorts of things. That doesn't mean the summary has to. The summary should summarize what most of the series spends its time on, not all the other things. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this up in our original discussion on the article's talk page, but you never addressed it. Do you have any comments now? Perhaps you claim that it was Bush or Blair who "exaggerated the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s"? Or will you admit that the documentary was speaking about certain neocons in particular and therefore your edit mischaracterized the documentary's claim on this point?

The fact that you can find points in the documentary where non neoconservatives used fear for political ends. To remove my generalisation, you have to prove that my POV is unsupported by the evidence. Good luck on that because it is well supported.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You've once again completely ignored my question, which was about who the documentary claims "exaggerated the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s". You keep bringing up Bush and Blair and politicians in general, but the fact is that the documentary pointed at certain neoconservatives in particular.

So let me ask you again to please address this specific issue. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I ignored your utter foolishness. So sue me.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that all lions are cats, but it is quite untrue that all cats are lions.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that all the neoconservatives exagerated the threat of communism- used fear for political purposes, but it is quite untrue that all the politicians that used fear for political purposes were neoconservatives.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I or the summary ever claim that "all the politicians that used fear for political purposes were neoconservatives"? This is a straw man argument. The fact is that most of the documentary focuses on the neoconservatives and the islamists and how they have used fear and terror (and various other similarities between the two). This is not the same as claiming that the "all the politicians that used fear for political purposes were neoconservatives". -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like you to address the specific question I asked. You've admitted that "it is true that all the neoconservatives exagerated the threat of communism". Now, do you admit that the documentary did not claim that it was politicians in general who exaggerated the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s but neoconservatives in particular?

If so, then the original phrasing of the summary (that it was "a group of neoconservatives" who "tried to benefit by exaggerating the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s") was accurate, while rewording it to say that the documentary claimed that "politicians" in general did so is inaccurate. -- noosphere 19:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Third, you've accused me of excluding Curtis' point of view. Please show me how I've done this considering his point of view was already represented in the transcript of the introduction in the main article. -- noosphere 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're implying in the introduction something about the piece that is not true- that the only politicians that use fear in the way that the piece talks about are neoconservative. You're welcome to that point of view, but under NPOV you are not allowed to remove POVs just because you disagree with them. NPOV is about capturing disparate POVs.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I never implied "that the only politicians that use fear in the way that the piece talks about are neoconservative". I freely admit that there are plenty of politicians who do this. However, the summary to the article is no place for this generalization, since that's not what the documentary spends most of it's time on. It focusses on the link between the neoconservatives and islamists, and the original summary is faithful to the film in describing the documentary's focus. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a reasonable implication to be taken from your summary that this is only what the documentary talks about.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you may infer (not "imply": it's the author who implies, and the reader who infers) anything you like from the summary. You might infer that neoconservatives and islamists are the only politicians in the world. But that doesn't mean that that's what the summary said. The summary only summarized what most of the series spent its time on. It never claimed that other politicians couldn't do similar things. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it'd help a bit if you put aside the personal issues and focused on just the article. You could conceivably argue intentions forever, so focusing on the content of the edit war could probably solve this disagreement before we've all grown beards (or some of us).

From what I see of the edit war, it was a difference in wording. On the one hand, there's "neoconservatives", on the other, there's "politicians (especially neoconservatives)", if I remember well. In my outsider opinion, the second is more NPOV because it leaves open the option that there could be non-neoconservatives, but the neoconservatives are the main focus/people/something.

Certainly saying "politicians (especially neoconservatives)" leaves open the possibility that other politicians may have benefited. However, this is not more NPOV, it's just more general. Just because a statement is more general does not make it more NPOV. We want to be accurate. So, since the majority of the documentary focuses on the neocons and their link to the islamists it is more accurate to say that that's what the documentary is about, and not "politicians in general (especially neoconservatives)".

Second, if you look at the diff you'll see that Wolfkeeper's edit completely replaced one mention of neoconservatives by "politicians" not "politicians in general (especially neoconservatives)". This is even more inaccurate. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No.WolfKeeper 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What is there to argue about here? The part of the original summary I'm referring to said "This documentary argues that a group of neoconservatives benefited from exaggerating the scale of the terrorist threat" and you changed it to "This documentary argues that politicians have' benefited from exaggerating the scale of the terrorist threat". In this part of your replacement where is the mention of neoconservatives? Please point it out. Quote it. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise on the wording would be best, as using a quote to introduce an article/paper/essay is poor form according to all the instruction I've had.

It's not ideal. But compromises never are. In this case we're in an unusual position in that we are protected from copyright issues since the documentary is now in the public domain, and therefore so is the transcript.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A brief quote at the beginning of the article wouldn't be out of place. But it certainly does not work as a summary. I am for a compromise, but it should be accurate in describing what the documentary spends most of its time on, without deflecting its focus to politicians in general. I am working on such a compromise now, and will post it in the compromise section of this case if I manage to get the wording right.

Great news about the documentary being placed in to the public domain, by the way. This means that we'll be able to provide links to hosts that make it available for download after all. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, try to keep the personal stuff out of the discussion; it doesn't help progress. :] --Keitei (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be just a word issue. Whilst I'm certainly not opposed to that in any way; I may be jumping to conclusions, I'm quite willing to be persuaded that I'm wrong on this point, but it seems to me that Noosphere's idea seems to be that the particular POV that he espouses is the only one that should be in the introduction. That seems to be highly congruent with his actions and statements so far. But that's very not NPOV so unless he changes his mind or atleast reads and understands and starts editing according to what NPOV actually says no progress seems to me to be possible.WolfKeeper 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not espousing a POV. It is a fact that the documentary spends most of its time on the connection between the islamists and neocons. The summary merely reflects this fact. -- noosphere 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you had actually said that I wouldn't have argued with that part. (Actually that was my point, why I said that "particularly" the neoconservatives had used fear for political purposes.) But that's not the whole story. Why on earth are you insisting on excluding the very beginning and the end of the documentary from the summary? That makes no sense.WolfKeeper 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So the whole meaning of the summary should be changed on account of one sentence in Curtis' introduction and the last ten minutes of a three hour series? I don't think so. The fact is that virtually the entire documentary (not even a mere majority, but a supermajority) focussed on the neoconservatives and islamists, and a couple of brief mentions of other politicians does not change that and should not affect the summary of the article in the last. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Keitei's 05:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) comment:

I fully agree that the personal attacks should cease. Let's focus on the issue at hand (the wording of the summary) rather than who did what, and we might actually have some hope of resolving this issue. -- noosphere 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)