Talk:The Power of Nightmares

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/archives 1


Contents

[edit] Who has made the most recent changes to the article? Willowx considers them "ridiculous POV rants"

I don't know who inserted the blatant POV but could they please stop? The article is riddled with dismissals of critics as "nonsense" and "it is a non sequitur". Wikipedia is not your personal blog. Please keep your personal opinions to yourself. The documentary's views are well-documented in the top half of the article. I don't see the rational in the sneering ("critics calim but they don't say why ..." ) tone and ridicule of criticisms ("this is nonsense") in the second half. I think that Google has attracted fans of the show to this page so that they can "Defend" it, rather than present all views in a neutral manner. (I signed it now , always forget that, too bad it's not automatically signed) Willowx 09:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your post Willowx. I am glad to see that you are now personnally committed to not adding POV to the article. Some of your previous edits have added emotive terms and your personal theories, unsupported by sources, but I'm glad to see you are now against that kind of behavior. I look forward to discussing with you how to make this article NPOV and properly sourced. --Shimbo 11:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments under 'This article is utterly biased'. If we develop a consensus on the talk page then we can defend it against POV vandalism. Otherwise we can't. So come on everyone, lets all take a deep breath and start working together. BTW: If you sign your comments it will make discussion much easier. --Shimbo 10:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No ranting here. I just looked at the assertions and pointed out what was wrong with them. There's nothing non-NPOV about adding assertions a) as a placeholder if you believe that these arguments have been presented, or b) to provide context for an assertion. If a group of people started a smear campaign against Curtis, for instance, and said that he ate babies, one should say that there is no evidence that Curtis eats babies, and there is no police investigation to assess this, but X, Y and Z say he does, no? Please also see my comment below on non-sensical assertions.
Do you know how to use the article history and to view users' contributions, Willowx? Let me know on my talk page if not. Mr. Jones 21:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

Hmmm... Good article about a fantastic documentary... but where's the criticism? Seabhc�n 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

you mean like this? [1] it's hard to know where to start criticising something so absurd. ObsidianOrder 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
How about [2], [3], [4], [5]? No one would describe PoN as a definitive, completely accurate account of the topics in question, but sweepingly saying it's absurd is extremely closed minded. The series is insightful and extremely thought-provoking.
ObsidianOrder article that (s)he posts doesn't really say much aside from the critisism that Richard Pipes was made to look stupid. Pipes, although notable, Team B may not have been his crowing achievement as he wasn't experienced specifically in what he needed to do. Concerning The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terror book, the reviewer dismises the fact that it is false by asking the friend who wrote the book if it was true.Blue Leopard 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at adding some criticism and Curtis' responses to the critics. --Shimbo 1 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis' views on Iraq

This may be relevant, given some of the criticisms refer to Iraq. "Is it possible that the ideology of radical (political) Islam has a better chance of succeeding where it failed in the 1980s now that the West has responded as it has to the perception of its threat in Afghanistan, Iraq etc?

James, London

I can only repeat what I said in my previous responses on this site. I think one has to be very careful about this.
The films showed that Islamism is not a new phenomenon. Its trajectory in the 1980s and 90s is that of rise and fall. It tried to create a pan-Arab revolution and failed because it couldn't inspire the masses.
The answer is that no-one knows whether the war on terror is re-creating mass Islamism and giving it a new revolutionary appeal, or whether it is actually :fuelling a more nationalist opposition that uses an Islamist rhetoric - as seems to be happening in Iraq.
The problem is that it is so dangerous to report anything in Iraq that everyone - both pro and anti - project what they want to see onto the insurgency.
Yet again our perception of reality is being driven by political fantasies rather than an accurate understanding drawn from reality. "

[edit] Legality of downloads

I think that you made a big improvement, but I'm not sure that The Power of Nightmares downloads are illegal. I wonder whether distribution (e.g. uploading) alone is regulated. Anyway, this article links to an archive.org page that seems to be distributing (authorised?) copies. Tim Ivorson 4 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble with leaving (illegal) out. I'm sure it is illegal to make copyright material available without permission in very many countries. Whether it is then illegal to accesss that material may vary by country? Curtis has said that rights issues are what is stopping the release of a DVD although I imagine Pathe will be able to sort them out eventually.

I'm not sure, but it may not be illegal in Canada, due to a special tax there, but I wouldn't like to bet. Otherwise it's illegal nearly everywhere I think.WolfKeeper
This site has better quality versions of each episode. M. Stephen 22 August, 2005 22:54


This site has the best watchable quality version online. BTW under fair use terms this documentary is made availible in accordinace with international law.
Check out Fair use there are very specific rules about what is and what isn't fair use. Putting the whole of a copyrighted piece of work on a website so that people can download it for free is not fair use by any stretch of the imagination. As it says there in Fair use, it is a recognised term in American Law and some other countries only, so your statement about international law cannot be correct. --Shimbo 10:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the link to archive.org has just been removed from the main article, I'd like to ask what the Wikipedia policy on linking to websites containing copyrighted works is. Is there a policy?

The work itself does not reside on Wikipedia servers. Clearly by merely providing a link to archive.org Wikipedia is not itself distributing the aforementioned copyrighted work.

So is linking to another site prohibited by Wikipedia rules or not? If not then I must object to removing the link, since the link provides valuable, relevant information (namely, where one could go to see the series the article is about). noosphere 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not legally. Such information seems mostly useful for people interesting in people breaking copyright. It doesn't seem to me that an encyclopedia should assist in criminal acts. And there are probably legal implications of doing that kind of thing that mean that the wikipedia should not do this.WolfKeeper 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
When you say "not legally" what are you referring to?
As for the rest, it seems to be your opinion. My opinion is that linking to a site does not "assist in criminal acts" but provides useful information. It does not advocate breaking laws, nor does it assist people to break laws. It simply provides (legal, afaik) information. So we have a difference of opinion. Therefore I once again respectfully ask if there is a wikipedia policy on this issue. If not, I think we should put the link back, because it provides relevant, valuable (though obviously controversial) information. noosphere 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it looks like no one has stepped up to the plate to provide any kind of Wikipedia policy on this, and I can't find one myself. So, until someone does find such a policy, I'm going to assume there isn't one.
Now we're stuck with two opinions on how to proceed. I'd like to put up links to the site hosting the series, because I think this information is relevant, useful and valuable for people reading this article. Wolfkeeper wants to keep the links off the main article, for the reasons he went over above. I would like to reach a consensus on this. Are there any suggestions on how such a consensus could be reached? noosphere 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well, I finally took a look in the obvious place where a Wikipedia policy regarding copyright can be found. And, under the "Linking to copyrighted works" section I found:
"Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us."
So it looks like Wolfkeeper is quite right. And, until we find out whether archive.org or any other site that provides downloads of the show is not violating BBC's copyright, or until and unless the courts decide that a link to these sites does not constitute "contributory infringement" and Wikipedia changes its policy we should keep such links out of the article.
Of course, linking to the copyright holder's (BBC's) site with information on how to get the program legally should be just fine. noosphere 00:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it even clear that the download is illegal? archive.org usually only contains works that they can legally provide for download. In this specific case I couldn't find anything on the site saying they have permission from BBC. Tnikkel 21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tnikkel, where did you hear that archive.org "usually only contains works that they can legally provide for download"? If we can find out for sure that archive.org is not violating the BBC's copyright of the show by offering it for download then we are allowed to post a link to it. noosphere 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
See my comment lower on this page here. Tnikkel 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm continuing this down there. noosphere 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The role of Leo Strauss

About the added criticisms that the characterisation of the neo-cons is innacurate and that the role of Strauss is exagerated: Does anyone have a source for these criticisms? Also any idea what supporters response to them is? --Shimbo 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced assertions

There have been several new, unsourced criticisms of the programme added, partly in the wake of the London bombings. I've separated these from the sourced ones. Except that is for the one about the London bombing proving the programme wrong which I think is an extension of a criticism that Curtis has already responded to so I've included it there.

I think it would be great if we could now concentrate on sourcing these criticisms and responses (I know, I know, I added some of the responses) or we are in danger of heading towards original research.

There are also some other good points made below about the Soviet Union etc so hopefully we can include them (as soon as they are sourced too).

I hope this is OK. --Shimbo 8 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of "original research". We might argue that they are not believed by anyone and that I completely spuriously invented them. In fact they are mostly taken from the film and Curtis' comments. The best way to present this is as a reasoned argument with argument and counter argument sepparated by sections based on the way different arguments are framed. The counter arguments can then be placed within each of those contexts (in both directions). They should then be grouped together as appropriate. Mr. Jones 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research says in the section 'What is excluded from articles': A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is: it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article;

I believe that your recent edits are in contravention of this rule. If not please Cite your sources.

Your recent edits have also added a large number of POV statements to the article. I predict that those with the opposite POV will heavily edit or revert your changes. Describing criticisms as 'nonsense' is not helpful towards building a NPOV article. --Shimbo 14:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A particular assertion can be described as nonsense. If a term is too loosely applied, or too inherently ambiguous, the result is non-sensical, tautological or otherwise trivial. "The Power of Nightmares is a conspiracy theory" is nonsense similar to "Ronald Regan is a film contract" Again the question becomes whether these assertions were made. I took it in good faith that the person who added those assertions knew them to have been made; some people are systematically loose with the use of language, and that should be represented.
Have lodged an objection to this aspect of the NOR policy as I think it is counter productive. Mr. Jones 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unfalsifiable assertions made by the documentary?

I see that a statement that the programme's thesis is unfalsifiable has been added. I don't think this is correct. The programme made a concrete set of assertations that can be refuted. For example the programme asserts that 'Al Queda doesn't exist as a widespread, hidden network orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden'. This can be disproven by pointing to the evidence that it does. If Osama Bin Laden is ever captured and put on trial then all the evidence against him will presumably be presented. This isn't the same as asserting 'aliens abducted me' which really is unfalsifiable. Please let me know if you disagree otherwise I'm going to remove that statement. --Shimbo 08:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If it's an accusation that's being made, it should be included. However, I can find nothing to indicate that it is.
It's better to say "have the potential to be refuted" than "can be refuted". There is no clear evidence that has stood up to examination AQ as a whole orchestrated by OBL directly. And certainly not about the London bombers. Just being clear on that, though I assume you were just making an academic point. Mr. Jones 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Before your recent editing there was a criticism that said that the programme was a conspiracy theory and hence unfalsifiable. I was suggesting that was incorrect and should be removed. However you have heavily edited the section, which now says 'Those attacking the programme might have argued that the programme is not falsifiable. This is irrelevant as neither is any other television programme.' I don't think your counter argument is correct and would be interested to know if have you read Falsifiability? As it says there: "Falsifiable" does not mean "false". Thank you for correcting my English - I agree what I meant to say was "have the potential to be refuted". I agree it was a fairly minor point but wouldn't say it was 'academic'. --Shimbo 14:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't there a song by Jackson Brown in the programme?

I know I saw this, but I saw another about the same time. One of them had a theme song by Jackson Brown, was it this one?--Silverback June 28, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Nah, it was "Secret Government". The Jackson Brown song had an attractive haunting melody.--Silverback June 28, 2005 22:23 (UTC)

[edit] The programme misrepresents "neo-cons"

if you listen to this article (and perhaps the BBC series, which i have not seen), neo-cons are followers of Strauss who "came to see western liberalism as corrosive to morality". that is extremely innacurate. neo-cons are former liberals who usually remain just as socially liberal, but tend to support an aggressive interventionist foreign policy. yes, they tend to be anti-communist, and did in the past distance themselves from the left-liberal, pacifist, pro-communist movements of the 60's. if anything, you might more accurately say they came to see socialism as corrosive to western liberalism. no, neo-cons are not "followers of Strauss", and for that matter Strauss's ideas (which I vehemently disagree with btw) are much more complicated than just "liberalism corrosive to morality". in short the parallel between Qutb and Strauss, and between Wahhabis/Salafis and neo-cons, is absurd. ObsidianOrder 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)



"neocons are former liberals" - must have been weaker links in the chain. Smoking pot in college or coke on Friday does not make you a liberal. Most of the one I can recognize were all fairly rich young boys and girls. A short liberal phase in their youth does not make them "liberals", before they enter their natural habitat.



You should watch the three-part series first. The part about Leo Strauss in the first episode is just to explain the roots of the neo-cons. The episode does not make any comparison between the two. It´s more about introducing the players involved in all of this. --81.71.33.141 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strauss' role is exaggerated

I've seen the series, and it does blow out of proportion the role of Strauss influenced "neo-cons". It is dismissive of the necessity of confronting communism and of the Soviet Union's role in sponsoring terrorism, which I don't see how they can avoid, unless they don't count the actions of satellite states like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc.
Actually, Strauss was a key influence on the neocons, though it's not quite as clear as the movie makes out how his influence led to a certain foreign policy ideology. But the neocons in the Reagan era believed not just that the Soviets "sponsored" terrorism but that they orchestrated it. Behind every terrorist attack we were supposed to see the Soviet threat, not developments in the middle east or the rise of Islamism. That, I think, is correctly critiqued by this documentary (at least, the part I've seen - just 1 & 2). --csloat 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
Dismissive of the necessity of confronting communism in the 1980s on the grounds that communism (in the way the Soviets used it at least) was an inherently flawed system and the Soviet Union was already in severe decline by the 1980's? I don't think I'm alone in saying that's arguably a pretty accurate portrayal of the situation. People had already noticed trends such as the decreasing life expectancy of Russian men, declining economic growth since the 1950s, etc. These were known and noticed in the west. So this isn't an idea that Curtis has come up with on his own after the fall of the Soviet Union. Average Earthman 07:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The film was not about communism. I'm not sure why the filmmaker should be obligated to deal with this information. The problem as I pointed out was the neocon distortion of the Soviet military threat, which was particularly notable when they dealt with terrorism, a different phenomenon. --csloat 20:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The documentary is reletavist

The documentary is reletavist as it does not criticise the greens. Also, to the extent it focused on this perceived parallel or analogy between the US and the wahabis in a way that doesn't morally distinguish the two, the implication is that the use of fear and nightmare scenerios is the province of the right. There is no attempt to also daemonize the the environmentalist or anti-globalist left for all their fear mongering, nightmare scenerios.--Silverback June 29, 2005 09:59 (UTC)
Surely a documentary should strive to present facts, not make moral distinctions? PoN makes the case that national governments are using fear of an invisible outside enemy to boost their own popularity and create a sense of purpose for themselves and their own rule. Environmentalism or anti-globalism have never gained widespread enough support to be used in this manner, afaik. Left-right distinctions seem irrelevant in this case. The current British government is comparatively left-wing on most other issues. Those that try to whip up anti-globalist sentiment in order to gain popular support tend to be right-wing, nationalist parties.
The dismissiveness of the need to confront communism seems to extend to mentioning that the main reason the Soviet Union crumbled was the flaws of the Soviet system rather than the personal merit of Ronald Reagan. Most historians would agree. The need to confront a nation like Cuba seems rather debatable to me in any case. Beyond that, the US has a history of supporting authoritarian South American and South-East Asian rule just as extensive as that of the Soviet Union but these things are not what PoN is about.--Peet 7 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
Nations like USSR and Cuba, that were still shooting people that were trying to escape and were still overtly and surrupticiously trying to convince or undermine other nations to also turn into gulags of captive low wage labor, should be confronted whether they were crumbling from internal flaws or not. After all, every minute they crumble earlier. Your statement about flaws, seems to ignore the fact that the flaws had existed/survived for several decades. It was argued that Saddam's regime was even more flawed, yet he survived the terrible destruction of the war with Iran and the 1st gulf war with the UN. Don't underestimate the power of nightmares.--Silverback 06:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is irrelevant as it is not the subject of the documentary, nor a popular criticism, AFAIAA (as far as I can make out you are complaining about what the documentary did not report). Perhaps you can find articles that express a similar opinion in the context of the documentary? Mr. Jones 20:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is biased

Both arguements are put forward yes, but the anti arguement is set up as a straw man and is immediatly refuted in partisan terms. What a disgrace. I think perhaps controvertial items such as this should have the critisism/defence sections based around quotes from pundits. jucifer 23:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall using partisan terms. Can you give an example? I'm not familiar enough with the arguments against the assertions of the programme to provide substantial rebuttals. Some of the rebuttals presented seemed patently absurd, so I explained why drawing on Curtis' responses. To achieve NPOV, and to seek civility the response to that should not be what could easily be interpreted as veiled ad homeneim attacks, but to add to the article outlining the criticisms in more detail. Gladly, that is what has happened. Mr. Jones 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it is biassed. Not sure what to do about it though. ObsidianOrder 23:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this programme was controversial and people feel strongly about it. The current edit (mostly by Mr. Jones ) is very pro the programme. The previous edit (mostly by Willowx ) was very negative. Both edits were made without any discussion here, added emotive terms, and personal theories, unsupported by sources.

As it stands, if we edited to Avoid weasel terms most of the criticism/response section would have to come out. The exception being, I have to say, my original list of criticisms and responses, which I based entirely on a BBC interview with Adam Curtis [6].

Do it.WolfKeeper 11:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see people discussing the article here in an attempt to reach a consensus, rather than unilaterally removing a lot of what I'm sure were well intentioned edits. Having said that, if there is consensus that we should go back then OK. What are other people's views? --Shimbo 17:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see no weasel words. The current article has way too much 'people say' in it. Who says it? Who may have paid them to say it? Should an encyclopedia contain weasel words on such a contentious issue? I think not. If we take out the weasel words, their supporters can put them back in, attributed. Otherwise for all we know, the supporters made them up from whole cloth. WolfKeeper
I see you've been editing to attribute sources, well done.--Shimbo 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper, that seems a negative, partisan approach.
I'm sorry, that seems to be a non sequitor. In no way is the principle that you have to support what you put in the wikipedia partisan (unless you are seriously claiming that a particular set of partisan beliefs are unsupportable, but should go in anyway???? Really???? Which set????)WolfKeeper
One should try to attribute assertions as far as possible, but only remove assertions believed on a firm basis to be false. A firm basis would be to say "there is no evidence for this that I can find" having looked with google, at least. To do otherwise should undermine one's credibility.
Why should I have to attempt to source some random claim some person made? If they're making the claim *they* should be able to support it. Wikipedia editors are not expected to be unpaid lackeys running around desparately trying to source the claims of people who may be highly biased. If they put the claim in, they should put the proof in. Besides, just because I can't find a source, doesn't mean there isn't one. It's extremely easy to claim something, it's much harder to prove or disprove it. Some things are easy to prove, a few things aren't. What am I supposed to do google on it, and read 100,000 web pages in the vague hope I may find evidence one way or another? No way! You haven't thought this through.WolfKeeper
Further, presenting a logical analysis of an assertion is justified. If an article presents an assertion with poor logical consistency such as "the Republican party is a conspiracy theory", "gerbils are a kind of cheese", "Russia has been invaded by USA capitalists" or some other unfamiliar syntax, it is valid to describe what is understood by gerbils and cheese and state that there is no immediately obvious consistent semantic for that syntax. These descriptions can be further refined, of course. This is a transitional stage, and research can be conducted to determine whether these assertions are believed (or at least espoused) by anyone or not. The period of the transitional stage should be based on the edit history of the contributor that made them. Mr. Jones 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research. I particularly disagree with checking somebodies edit history, every edit should stand on its own.WolfKeeper

I have been trying to encourage people with both POVs to edit responsibly for NPOV and to Cite sources but I don't seem to be getting very far. Sadly, it seems we are going to end up with a NPOV dispute, as some people seem reluctant to cite sources, write in an NPOV way or discuss changes on the talk page.

--Shimbo 09:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfowitz "debunks Strauss myth"

Have you people not read the Paul Wolfowitz interview with Sam Tannahaus in Vanity Fair? He debunks the Strauss myth right there and answers questions people have about the war on terror.

This documentary only gets it half right when explaining the Islamist threat and radical fundamentalism, but it openly shows its bias against the Bush administration and the "neo-cons" by putting them in an entire new light seperate from any other conservative. Even an article by Paul Bergen (no friends of the Bush admin.) decries some of the blatant distortions in the doc.

You can critique the way this administration has handled the War on Terror, but their ways of legalizing it were not illegal in accords to current law establishment.

As far as I am aware the documentary makes no claims regarding the legality of anything. What are you refering to here?--Shimbo 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Read Paul Wolfowitz's speech to the Council of Foreign Relations, and see his responses in the Q&A. They are lucid and have every merit of a coherent claim, no different than those who persisted against Iraq during the Clinton administration. In short in think that the blame game and the constant bickering over the administrations motives and goals is getting a bit thin. Now its just mounting up to propaganda. User:64.95.219.15

Wolfowitz may claim that he (or his political philosophy) has little or nothing to do with Strauss, and if so that should be written about, but that does not amount to a debunking. Superficially, it's Wolfowitz' word against Curtis'. Obviously we should look deeper than that, and draw other sources in. People who claim to know about Wolfowitz, for example. This should be presented in proximity to the documentary's evidence and that of its source publications as cited by Curtis. Mr. Jones 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide a link to the great man's words? Seabhcán 19:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe you people are too lazy to google it:

These look like valuable sources. Well done in digging them up. Now, rather than critising others for failing to include them why don't you edit the article to include them? Otherwise, perhaps other people will accuse you of being 'lazy' too. BTW: Using terms like 'you people' is not helpful, there seems to me to be a wide range of views expressed here, which of them are 'you people'? Also please sign your posts.--Shimbo 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The point is that people were too busy finding more critiques towards Wolfowitz than criques towards the Power of Nightmares. Im new to Wiki so I havent had time to sign on and learn the game, but I will soon. I just thought I had to throw in my two cents. I will refrain from using the term you people, if there would be a civil open discussion that doesnt resort to worse ad hominems like "war monger" or "neo fascist". I have plenty of more links to provide.
Fair enough and glad to have you on board. I feel you are jumping to conclusions if you feel there is some kind of plot to boost the programme. Wikipedia is not about defending or attacking a point of view it is about producing an NPOV encyclopedia. There are people with a variety of views editing this article and also people who have no interest except to see that it is NPOV. I think you will find that if you write with a NPOV, Avoid weasel terms and Cite sources then your edits will be accepted without any problems. Also, discussion of this article has been very civilised so far with no agression and I for one certainly hope it stays that way - civility is Wikipedia policy. I look forward to seeing you editing the page and supplying us with the other links you have.--Shimbo 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't notice anyone use those terms here. Mr. Jones 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Negative influence on the Arab world

"Critics of the programme claim that the broadcast of the documentary in the Arab world (on Al Jazeera, and in Arabic) has had negative effects. They suggest it has hampered efforts to reduce the appeal of radical movements and prevalence of conspiracy theories. They suggest that it has provided convenient excuses. They suggest it has fostered conspiracy theories."

This section should either be backed up with sources or removed. What "Critics" say this? Who are "They"? It sounds like "They" are saying that critical programs should not be produced incase they mislead nieve Arabs. This is more than a little insulting. Seabhcán 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is a prime example of the use ofweasel terms and, I suspect, original research. I suggest the fact that it has been shown on Al Jazeera and they reviewed it and made part of it available via a link from their website [7] should be moved to the Distribution section. Unless someone can come up with a source for the criticism that is. --Shimbo 17:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Please note that here I was more-or-less rephrasing the text that was already in the article when I edited it. An accusation of "weasel wording" thus stems from misunderstanding. Glad some of the other criticisms have been exemplified, BTW. NOR does not apply here: it's something that's been said or it's not. Structually it's NPOV as it frames a viewpoint, though of course it may be one that's not been expressed. There is probably something to be written about the influence, the percieved influence and the representation of influence on arab countries of the documentary, however. Mr. Jones 19:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it should be backed up by sources. But there is no doubt that this documentary has given room for conspiracy theories to cloud the truth. You may call me Anon.
Dear Anon, What is 'the truth'? Seabhcán 08:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The "truth" since you're so reluctant to think that its all relative, is that the neo-cons are a lobby group that advocate national force against terrorism rather than the intelligence gathering law enforcement that the CIA is under. They are a very small minority that have grown in influence over the years since Clinton and the W Bush administration.They have been advocating the the over throw of Saddam since the Clinton years and all the of the intell that Bush used was also used by Clinton, left over from the last UNSCOM inspection in '98. After 9/11 they saw that Iraq was a growing threat that needed to be taken out and convinced Bush to take immidiate action regardless of UN effort.
Thier ideas on terror are manifested in the National Security Stradegy and the clauses for War in Iraq are spelled out in the Joint Resolution for War in Iraq and Bush's speech to the UN. Its very simple. The neo cons may have helped sway the Bush administration, but all of the ideas that the group lobbies are not always approved. Read the Neo-Con Reader by Irwin Stetzler. Bush is not a neo-con. -Anon
I'd disagree that the CIA have any law enforcement role (Arn't you thinking of the FBI?) and about the real reasons about the Iraq invasion (I believe its more about controling the oil supplies of Europe, India and China with the aim of maintaining veto power over their economies - but thats a different arguement). But that the neo-cons are a small group with certain goals, that they have been advocating the invasion of Iraq since Clinton, or that they don't get everything they want, is not in dispute by either my self or the 'Nightmares' television series. Have you actually seen the program, Anon? Seabhcán 09:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The neo-conservatives have wanted to overthrow Sadaam Hussein since the first Gulf War under President Bush Sr.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
What the neo-cons wanted is to occupy iraq. There have been plenty of opertunities to overthrow the government, which have been rejected because they would not result in the US taking control of Iraq. This is what lead the US to betray the shia uprising in the 1990's. The US actually gave Saddam infomation on the Shia and allowed Iraqi forces to bomb the shia - 100,000's were murdered. The US's greatest fear has always been a spontaneous uprising in Iraq which would lead to improved relations with Iran or an independant democracy. The US and the neo-cons have always been very honest about wanting control. Seabhcán 09:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
HEY!! This stuff was supposed to be secret, how do you know about it?--Silverback 09:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ha ha. Seriously - there's nothing secret about this stuff. It's quite openly talked about. Probably the only notable thing about the neo-cons is that they talk a lot and are very honest. The same power games have been played for centuries - there's a veneer of talk of freedom and democracy, but always the issues of power and resource control enter the conversation. Remember that the British empire brought freedom to Iraq in the 1920's and spent the following decade bombing freedom into the Iraqis using mustard gas. It was only the great depression that made this freedom uneconomic, and the British withdrew. Seabhcán 11:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, if the US didn't keep conquered territory after WWI, WWII and Korea, what makes you think their plans and hopes for Iraq are anything but an improvement for the Iraqi people? The necons were no longer in power after Reagan left office, so had nothing to do with the post gulf war I, activities. There is no way they would have acquiesed in leaving Saddam in power. After all he had no more right to oppress the Iraqi people than to oppress the Kuwaitis. Unfortunately the first Gulf war was too multilateral, with the UN and arab allies involved who did not want to see the Shiite majority gain power. Too bad the neocons weren't around then. Recall, that they lead the chorus of outrage that the shiites were abandoned.--Silverback 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
US didn't keep conquered territory? Remind me again when the last US forces left Japan, Germany and South Korea? Seabhcán 13:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
We left every time we were asked. The necons definitely want to close bases in Germany and forward deploy elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, those countries are democracies. I suspect the democracy of Iraq, will want some continued US presense also.--Silverback 13:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
You realise of course that that is precisely the arguement that the Soviet Union gave for not withdrawing their troups from central and eastern Europe - they were never asked. Its difficult to ask when there are hundreds of thousands of foreign troups on your soil, dangerous to ask, in fact. Yes, following the final withdrawal of the Russians from easern Europe back to Russia, the neo-cons want to move US troups after them, closer to their new bases in Russia. The 'democracy' in Iraq will undoubtly ask for US milliary backup. As did the 'democracy' of south Vietnam 40 years ago, as the newly freed Norway asked for Nazi occupation after Germany invaded that country to "free it from the dangers of the war", as Hitler said. But then, America is exceptional, isn't it? Seabhcán 14:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Now would be the time for them to do it. US military is stressed to the limit by tiny ole Iraq. Yes, the US is unique, when you consider the rebuilding they did post WWII in Japan and West Germany. But they're not perfect. Their attempt to export their drug war is a good example. --Silverback 14:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Everybody thinks their home country is unique. Everybody is right - all countries are unique. But I don't think that will save the ordinary GI doing the hard work in Iraq. They'll be there for decades. But it is remarkable how badly the war has been organised so far. It shows that all this super-hyper-mega-power talk is a fiction. America is unique like the rest of us. Seabhcán 14:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
"I'd disagree that the CIA have any law enforcement role (Arn't you thinking of the FBI?) and about the real reasons about the Iraq invasion (I believe its more about controling the oil supplies of Europe, India and China with the aim of maintaining veto power over their economies - but thats a different arguement)."
I meant that the CIA wants to keep it an international intellegence gathering stradegy. It still wants to play the Kissinger game. The neo-cons advocate the Truman Doctrine of full force. And your supposed "real" reasons about the Iraqi invasion are just speculations. Everything else isnt disputed because it's simple and been proven. The rest has been thrown into the speculation game and turned into conspiracy theories. Yes, I've seen the program. I dont argue with much of its content. But like most propaganda pieces they do throw in truth, but brand it to thier liking. I think that programs like this are just an excuse to promote anti-globalization causes, even at the expense of denying a serious threat like terrorism as nothing more than a ruse for "power". - Anon
The program does not deny the threat of terrorism, it says that the threat is exaggerated. Islamic terrorists do not have the power to destroy our societies. Vastly more people are killed in car crashes than by terrorism. To quote the Law Lord's ruling on British anti-terror laws: [8] There is "no state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation... The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." Seabhcán 08:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed *completely* unattributed criticism

Hmmm, I started going through the article applying the completely unattributed criticism standard, and I had to stop, because that would remove all the balancing criticism. Only one of the criticisms is attributed to anything more specific than "critics". I am going to restore all the criticism, the reader will just have to judge the criticism on its merits, and not on the names of some critics they probably wouldn't recognize anyway.--Silverback 18:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

If Curtis has specifically replied to it, then leaving it in is fine I think. Otherwise it's too easy for this just to become a collection of weasel words; I checked back in the history, it has drifted a lot already. A lot of the unattributed comments are from the BBC website link I just added or the CBC website. WolfKeeper

It's not easy. At some point we will have to clear out the weasel words.WolfKeeper

p.s. I took some of your stuff out Silverback, sorry about that, please put it back in- but only if you can attribute it.WolfKeeper

Since this work is not prominent enough to have significant sourced critics. It is also not prominent enough to be cited as a source of "facts". This means the "sanctity" of the synopsys will have to be broken and the "facts" required to be sourced to legitimate reputable sources and allowed to be balanced for NPOV with other facts.--Silverback 06:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Senior American civil servants and politicians influenced by neo-conservatism came to believe anti-communist propaganda ". This statement is a good place to start. What politicians? What propoganda? What is the source for this information? Surely there are some anti-communist things these politicians believed that was not "propoganda". Might they be sufficient to explain the actions of politicians? Might they oppose communism on principle because people were being shot trying to escape from communism?. --Silverback 06:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"The program does not deny the threat of terrorism, it says that the threat is exaggerated. Islamic terrorists do not have the power to destroy our societies. Vastly more people are killed in car crashes than by terrorism. To quote the Law Lord's ruling on British anti-terror laws: [8] There is "no state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation... The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." Seabhcán 08:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)"

If it says that it's exagerated then it pretty much denies it or might as well deny it because it denies the magnitude of it's danger. This is what I dislike about the opposition groups that fanatically diregard the threat of terror to something of a grab for power by a group of elites who actually want to globalize the world with a neo-liberal stradegy. It's too Dr. Evilish. And I am surprised that so many have quickly fallen into the trap of it. It's a ploy by the anti-globzalization crusaders that read too much into foreign policy and speculate on every little detail that the administration does.
The most likely danger is a few hundred or low thousands more will die. But the nature of terrorism is that it relies on people not realising that they will die anyway, with probability 1; and the chances of getting struck by lightning are literally higher than dying from terrorism. But guess which one has the press and the politicians acting on it? Not lightning. That's the real point isn't it? And the politicians are making political capital from the very many stupid people that don't understand this. Bush invaded Iraq on the strength of it; mainly he wanted the oil, that's why he spent over $100 billion on it. He probably wanted Saddam gone too. But it was the oil that was the deal maker. Political capital. It's nothing to do with being evil, it's just opportunism.WolfKeeper

[edit] Not prominent enough???

"Note: Since this work is not prominent enough to have signficant sourcable criticism, the point of view put forward in this sysopsys will have countering facts interspersed in parentheses to balance the article and in this way attempt to achieve a neutral point of view."

I still apologise for taking your stuff out last time Silverback, but this time, I don't. The article is probably already skirting the limits of fair use by quoting Curtis in this way, but interspersing the directors work with comments like that- I don't see how that can be allowed; there's concepts like 'moral rights' involved. If you want to pull out excerpts further down the article and comment on them individually that may very well be ok, but the way you did this made it unreadable. Atleast, that's what I think, if other people think I'm way off here, then we can easily add these comments back.WolfKeeper

I am open to other ways of balancing a minor barely reviewed work like this. I will consider your suggestions above, and self revert for now, so you won't use up yours.--Silverback 07:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Silverback. The concept of balance is a very difficult one. I doubt a completely balanced article can ever be produced. The article as it stands is not truly unbalanced, since it includes comments by a wide variety of points of view, but it certainly can be made better, with care.WolfKeeper

You seem to have misunderstood the idea here Silverback. NPOV is about accurately capturing the comments that people have made on a subject. If nobody has made any important comments, it's not up to us to make them up! No original research! We need to act more like reporters or researchers...

Anon one, my counter points are not original research. They all can be backed up, and the ones I worked out so far, can be backed up in articles right here on wikipedia. Hyperbole and distortion cannot be allowed to get into wikipedia through a back door like this. Citing Curtis spinning responses to unpointed objections from emailers, does not provide an objective view.--Silverback 07:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, capturing any hyperbole he has made, or any of his critics is an entirely objective process. What we cannot do, is interject our own hyperbole. Encyclopedias do not attempt to change the world- they merely catalogue it.WolfKeeper

"The most likely danger is a few hundred or low thousands more will die. But the nature of terrorism is that it relies on people not realising that they will die anyway, with probability 1; and the chances of getting struck by lightning are literally higher than dying from terrorism. But guess which one has the press and the politicians acting on it? Not lightning. That's the real point isn't it? " That is a ridiculous point. There is no War on Lightning simply because there are more deaths caused by lightning strikes that happen about by natural causes. We are at war with willful guerilla groups and states that sponsor activities to over throw or terrorize stable governments. The difference now then was then is that the Bush administration has called it so a war, and has opted to use the military along with the FBI and the CIA. The War in Iraq was not about oil. That is speculation. You can try to "prove" it with all the shoddy evidence you have that probably points to other things, that you try and twist to fit the picture that it was about oil. The war was about upholding UN Resolutions dealing with Saddam Hussien to account for his weapons of mass destruction. The onus was sqarely on him and he failed to comply. The only thing that terrorism had to do with Iraq was that Saddam had ties to terrorism and could employ the use of terror if he was desperate. The case for the removal of Hussien was being discussed even in the Clinton administration. This situation is so easy to comprehend. I dont know why is has to be tripped up by global oil crusades and tales of maniacal conservatives that want to rule the Earth through their multi-national corporations. Dont you find it odd that the ones spouting this non sense are the anti-globalization crusaders with neo-Marxist tainted glasses that see profit and global finance as the ills of society? And anyone who disagrees with their world view in politics is "in" on the action? The other half of naysayers seem to to be the isolationist hard right that see any intervention and free trade as an enemy of the Constitution.

I presume you're being facetious. Nobody could be that gullible.WolfKeeper

"I presume you're being facetious. Nobody could be that gullible." I know right?! No one could possibly not see it for what it really is? A massive grab at Middle Eastern natural resources. Oh the humanity! The utter uncanny diabolical schemes of that evil kabal. They must be stopped!

Whatever. Please try to avoid putting spaces at the beginning of the line, it messes up formatting.WolfKeeper

[edit] The programme employs selective evidence deleted.

I have deleted this paragraph because the given supporting evidence was shabby, not to say completely false. Let me explain.

As first example of incomplete or biased reporting the paragraph mentions the reporting on the book The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terror ‘’. This book is written by Claire Sterling (ISBN 029777929X) and published early 1981. In her book she indeed points to the Soviet Union as the driving force behind many terrorist incidents in those days. And now it comes:

  • unlike written in the paragraph, she does not mention the Stasi or its files once in the book. That would not even have been possible, since only after 1989 those files would have been accessible (and to be more exact: actually only after the recovery of the files in 1995)
  • secondly the paragraph in article “forgets” to mention the interview in the documentary with Melvin Goodman (head of Soviet affairs of the CIA 1976-1987) who literally states: “…we found clear episodes where CIA black propaganda – clandestine information that was designed under a covert action plan to be planted in European newspapers – were picked up and put in the book”.

The second example of biased reporting is, according to the paragraph, the fact that the documentary does not mention the economic damage that a ‘’dirty bomb’’ would cause. This remark is completely besides the point. The documentary dismisses, with evidence, the radioactive threat of dirty bombs that always has been presented as very serious. So if this threat does not exist, a ‘’dirty bomb’’ is just as dangerous as any other clean bomb (with the same amount of explosives) and causes just as much (or not) economical damage.

In absence of supporting evidence for omissions and bias in the documentary as mentioned in the paragraph, I have deleted it. If anyone feels the need to reverse this I am very curious about the supporting evidence. AlexP 18:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "The programme plays on anti-american sentiment"

At the moment, I'm thinking about taking this out. Apologies if I've missed something obvious, but apart from a forum or two I haven't really found anyone (anyone with a significant reputation to worry about) taking that position, and I can't see anything quotable in the program transcript that supports it.

If anyone can link something, in the next week or so, then we'll certainly keep it, otherwise I'm planning to take it out. You can always reinsert it, if you find anything.

txWolfKeeper 12:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be taken out. It is not sourced, nor does it quote any part of the program to support its assertions which are:
"[The program] has also been accused of playing upon anti-American sentiment, by fostering the view that the US is somehow 'parallel' to Al Qaeda in extremism, or that the US is manipulative and scheming."
First, what is the source for these accusations? Where were they made and by whom?
Second, the program does not focus on "the US" (the nation as a whole, nor the entire country's population) but on certain factions within the US government (in particular, the neocons in the current executive branch). So this characterization of the program is inaccurate.
In fact, the program is relatively salutory in describing certain Americans (quite powerful and influential figures in previous administrations), such as Henry Kissinger and Bush Sr., who are described as striving to make the world "safer" (in contrast to the neocons in the current administration, who are accused of using fear to gain power for themselves). Clearly these Americans are (arguably quite important) parts of the US. So, to show them in a relatively positive light could hardly be described as "anti-american" or as "'parallel' to Al Qaeda in extremism".
It is fashionable in extreme rightwing circles to conflate "America" or "the US" with the neocons in the present executive branch or, more generally, with the actions or policies of a particular American administration. This way any disagreement with these policies, actions, or government officials can be branded "anti-american", "unpatriotic", "treasonous" or what have you. The main article section in question is a prime example of just such a (unsourced, unattributed, innacurate) political smear.
Finally, even modifying the main article section to read:
"[The program] has also been accused of playing upon anti-neocon sentiment, by fostering the view that the neocons are somehow 'parallel' to Al Qaeda in extremism, or that the neocons are manipulative and scheming."
and providing a valid source of this accusation would be inadequate, since while the program does focus on the neocons, it never says that they "parallel" Al Qaeda in extermism (if by "extremism" you mean the deliberate killing of civilians to achieve political ends). The parallels the program draws are between *some* of the neocon ideologies and methods and those of some radical Islamists. In particular, their joint fear of liberalism and the use of fear to achieve political power.
To describe the program as charging the neocons with being manipulative and scheming is accurate. However, note that it is the necons and not "the US" who are so charged. noosphere 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] misrepresenting the past

Hitler fearmongered in the past with his Jewish conspiracy stuff. WWI was rife to demonization on both sides, most of the attrocities the Huns were accused of were fictions, etc. The evidence from more recent times is selective, with the environmental movement especially egregious in its fear mongering for its political agenda. Politicians also demonsized the drug industry when lobbying for regulation of the drug industry by the FDA. Similarly for regulation of the airline industry, etc.--Silverback 13:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's all possibly quite true. But for it to be a criticism of the piece you need to show where Curtis denied this. I don't recall that being a claim of the piece. I'll accept quotes from the program transcripts. Otherwise, I will need to delete this irrelevancy grounds.WolfKeeper 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is a quote from this very article:
In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares.
I have bolded the various over generalizations about the past and how it is different from the present. History shows there is nothing new about appealing to fears in the past or the present.
On the contrary, you're overgeneralising. Curtis doesn't say 'In the past ALL politicians claimed to create a better world'. Incidentally, that's from the intro, you pretty much have to simplify in the intro.WolfKeeper
And when he says today people have lost faith in ideologies he's really talking about communism, and to some extent capitalism. Don't forget this piece was written not long after Enron.WolfKeeper
And the new role is supposedly protecting us from terrorism (sic), as becomes clear later in the piece. Quite how invading Iraq is supposed to do that is not clear (IMO it isn't at all).WolfKeeper
This documentary is just overgeneralizations, misrepresentations and the selective assembling of evidence.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
What's the difference between a different representation from what you are used to and a misrepresentation? How would you know the difference? Selection of evidence is very important. I'm not being facetious. Curtis isn't saying 'the world is like this'. He's saying 'have you thought of the world like this?' He's an academic. That's what they do. It's a much more sophisticated position, and it allows you to look at the world from multiple different, even somewhat conflicting ways. But you haven't lost the old ways of looking at the world. By looking at the world from different angles you see different things.WolfKeeper
The clique editing the communism and anarchism pages here on wikipedia would be surprised to hear that "today people have lost faith in ideologies".--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps they would. That's a highly selected group though. Ask the same question of people on the street; and you would probably get a different answer.WolfKeeper
The threat of communism in the past is just misrepresented and dismissed in the documentary. The idea that using nightmares to motivate is something new, is not just an overgeneralization, it is a complete fabrication.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that Curtis never says it's a new idea. On the contrary, he's saying that that was rife during the cold war and the politicians are trying to use fear of terrorism in the same way they used fear of communism.WolfKeeper
Frankly, the uncritical synopsizing of the "documentary", is just a ruse to get POV into wikipedia without balance.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The synopsys should by trimmed way down to just a paragraph or else, critique should be allowed both within the introduction and interleaved within the synopyses to challenge the so called "facts" probably easily with articles here within wikipedia and to balance this selective assembly of "facts" with other facts which support an alternative interpretation.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I and you need to be very clear here. Contrary to popular belief, POV is not at all incorrect in the wikipedia. NPOV (read it!) is about capturing multiple opinions on a particular topic; it is NOT about some mystical notion of balance. If you want to add opinions to the wikipedia, that's perfectly fine (if they are supported by evidence). If you take them away- except in the most obviously and unsupported cases; then that is vandalism, and your edits will be reverted. Clear?WolfKeeper

[edit] " a much more sophisticated position"

If it is a much more sophisticated position, why does the article introduction present the simplified to the point of being incorrect summary?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. If you are refering to my comments, I talked about Curtis's documentary being relatively sophisticated, not the introduction of the wikipedia article.WolfKeeper
Yes, but earlier you also pretty much admitted "Incidentally, that's from the intro, you pretty much have to simplify in the intro",
I still don't see the connection between my comment and the intro.WolfKeeper
yet the intro of the program, was also the same language used in the original introduction to this article. You were stating that as an excuse for the overgeneralizations, at the same time you were deleting my balancing of those.--Silverback 13:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, I remind you that this is an article about the TV series 'The Power of Nightmares'. In order to discuss the article we need to state somewhat what the program said, otherwise the wikipedia page would be incoherent. Clearly to do that we have to summarise or introduce the material. Now since the program itself needed to introduce itself, so by including that introduction in the article (under fair use) we have a starting point for the discussion. Now, the structural problem we then face is that the summary is a little long, so a quick one-paragraph summary is produced of the introduction. But you appear to be criticising that introduction for using the same words as the thing it is trying to summarise. Note that the summary is not a summary of the wikipedia article, it is a summary of the program.WolfKeeper
Now, you could argue that perhaps we shouldn't quote from the program to summarise the series. But a very common technique in discussions is to a) carefully state what is being claimed b) lay out the counterclaims c) lay out the rebuttals to the counterclaims. (Note that b/c can be interleaved). That's what this article is trying to do. Done properly, it gives a quite reasonable overall balance, with everyone's views captured (in accordance with NPOV). what you appear to be doing Silverback, is trying to balance every word of every sentence. IMO that would almost certainly end up incoherent or worse.WolfKeeper
The Synopsys is still way too long, and merely allows a repeat of the POV without balance.--Silverback 06:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I can only repeat again, and again, POV is not wrong in the wikipedia, contrary to popular belief.WolfKeeper
please I beg of you, read the NPOV it is the non negotiable part of the wikipedia.WolfKeeper

[edit] "politicians are identified"?

Sorry, I don't recall, which politicians were identified as having "promoted ideal or utopian visions as a means to gain power"?

What is your justification for your use of the word "explore" in the introduction?

I can explore something 1mm or I can explore it for miles. That's still exploration.WolfKeeper
Yes, but a 1mm exploration is not noteworthy. You stated that the program named the politicians that promoted the ideal and utopian visions. I don't recall them, do you?--Silverback 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The documentary just selectively portrays a couple different movements, it doesn't "explore" very widely at all, it does nothing to put them in perspective.

Then add that to the criticism section. Make sure you don't use weasel words or unreferenced claims. But I don't usually consider that to be much of a criticism of any piece, you can always argue that about anything written. Exactly how much should be added? He already has 3 hours of television. He chose something and followed it around, backed it up, and made it coherent. Unlike say, Michael Moore, very little evidence of extreme bias has been found.WolfKeeper

The introduction should be a true summary not a platform to repeat the producers POV.--Silverback 11:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

An introduction is NOT a summary. If anything, the whole article is a summary of the piece and criticisms of the piece. That's what encyclopedias do isn't it? An introduction just gives the broadest of thrusts to explain what it's about. Nothing false should be in the introduction. So far as I can tell nothing false is in the introduction. e.g. 'politicians' -> plural of politician -> more than 1 politician. It does NOT mean ALL politicians.WolfKeeper
I repeat, contrary to popular belief, POV is not incorrect in the wikipedia. Take three reads of the NPOV and get back to us if it's still bothering you in the morning.WolfKeeper

[edit] Sources?

This article is absolutely replete with unsourced assertions. And statements such as these are pure original research: "However, examination of the transcript of the programme shows that it only accuses Strauss of suggesting that certain myth-making might be important, nothing evil is ever imputed"; and "It should be noted that anything that speculates as to a person's intentions is subject to the same criticism. It should also be noted that information provided to the public by government intelligence agencies similarly lack verifiability". Find a published source who argues in such a manner, don't just brainbarf it into the article. I'm adding templates. Babajobu 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The transcript is here, I'll add it to the sources. - FrancisTyers 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of the criticisms section comes from two articles on the BBC site, first, second. Tnikkel 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Then specific arguments need to be attributed to particular sources, rather than asserting that some disembodied wikinarrator believes "it should be noted that...". Babajobu 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing these stupid templates. The first is only suitable if there are NO sources, but there's plenty. The second claims original research, but the only example given is of one where the information is extracted from *one* source that is the transcript of the program this artile is about! That's not research. Research is when you look at many different sources and draw conclusions. If you don't like the style of the article, by all means improve it, but don't insert utterly asinine accusations.WolfKeeper 17:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Wolfkeeper. I removed more original research, but there are still plenty of unsourced assertions and original research in the criticisms/response section. Here are some examples, from the following excerpt alone:

Indeed, they have increased so much since the invasion of Iraq, that the State Department has not yet published figures for this year. In light of the escalation of terrorism since 2001, it remains to be seen whether Curtis' view that the threat is exaggerated will be vindicated. However, this view neglects the possibility that the "nightmare vision" of the Islamist terrorist threat may act like a self-fulfilling prophecy, that is, the credibility and influence which Islamist terrorist groups gain solely through exaggeration of the threat may empower them with the ability to inspire and mobilise large numbers adherents and imitators, thereby creating the world depicted in the nightmare vision. Indeed, Curtis argues in the series that radical Islamists have acted to bolster myths perpetuated by the American media to increase their own image of grandeur.

This sentence asserts that the reason the State Department has not yet published figures is because of the increase in terrorism. Has the State Department stated that this is the reason? Unlikely. So who claims this is the reason? Either someone notable has claimed it, in which case this is an unsourced assertion, or the editor who added the assertion to this article him/herself believes that the increase in terrorism accounts for the unreleased figures, in which case this is original research. Moreover, the very same sentence implies that the invasion of Iraq has cause the increased in global terrorism. Again, this is either original research or the claim must be attributed to a source. So that's two examples of OR in a single sentence. The entire "However, this view neglects..." sentence is OR. Wikipedia cannot render an editorial verdict on the shortcomings of an argument. It can summarize the analyses made by other groups or individuals, while providing proper attribution. The final sentence is more original research, because it adduces Curtis's statements as demonstrating the wisdom of the previous bit of original research.

This is just one paragraph. Much of the responses/criticism section is as riddled with OR as is this paragraph. The section must be overhauled to extirpate all the egregious OR, or the article must have the OR tag, as there is no OR tag for individual sections. So I'm reinserting the OR tag. Thanks again for your comments. Babajobu 04:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments here amount to a weaselword attack on the article, as in, you are almost totally nonspecific. I've removed the only example you've actually claimed, as well as the tags. If there are others i suggest you fix them yourself rather than whingeing about it.WolfKeeper 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wolfkeeper, please try and remain civil when discussing articles. Accusing another user of whingeing, not matter what your belief is not condusive to a harmonious editing environment. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper, leaving comments on the talkpage is not "whingeing"; the point of doing so is to allow other editors to respond to the points before going in and removing the content. Also, I think "totally nonspecific" is a strange criticism to lodge against my comments, as you were able to address them by taking a specific action: going in and removing the long section of original research I pointed out. Anyway, we have now deleted four sections of original research. There is still plenty left, but since you seem to be the only one engaging with me, and since you seem to prefer not to do so, sometime in the next day or so I will go in and just start cutting out the OR, and will explain my actions after-the-fact on the talkpage. Babajobu 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the criticisms/responses section is now free of flagrant OR, though it still employs many weasel words. Babajobu 13:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD?

Why can this film be downloaded from the internet archives? Is it public domain? Could you clarify that in the article? Thank you. Ben T/C 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The film is copyright, and further contains copyrighted music and works by other artists. Such distribution is illegal.WolfKeeper 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't you mean to say that it is illegal in some jurisdictions? Or are you claiming it is illegal worldwide, without exception? noosphere 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It's illegal nearly everywhere in the English speaking world. Maybe not in Canada, but IANAL. Look, I don't see the big deal. Anyone who wants to can still find it. There's this handy web service called google, I've heard it's pretty good. Put it another way, who are we to open up Wikipedia to potential legal action? All it takes is some jumped up judge in some tinpot country to decide that he has jurisdiction and bad things can happen.WolfKeeper 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
archive.org's terms of use page says that it does not host infringing material. So either having The Power of Nightmares on archive.org is a violation of their policy or they have permission. Maybe we should contact archive.org. Tnikkel 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say that it does not host infringing material? Here is the only relevant section of their terms of use that I see:
The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction
That seems to be quite the opposite of saying that it does not host infringing material. Could you quote the section of their terms of use where you think it says that?
As far as contacting archive.org, that is a good idea. However, contacting the BBC might be a better one. They are the copyright holders, after all. noosphere 00:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Near the bottom of the page, under the bold heading "Copyright Policy" it says "The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others." Tnikkel 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't mean they don't host copyrighted software. Here's the section in question:
"The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others. If you believe that your copyright has been violated by material available through the Internet Archive, please provide the Internet Archive Copyright Agent with the following information...""
All that statement itself seems to say is that they believe in copyright and they reserve the right to take down content from their site if someone notifies them that archive.org is infringing on their copyright.
In fact, the presence of this statement, along with the one I quoted earlier, is an admission that archive.org may in fact contain content that infringes on someone's copyright. noosphere 05:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My original point was that we shouldn't assume that The Power of Nightmares being on archive.org is an infringement; my reasoning for that was because archive.org tries to respect intellectual property rights. My point was not "it is on archive.org therefore it is not infringement". Tnikkel 06:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Here is what we know:
  1. The BBC owns the copyright for the show
  2. Entities other than the copyright holder allow it to be downloaded
  3. One of these entities, archive.org, says it "respects intellectual property rights"
  4. archive.org does not guarantee that the material hosted on its site does not violate copyright
  5. archive.org says it may remove copyrighted material from its site if its notified that this material violates copyright.
  6. The Wikipedia policy regarding linking to copyrighted works requires that we make "a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright".
In assembling the facts above I don't think we have determined that archive.org is not violating the BBC's copyright. Neither have we determined that they are violating the BBC's copyright. We just don't know one way or the other.
However, according to the policy we shouldn't link to archive.org until we have made "a reasonable effort" to determine that archive.org is not violating the BBC's copyright.
Of course, that begs the question as to what is "a reasonable effort" in this case. I think that comes down to contacting the copyright holder and asking if the page in question violates their copyright. noosphere 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Which has been my original point, we should find out if it is an infringement. Tnikkel 07:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the link to Amazon because it was to some guy on Amazon Marketplace selling bootleg CDs of the film. Otherwise Wikipedia would be contributing to infringement of the BBC's copyright. --Shimbo 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey everybody! I contacted Stewart Cheifet, Director for Audio & Video of the Internet Archive. He told me the documentaries (citing from the mail) were donated to the Archive by the BBC director who made the film since they were apparently having difficulty arranging for television distribution in the U.S. I asked him to update the meta.xml description file (at http://ia300025.us.archive.org/1/items/ThePowerOfNightmares/ThePowerOfNightmares_meta.xml). I hope that clears it. Ben T/C 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Great work, Ben. However, neither archive.org nor even the director himself owns the copyright to the series. The copyright owner is the BBC. So even a formal, public (not private email) statement from archive.org or Adam Curtis would not settle the issue of whether archive.org's distribution of the film is legal.
That said, it may behoove us to contact Adam Curtis and ask him how we could get some verification that this series is in fact being distributed legally by archive.org. Or we could simply go straight to the BBC's legal department and ask them. Though I admit I have never dealt with a major corp's legal department, so wouldn't know how likely we are to get any sort of public statement from them on the issue. noosphere 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Look here: http://www.archive.org/details/AdaCurtisCenturyoftheSelf_0
It says, the Century of the Self was released under the Creative Commons and (as far as I understand) Curtis is the copyright owner. It has been repeatedly stated, quasi as common sense knowledge, that the BBC is the copyright owner of TPON (but do we know it?) and it has been speculated it could be an infringement. Instead there are
  1. terms of use page of the archive and
  2. the (informal though) statement of the copyright issue by the archive
I tend to think we made enough effort and we put the links back on the page. Ben T/C 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to the intro

Wolfkeeper has erased a reference to the neocons in the intro, justifying his edit by claiming that "It's not only neoconservatives- Blair in britain for example, and Bush isn't technically neoconservative".

The documentary does not claim that it was only the neoconservatives who "exaggerated the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s, have also exaggerated the scale of the terrorist threat, from which they offer to protect their people". However, it does focus on the role the neoconservatives played in this.

Furthermore, it was the neoconservatives the documentary is referring to when it claims that they "exaggerated the threat of communism in the 1970s and 80s". Here they are definitely not referring to Bush or Blair, but to a group of neocons in particular.

Therefore, to replace the term "neoconservatives" with the vague term "politicians" in the intro is to mischaracterize the focus of the documentary, which is in fact largely about the ongoing role of the neocons in this affair.

The other justification Wolfkeeper gave for his edit was that the term "neoconservative" was reduntant, (apparently since it's used again later in the same paragraph). I would object that though it's true that it is redundant in that sense, it is better to be redundant than to be vague. Otherwise the reader will get the impression that it was just some unnamed "politicians" and not the neocons specifically that these charges are made against in the documentary.

Having less redundancy in the article is a laudible goal, but it shouldn't come at the sacrifice of clarity and specificity, and it shouldn't be misleading. So, if you can eliminate one of the uses of the term "neoconservative" from the article while still making it clear that it is in fact they who the documentary focuses on then great. Otherwise we should leave "neoconservatives" in. noosphere 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for moving the Distribution section down below the Documentary section

I think it makes more sense to have the Introduction followed by the Documentary section, rather than immediately starting in on the details of how the series was distributed with the Distribution section.

The vast majority of people looking for information on this film most likely want to find out what the film is about, and a smaller number want to know the details of how it was distributed, made, or whatever. Putting the Distribution section in between the Introduction and Documentary section is like sticking the credits in the middle of a film rather than at the end. noosphere 05:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reviews

I am new to this process. Could someone please remove the link under "reviews:" samizdata.net: Nighmares about Nightmares for me?

Grounds: This is a poorly constructed review. The reviewer openly admits to having only watched 1/3 of the series and refuses to see the remaining two episodes. It is fraught with personal convictions that distract from being informative, reads more like a blog than a review.SkankMcNasty 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on this review. But I really don't think it's correct editing to remove the review. Inspite of its large flaws and bias it does represent a point of view- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is really about accurately capturing in the Wikipedia a wide range of points of view, not about removing bias. In view of the reasonable range of reviews we link, I think on the whole NPOV is preserved.WolfKeeper 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What this documentary is about

Though this documentary does mention "politicians" in general, as well as Bush and Blair (not just the neocons), it focuses on the neocons in particular.

It was neocons specifically and not politicians in general, and certainly not Bush or Blair, who the documentary claims exaggerated the threat of the Soviet Union in the 1970's and 80's. It was the neocons in particular and not merely politicians in general who's fortunes are tied to radical islamism, according to the documentary. Bush and Blair are mentioned, but only as an aside (and their images flashed in the introductory credits).

Therefore, I think it's disingenuous for the article's summary to shift the focus away from the neocons and towards politicians in general, when the movie's focus was really on the neocons and islamists in particular. -- noosphere 15:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming and asserting that the documentary is specifically and only about the neocons and Al Queda. That's disingenious- the program is about the use of fear to gain political advantage. Both Bush and Blair's government have done this, and they were mentioned in the piece. So there's a more general point, that the previous version of the introduction specifically removed from the discussion, and hence it misrepresented the documentary. It's more clear in the case of Blair, there's no direct relationship between neocons and his government.WolfKeeper 16:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And it's more clear in the case of Blair that he had nothing to do with exaggerating the threat of the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's, according to the documentary. Do you maintain that the documentary claimed it was politicians in general or Bush and Blair who were responsible for this exagerration, or will you admit that, according to the documentary, it was the neocons? If the latter then the use of "politicians" in your version of the intro to refer to those responsible for exaggerating the threat of the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's is disingenious.
Second, you claim that I'm "assuming and asserting" something about the documentary, and then proceed to tell us what the program "is about", as if that was not in itself an "assumption and assertion". Please show me why your POV regarding what the program "is about" is any more valid than mine. I think I can provide evidence to the contrary, in that the time spent talking about the neocons (and islamists) in that documentary is far greater than the time spent on Bush, Blair, or politicians in general.
Yes, Bush and Blair, and politicians in general were certainly mentioned in the documentary. And the original version of this article's introduction did not address this point. However, there were many other things the documentary mentioned that were not addressed in the introduction either. The introduction should be an accurate summary of the main thrust of the documentary, not a list of everything the documentary happened to mention.
Exactly. So the introduction should summarise and encompass the piece, it is possible to be inclusive without being inaccurate. And yet you insist on being inaccurate. Why? I can only assume you have an axe to grind.WolfKeeper 17:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The main thrust of the documentary, IMO, is the connection between the neocons and islamists, and how both have used fear to their advantage. Sure, it mentions others who have done this and may have benefited from it, but that's not what the documentary is mostly about, which can be clearly seen by the fact that the documentary simply does not spend very much time on these other entities. Just count up the amount of time they spend talking about the neocons and islamists vs everyone else and you'll see that this is true. -- noosphere 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that gives unequal weight to the neocons. It's not like the introduction doesn't already mention them. And Curtis's point is slightly more general, that this particular tactic has been used before, for example with the Russians. And besides, don't you think Curtis is allowed to say what his own documentary is about? He talks about politicians in his own introduction and he does not only talk about Al Queda and Neoconservatives, although a lot of the time he does do that. But his point is a slightly more general one.WolfKeeper 17:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course Curtis is allowed to say whatever he wants in his introduction. But he does not control what this Wikipedia article says.
Furthermore, even Curtis' own introduction does not say that this was what his film was about. It just mentions that politicians do these things.
Imagine that in Soviet Russia there was a documentary made about Stalin, and his alliance with Hitler (being "about" in this case merely refers to the documentary spending the vast majority of its time on this subject). Now, the introduction to such a film may well say that "certain politicians ally with others for political gain". But what should a Wikipedia article about such a film say? Should it say that this film was merely about "certain politicians", as per the introduction of the film, or should it just come out and call a spade a spade, and say it was about Stalin and his alliance with Hitler?
Should Wikipedia be held hostage to directors' own descriptions of their own movies? And even if we were, as I mentioned above Curtis doesn't even maintain that his series was about politicians in general. He just refers to them in the introduction. -- noosphere 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I accuse you of deliberately violating NPOV by denying this point. You are deliberately trying to introduce unfair balance in the introduction!WolfKeeper 17:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep this discussion civil. To me it's pretty clear that we have differing opinions as to how this article should be written. In particular we disagree regarding what this documentary is about, and how it can best be represented while conforming to Wikipedia policies. A disagreement regarding this point does not mean either one of us has "deliberately" violated WP:NPOV. I would like to refer you to WP:AGF.
Furthermore, I do not deny that Curtis refers to politicians in general in his introduction. If you think I have please quote where I have done so. What I have denied is that the documentary is about politicians in general. This is clearly not the case considering the amount of time it has devoted to the neocons and islamists in particular. A mere mention of politicians in general in the series' intro, or Bush and Blair and how they've benefited does not make the documentary about them. -- noosphere 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it seems that even Curtis' own introduction supports the original description of this film as being about the neocons and islamists. Here is the transcript of the relevant part of the introduction:
"Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares.
They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a War on Terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits.
At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world, and both had a very similar explanation of what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organised evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful."
So, as you can see, even Curtis' own introduction puts the neocons at the center, and supports my original point that "it focuses on the neocons in particular". However, as I mentioned above, no matter what Curtis says, it should not restrict the Wikipedia article from saying, at least, that the vast majority of the film is about the neocons and islamists. It is a fact, as even you yourself have admitted, that the film spends most of its time on them.
Thus, it would be disengenuous to say the film was really about "politicians" in general. And doubly disengenuous to say that according to the documentary it was politicians in general who exaggerated the threat of the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's, while the documentary clearly laid the blame for that squarely in the laps of the neocons. -- noosphere 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is, that the introduction that I have now removed, was an inaccurate summary; since the piece makes points that are outside what you alone consider fit to be in the introduction. You have repeatedly violated NPOV by excluding other points of view, including Curtis's.WolfKeeper 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not excluded Curtis' point of view, since Curtis' introduction is included in the article. Furthermore, Curtis' point of view supports the original introduction to this article.
Second, it is not a POV but a fact that this documentary spends most of its time on the neocons and islamists, and not on "politicians" in general. Reporting this fact in the introduction of the article does not violate WP:NPOV.
Finally, that the original introduction to this article was "an inaccuarte summary" is your POV, which you are apparently no longer willing to defend with any sort of argument. I note that you are also refusing to address specific points I have made in my reply to you. -- noosphere 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule violation

In his 2006-03-22 13:39:55 edit summary, Wolfkeeper has accused me of violating the three revert rule. This is false. The policy in question specifically states that "This rule does not apply to: ... correction of simple vandalism".

When I made my first revert I was correcting the Reference section vandalism made by 193.220.91.5. It had nothing to do with the content dispute between me and Wolfkeeper, as anyone can see by doing a simple diff. -- noosphere 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You are making bad faith edits to the wikipedia, you are violating NPOV and your edits are inaccurate anyway.WolfKeeper 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to once again refer you to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. -- noosphere 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From WP:3o

If you can't agree on a summary, don't put one. Note that you're both in violation of the three-revert rule. Edit warring solves nothing. However, if you want to add a summary, I would tend to agree with the side which points out that the piece is focused on neoconservatives, not politicians in general. Fagstein 20:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing an outside view on this with us, Fagstein.
I agree that one way to solve this conflict is not to have a summary at all. However, I don't find this satisfactory for a couple of reasons. First, it would mean that disagreement about content is justification for removal of that content, regardless of its value to the article. If this solution was widely applied soon there would be nothing left of Wikipedia.
In view of the above, I think it's important to make clear that the summary of a long article provides a valuable service to Wikipedia's readers. When looking up any given article on a film a reader may not want to or have the time to read through a whole long article to discover what the film is about. So, to meet this need I believe there should be a summary. The original summary met this need admirably. It was concise and to the point. If we can get some sort of consensus on its exact wording I believe it will do a much better job than having no introduction, or letting the transcript of the film introduce the article, since the latter is about three or four times as long as the introduction which was already in place.
Then I'd suggest you discuss it here until you and Wolfkeeper (and any others involved) agree on a wording. Fagstein 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am all for discussion. But Wolfkeeper has not replied to any of the points I made in my 18:24, 22 March; 19:01, 22 March; or 18:51, 22 March comments except to make (unsubstantiated) accusations about policy violations and saying the original summary is "inaccurate" (again, without substantiation). How can we work towards consensus if one of the editors does not address what the other editors involved in the disagreement are saying? -- noosphere 09:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As for your belief that both Wolfkeeper and I violated the three revert rule could you elaborate as to why you think this in light of the fact that the policy explicitly says "This rule does not apply to: ... correction of simple vandalism". Could you point out which edits I made violate the rule, in view of this exception for vandalism? Also, in defense of Wolfkeeper, he's made four edits today, but only three of them were reverts. -- noosphere 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
None of your three most recent edits are to remove vandalism. The purpose of the 3RR is not so everyone maxes out on their reverts and has tiny daily edit wars. It's so that people realize that they must come to a consensus instead of just undoing other people's edits all the time. Fagstein 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia three revert rule policy states "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours.", excepting "correction of simple vandalism". I made four reverts, but one of which was to correct simple vandalism. That means I did not exceed three qualifying reverts, so I did not violate the 3RR. If you think otherwise, please show me where I made more than three qualifying reverts (the correction of vandalism does not count, as per policy).
I understand that the 3RR is meant to stop edit warring. However, it's not the 1RR or even 2RR. As both Wolfkeeper and I made only three qualifying reverts we are not in clear violation of the policy.
Nor is this any kind of "daily edit war". This edit war has gone on for a total of one day. That is not "daily".
Nor was I "just undoing other people's edits all the time". I did undo Wolfkeeper's edits. This was done three times, not "all the time". And at the same time I have been working for consensus on this issue by giving detailed reasons for my actions, and addressing each one of Wolfkeeper's and your points in good faith. I also asked for a third opinion at WP:3o. I view this as constructively working towards consensus, not "just undoing other people's edits all the time".
I hope Wolfkeeper will resume dialogue with me instead of making unsubstantiated allegations, and that the other editors voice their opinions. -- noosphere 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well, it looks like Wolfkeeper is still not even attempting to engage in any kind of dialogue regarding this issue, and no other editors have shown interest in it either. We have not come to a consensus. Therefore, what are my options? A - Allow Wolfkeeper's deletion of this valuable content to stand; B - revert it; C - continue to talk about it (apparently to myself) on this talk page; D - attempt to get more outside editors involved through one of the dispute resolution mechanisms.
Option A isn't going to happen until Wolfkeeper can substantiate some of his assertions regarding the content he deleted and specifically and fully addresses the points I brought up earlier. Per the 3RR policy and Fagstein's strong discouragement against edit warring I will try option D. -- noosphere 04:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Writing as someone who is very familiar with the work of Adam Curtis and has used this text with an academic context I would have to agree with Wolfkeeper's introduction here;

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)

[edit] Be the first on your block to try the ZeRo

JA: Personally, I find the revert tool is pretty much useless for anything but obvious vandalism and correcting one's own goof-ups. And it's a waste of intelligent critters' all too short lives to be counting each others' reverts in a given day. So here's my radical suggestion: Try the "Zero Revert Option" WP:ZeRo — don't bother clicking, cause I stole the idea from a page I can't find anymore — but you could all get the credit for being at the vanguard of the latest movement. Yes, you'll have to work out the details for yourselves, hey, I can't do all the work. So waddayathink? Jon Awbrey 05:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So what are the practical consequences of never reverting anything but obvious vandalism? Anyone contemptuous of the consensus building process will be able to take articles in any direction they want, as long as they don't vandalize... since they'll have no incentive to defend their edits. Speaking of which, I am beginning to think Wolfkeeper's deletion of the introduction to this article is simple vandalism. He has not been able to defend his assertion that the introduction violates WP:NPOV, and now that I've stopped reverting it he refuses to continue to engage in any kind of dialogue about it. So, I am tempted to treat it as the simple vandalism I am coming to see it as, and just revert it. But I know this will just lead to another edit war and silly recriminations. So, I'm going to give this another day and then start a more formal mediation process. -- noosphere 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Edits you don't agree with are not simple vandalism. The entire point of the [[WP:3RR|3RR] is that one person who stands outside the consensus can't simply enforce his view by reverting every edit. Fagstein 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with someone deleting the whole page just because they believe it to be a violation of WP:NPOV. Does that make it any less simple vandalism? -- noosphere 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Fagstein 08:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
So does this mean you think if someone deleted the entire article, saying "it's POV" you would not consider it vandalism? -- noosphere 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to take this argument to Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. I'm not an expert on interpreting Wikipedia policy. Fagstein 19:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would certainly consider it vandalism. Likewise, deleting the introduction giving as flimsy a justification is vandalism as well, imo. -- noosphere 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Introduction (again)

I've added a small piece further up this page, and also added a similar comment on the mediation page. Thought I'd create a new section to clarify. Just to confirm my own position, I'm very familiar with the work of Adam Curtis work (the Mayfair Set, Century of the Self etc) and have used his work to illustrate documentary narrative on various academic occasions.

I'm surprised that there is such a heated debate above concerning the subject matter of "The Power Of Nightmares". But it may help to understand Curtis's layered narrative techniques which are consistent in his other works. There is a central thesis, which is that global politicians have lost the power to inspire the masses and are now exploiting fear to reassert their position. Within this thesis Curtis examines the growth of "Neo-conservative" and Islamist movements. Of course other themes are examined along the way.

To accurately depict this work, the central thesis must be inferred. Wolfkeepers edits should stand (I have no idea why they were so controversial) and the article would be more accurate if it read...

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. --Zleitzen 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on the mediation page. -- noosphere 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at a new introduction, how does this read?--Zleitzen 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I've removed a whole section stating that the film was "contradicted by events". This section was basically original research on the part of editors. The article would need a notable source that stated this, rather than a section by editors that put 2+2 together and came up with an answer.--Zleitzen 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that it both contradicted itself, and demonstrated a lack of understandsing of what the programme actually said! Nick Cooper 08:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Power_of_Nightmares_92b7.html"