Talk:David Loren Cunningham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Filmography

For all his work prior to 1998, the only source is IMDB, and it lists no information about these films, other than the fact that Cunningham directed them. Given that it's not difficult to get a film listed on IMDB and these listings look suspicious, I think we need another source. Lagringa 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked up a few of the latter ones randomly and they are legit. Arbusto 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Where did you find them? Lagringa 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Various sites searching through google. Arbusto 05:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A google search for "The Pitcairn Story: Mutineers in Paradise," for example, turns up 10 hits. All of them are based on IMDB, and none have any info beyond Cunningham's credit. Lagringa 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This video was produced, it was a documentary, a simple project to highlight the Pitcairn story, just like the title said. Independent films aren't documented as well as studio projects, hence there's little mention of it. There's no need to wonder why IMDB is the only source. Keiko234 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for cleaning "references"

news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060909/cm_huffpost/029015 is an opinion column and should not be used as a reference of anything BUT opinion. Kukini 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused - is this a policy of some kind? The fact that a writer chooses to make their point of view explicit shouldn't invalidate the factual information provided. I understand that a highly biased source may be unreliable, but complete objectivity shouldn't be required. In any case, that source contains very little opinion compared to facts. Lagringa 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Max B used quotes taken out of context to base his article upon. this is the official statement of YWAM and University of the Nations. These statements refute Max's thesis. Youth With A Mission Statement

Youth With A Mission (YWAM) is a non profit, international and interdenominational Christian organization. We are responsible for hundreds of health clinics, orphanages and schools around the world. We have a special emphasis on the developing world and are completely staffed by unpaid volunteers from 150 nations.

We are not affiliated with any American political party and have no political agenda in that or any nation. We had no part in any funding of the ABC mini series THE PATH TO 9/11.

John Dawson, President of Youth With A Mission International Auckland, New Zealand


University of the Nations Statement

University of the Nations is a an international University with campuses in over 100 countries. It is affiliated with Youth With A Mission (YWAM) and has a special emphasis on bringing education to the developing world. Alumnus David Cunningham has opened doors for many of our film students. One of those opportunities was an internship for 6 of our students on the set of the mini series THE PATH TO 9/11. Our students had the privilege to observe parts of the production phase of the movie David directed.

We have not contributed financially at any level to the TV movie THE PATH TO 9/11 and don't have any political affiliations in the many countries where our branches are located.

Dr Thomas Bloomer PHD University of the Nations Provost Office of Academic Affairs Lausanne, Switzerland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keiko234 (talk • contribs) .

I am going to refer you both to the following link Citing Sources in Wikipedia and let you figure out how to clean up this page. I do think you should both pay careful heed to this page when you do it as well. Contact me if I may be of further help. Kukini 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As I stated, I don't see how there is any problem with the original references. The original sources for that article are available in the google cache. The users who are deleting the content have not attempted to defend their position, so I am at a loss to resolve this conflict. Lagringa 00:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the page. An opinion column meets WP:RS. I am a little worried that a new user signed up and seems only focused on removing content rather than improving the article. Arbusto 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is my concern as well. This user, Keiko...appears dead set on deleting others' contributions without appropriate agreement on this talk page. Also, I am not against blogs being used as references, nor of opinion columns, as long as they are cited as such.Kukini 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I will add another warning and turn this matter over to an admin. Edit warring is not the way to make contributions. The so called "blog" is from Yahoo a WP:RS, but other references like CNN and the organizations tied to Cunningham are also being removed. Arbusto 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the changes again. Removing content and notations that the school is unaccredited, and that the film organization has made past claims (that stuff is cached at google still) is not acceptable. Major content changes must be discussed here for consensus. Arbusto 05:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How does Cyrus' view have anything to do with David. People in one office can have different beliefs, and to bring another's comments, especially politically charged ones is quite inappropriate for a biography. This material still belongs to the pages on which the subject is all about. Using links to opinions that directly contradict factual information such as how the movie was intiated is also polictical. I still believe those links should be removed. Keiko234 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that directing Path the 9/11 is the only thing of note the man has done, it was be strange to leave it out. Based on the changes you have been making, it seems you are perfectly happy to have the topic addressed here, as long as it portrays Cunningham in a completely favorable light. The fact that a topic is political does not mean it should be excluded. The man directed a highly controversial political movie, so of course politics are going to come up in his bio. Lagringa 18:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
As to the "opinions that directly contradict factual information," all the information you object to is based on reliable sources. If you have factual information based on reliable sources, it can be included as well. Lagringa 18:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lagringa. Since he claims it is apolitical and it is referenced than claims the writer made are also worthy of inclusion. Also Keiko234 please read WP:TE. Arbusto 19:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I removed the {{helpme}} ~tag which was quite misused here, if there's a dispute about the content of the article, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Equendil Talk 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this section of Wiki, I should be able to delete the quote that indicates Untitled History Project was initiated by YWAM, TFI or David. Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keiko234 (talk • contribs).

Are you saying the material is unsourced or just poorly sourced? Addhoc 20:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced. The comments were taken out of context to "prove" Max's thesis. Those are the comments I want removed 64.75.129.37 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are saying the following material from the article:
In a Yahoo.com News opinion column, Max Blumenthal (author for The Nation) reported, in June 2005 Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, titled "Untitled History Project." From a TFI volunteer's website, members read: "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet." By July 2005 the New York Post noted, "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project."
Isn't supported by this extract:
Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry." As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's in film industry jobs "so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a YWAM report.
Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled "Untitled History Project." "TFI's first project is a doozy," a newsletter to YWAM members read. "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).
The following month, on July 28, the New York Post reported that ABC was filming a mini-series "under a shroud of secrecy" about the 9/11 attacks. "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project,'" the Post noted.
Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive "Untitled" film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.
Addhoc 21:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that the extract has incorrect information that uses quotes out of context. For example, several other references refute the assertion that David recruited Cyrus, or that Cyrus is a right-winger. The article also implies that TFI, David, or YWAM intitiated the project, all of which is false.Keiko234 21:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Could you supply references to demonstrate this. Addhoc 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Keiko234 on this, and think it's ridiculous to have to address Blumenthal's nakedly aggressive accusations as if they are facts. For example, he repeatedly uses POV words such as "secretive" and "mysterious" to insinuate a sinister agenda behind the making of the miniseries - as if a $40 million project on a major network could run under the radar. In fact, as everyone in Hollywood knows, projects are frequently called "Untitled" quite simply because a title has not been decided upon. The New York Post mention of "a shroud of secrecy" (which I don't see sourced) probably refers to the fact that ABC was, at the time, in competition with NBC's own version of a miniseries based on the Commission Report; this is common practice in business competition (Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?) and not evidence of a conspiracy. As Keiko234 points out (and sources) below, Mr. Nowrasteh is not "an outspoken conservative," nor "a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas" (where is Mr. Blumenthal's sourcing for this outrageous and even libelous accusation?), nor was he "recruited" by Mr. Cunningham - he was hired by the producers well before a director was chosen. I will be happy to provide sourcing for this tomorrow when I have more time, but it seems to me that it should be up to Mr. Blumenthal and his supporters to prove his inflammatory allegations first. Actually, Wikipedia shouldn't even be the place to settle the controversy; a balanced DESCRIPTION of the controversy that adheres to the facts should be enough. Bartleby007 07:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

These are the errors in Max Blumental's article, I would hope to apply the same principle as baseball, where with three strikes, the player goes to sit down. I would like Max's references and contentremoved from David's biography. My arguements are in bold. 1. TFI intiated the movie project. "ABC is the total funder of the $40 million miniseries, a network spokesperson said. The miniseries lists UHP Productions Ltd. as a producer; the company stands for Untitled History Project and was set up by ABC for bookkeeping purposes. " from Hal Boedeker at Orlando Sentinel 2. Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive "Untitled" film. This has been shown as false information 3. Labeling Cyrus Nowrasteh as right-wing conservative. Refuted by Nowrasteh in a Wall Street Journal article, also included in the references. 4. Liberty Film Festival responded to Max's article. Jason Apuzzo writes "I’m trying to understand Mr. Blumenthal’s claims of “ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas” when Cyrus is Muslim, Marc Platt and David Horowitz are Jewish, David Cunningham is Christian, Govindini’s Hindu and I’m an agnostic. That’s quite a religious conspiracy!" 5. Just because the TFI referenced the Untitled History Project first, in June 2005, doesn't mean anything more than a family getting excited about a film project that David was working on. Quotes without context often create a different perception than the truth. I respectfully ask that any references to the Untitled History Project be revealed as a title chosen by ABC and that it was not intiated by David, TFI or YWAM. Keiko234 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) edited again by 64.75.129.37 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Other references are added in the discussion above and in Edward Wyatt's NewYork Times article. I'll get more references, but have to get back to work again.Keiko234 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remembering 9/11

I am placing Mr. Cunningham's Filmography before the formerly titled Remembering 9/11 section, because it makes no sense to place the latter before even mentioning that Mr. Cunningham directed The Path to 9/11, nor did the title Remembering 9/11 make sense in this context, so I retitled it "Controversy: The Path to 9/11". I am also introducing Mr. Nowrasteh's article with a mention of the controversy surrounding that film, because otherwise there is no context whatsoever for his article here. I am also providing a citation for the article. Furthermore, I don't believe it's necessary to print the entire article on this page, just the section relevent to Mr. Cunningham. Please discuss here if anyone has objections or would like clarification. Bartleby007 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the above, then noted that nearly the entire article had been deleted and replaced. Feel free to rearrange and add information in. Please be careful about not adding in copyrighted material as well. Kukini 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance Edits

I moved Filmography before The Path to 9/11 section, for logic's sake. I deleted quite a bit of the The Path to 9/11 section which is not relevant to Cunningham himself (for example, large chunks about the writer Cyrus Nowrasteh, and a comment about how the miniseries was promoted in Europe) and that is already covered very extensively on The Path to 9/11 and Nowrasteh pages; I did, however, rewrite the intro to that section succinctly explaining the controversy and left sections that ARE relevant to Cunningham. And I added a long quotation from Nowrasteh's WSJ article that addresses attacks on Cunningham (someone had previously inserted the entire article, which is irrelevant except for the Cunningham paragraph).

Hi. Please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. I am not sure I am in agreement with the deletion of that large section, but will leave this up to discussion among the editors here. My vote is to put it back in, as it is the first truely high profile work of Mr. Cunningham, from my vantage point. Kukini 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
After reading and indenting tht block quote, I replaced the "controversy" half of the controversy section, to allow equity in voices in said controversy. Especially when words like "hysteria" are used in defense of the choices made in the creation of the film. Kukini 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
IP User 75.5.10.158 made a number of large revisions and deletions along the above line with no discussion nor any edit summaries. I have given this editor a brief break from editing to reconsider her/his approach. Kukini 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the POV spike of the word "mysterious," as I didn't see it prior to now. Kukini 20:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged citations

Hi, I've tagged two citations that don't appear to be working. Addhoc 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally visited those sites. What do you do when the webspage is taken down and the cache dies out? Lagringa 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In this instance, the Yahoo source appears to cover the material in question. Accordingly, I would suggest the references, but not the material should be removed. Addhoc 21:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we remove the reference to Max's article? Bartleboy just wrote on the reasons why the movie was labeled untitled in the section "cleaning references" Keiko234 23:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally recommend removing a secondary reference. Could we ask Kukini's opinion? Addhoc 10:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
how can we find a citation for something that is on paper and not the internet? David did go to

USC and University of the Nations in Chile, Amsterdam, etc. Keiko234 23:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The existing biographies say that he has lectured at the University of the Nations and that he graduated from USC. Addhoc 10:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed clarification

Following comments by Keiko234, could I suggest that after the sentences based on the Yahoo article, we clarify the miniseries was entirely funded by ABC:

"A spokesperson from ABC clarified the network provided the entire funding of $40 million for the miniseries.[1]

Addhoc 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to trim a sentence

Could I suggest the following sentence should be removed as it does provide any meaningful further information:

By July 2005 the New York Post noted, "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project."

Addhoc 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Path to 9/11 Controversy

This section seems to talk about Cyrus Nowrasteh as much as it does about Cunningham. This doesn't seem right, especially as it seems to want to push Nowrasteh's spoken positions (or propaganda, to many), which certainly most properly belongs in his article. This article should concentrate on Cunningham, shouldn't it? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this entry should focus on Mr. Cunningham. I completely disagree that it "seems to want to push Nowrasteh's spoken positions (or propaganda, to many)," - on the contrary, the brief summary of Mr. Nowrasteh's statement is in defense of Mr. Cunningham, and so therefore it IS relevant to this page. I fail to see how Mr. Nowrasteh's statement is more propagandistic than Mr. Blumenthal's assertions. Bartleby007 00:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from your contribution history that you're here to push a bias within a narrow subject area. However, due to Wikipedia rules, I will not engage in political discussions. Since we're referring to this article, I think we can agree that the paragraph should concentrate on Cunningham. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out, but which you ignored, Mr. Nowrasteh's statement regards Mr. Cunningham and therefore is relevant. And I take offense at your accusation that I am "pushing a bias." Go to an administrator with proof that I am pushing a bias or apologize. My contributions have well-reasoned arguments. However, I have noticed that some on Wikipedia quickly resort to accusations of bias when they disagree or don't have well-reasoned responses. Bartleby007 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton

Why are we trying to put Clinton's biography in this article? A concise statement is all that is needed. Opinions belong on the blogs, this is a POV statement which is out of place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.234.240.129 (talk • contribs).

Umm, a counterpoint clause is not a biography. Please stop reverting this important point. Realize that I will not stop adding it, of course, adhering to Wikipedia rules. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Clinton statement really belongs in other places in the encyclopedia. Having a counter point isn't necessary here. It is sufficient to say there is a controversy, and leave it at that. Including it brings in POV rather than enchancing David's biography.Keiko234 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is peculiar that we're speaking about a full paragraph devoted to Nowrasteh rather than Cunningham. OK, accepting your position, I revised again to remove POV about Clinton administration responses by qualifying what they wanted removed or changed. That should be all right. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab

I look, but I don't see. And I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedia rule that says that "Mediation" means that one group of editors get to decide that parts of an article are not subject to further editing by future editors.

The characterization of Blumenthal's article that was in the article leaves out the actual criticism of Cunningham and TCI--not that they named the film, but that they thought of it as part of their project to advance an extreme ideology. To leave out this information is a violation of WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nareek (talk • contribs).

Hi Nareek, ok fair comment, I haven't put up the usual MedCab boiler template. However, the paragraph in question was discussed on this talk page. Regarding your comments, I would remind you this article has to comply with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. In this context would you explain in more detail your concerns. Thanks, Addhoc 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that with controversial subjects, WP should allow all sides to make their best arguments. With this article, a lot of effort has been put into taking out one side's best arguments--on the grounds that they contain errors of interpretation. (No one is arguing that Blumenthal is fabricating evidence, only that he is misinterpreting it.)
One side will always interpret evidence differently than the other--if they didn't, there wouldn't be too sides. Yet here these differences in interpretation have been cited as grounds for eliminating Blumenthal's main point--which is that, in his view, Cunningham is part of an extreme movement that is attempting to promote radical changes in U.S. society by burrowing into the film industry.
Now, you're free to think he's all wet. You're not, however, as a Wikipedia editor, free to pretend that he's not making that argument, because his argument is the core of the very vocal and widespread critique of Cunningham's film. It's clearly a valid POV that deserves to be represented as it's actually made, not in a seriously truncated form that's far easier to dismiss.
On this basis, I would like to replace the paragraph that provides a dim sense of what Blumenthal is saying with the one that was here earlier that actually spelled out his argument. Nareek 00:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you have made some good points here. Perhaps there is some way of writing this so it represents moderation between views of editors here? Kukini 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is becoming more rather than less POV. As it stands now, it is a rebuttal to criticisms made against Cunningham without those criticisms being stated clearly. I'm going to put back the summary of the Blumenthal article that I had put in earlier, and take out the "in reality" paragraph that improperly has Wikipedia taking a side in this debate. I hope this isn't seen as contrary to the "mediation" process. Nareek 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The version prior to your involvement included these criticisms.Your involvement was initially to remove the Yahoo reference and then remove the relevant sentence on the grounds it wasn't referenced. Again, you appear to have removed the criticism and now are proposing your solution to this 'problem'. In each case the problem is purely of your own devising and the solution is your summary of the Blumenthal article. In future could you be slightly more straightforward in proposing changes. Thanks, Addhoc 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confusing my edits with someone else's. Nareek 15:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I too am an unpaid volunteer that is keeping a close eye on this content. I'm not relying on Max's article that is proven to be wrong on several counts. Several points have already been made in this discussion earlier, and they are the reasons religious slander is being removed from David's biography. The assumption all Christians are right-wingers set to take over the country is the worldview I'm getting from some contributors. This is not the place to debate it or to prove it.

Keiko234 19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa--The Nation article is certainly not saying that all Christians are right-wingers, it is saying that these particular organizations are part of a movement that has a particular political agenda. It's by removing this crucial background that you can portray Blumenthal as motivated by religious bigotry (ala the WSJ cite) and not by political disagreement.
This article has got to accurately and fairly present both sides of the controversy over this director's career. Otherwise it's not a Wikipedia article but rather a PR handout.
Could we get a show of hands, please, about how many editors here have a personal connection to the subject of this article? Nareek 19:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I don't have any connection. Addhoc 19:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Putting David into the right-wing box is the same principle, assumptions were made. How does his religion constitute his political belief? 72.234.240.129 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If you criticize the Berrigan brothers because you don't like the idea of unilateral disarmament, that doesn't make you anti-Christian--even though their views on war are directly connected to their interpretation of Christianity. It's the same principle.
It's important to keep in mind that the question for us as editors is not, would we make these criticisms of David Cunningham? The question, rather, is what criticisms have been made.
Certainly Wikipedia does not label one side in an argument a "conspiracy theory" while designating the other side as "reality"--as the current edit does.
I notice that you're not answering the question of whether you have a direct personal interest in the subject of this article. This is a perfectly valid question, directly related to Wikipedia policy. See WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO. Nareek 10:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither of those Wikipedia articles apply in this case. Also I'm a volunteer. 72.234.240.129 17:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Do they not apply because you don't have a personal connection to David Cunningham, or for some other reason? And a volunteer for what? We're all volunteers here. Nareek 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It means that I'm not a paid contributor. As for vanity articles, it refers to autobiographies and that isn't the case here. This statement does not apply to me: "Initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc"72.234.240.129 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you fail to answer the question of whether you are David Loren Cunningham or a personal associate. Which more or less answers the question. Nareek 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That is another assumption. Just believe there are other ways to get information. Such as an investigative journalist.72.234.240.129 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Organizing The Film Institute separately makes the distinction that it is a non-profit company. 72.234.240.129 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether an editor has a personal stake in an article really is one that Wikipedia has to ask. Since you repeatedly decline to answer this question, other editors do have to draw the natural conclusion and edit accordingly. Nareek 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Offensive"

The latest justification for removing criticism of David Loren Cunningham is that it is "offensive". There is nothing offensive about criticizing someone's politics; the 1st Amendment was placed in the Constitution for the explicit purpose of allowing us to freely criticize each others' politics. Clearly, no one likes being criticized; they may well be offended by the criticism. That does not make the criticism "offensive".

Here's more on Cunningham and Christian Reconstructionism:

"Covering Their Tracks" by David Neiwert, Orcinus, September 8, 2006.

Nareek 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about being offensive, it's about the assumptions. Assuming policital or religious beliefs just because of the movie and the quotes without context is fodder for blogs, not his biography. Religious labeling is all that is happening here. Bringing in Christian Reconstructionism into the biography is based on opinion, not fact, derived from opinions of others. Just because somebody said it, doesn't make it true. Biographies must be right, it has a higher standard than other parts of Wikipedia. There are a lot of holes in the articles discovering a "cover-up." Especially when it comes to the money. ABC certainly started the project, it paid for it, and there's documentation to that effect, just not on the internet. David was hired by ABC as a director. There's no right-wing conspiracy folks, this is just a labeling game.Keiko234 07:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I should have replied here earlier. For the avoidance of doubt this article should fully comply with WP:BLP. Also, I would comment the legal opinions expressed by Nareek are overly simplistic. Addhoc 13:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It's not our job to determine which side in a controversy we find more persuasive; it's our job to summarize all sides in the controversy. This means the opinions on all sides of the controversy; the fact that positions are "based on opinion" does not mean that they do not belong in Wikipedia. Truth is not the criterion we use for inclusion; verifiability is. (The higher standard of avoiding libel is certainly met here; criticism of a public figure's political associations is wholly protected under the First Amendment.) Nareek 11:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So just because I know about TFI from a distance means I'm in conflict of interest? 72.234.240.129 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


You repeatedly refuse to answer the question as to whether you have a direct personal connection to the only article that you have edited on Wikipedia. I can only assume that the answer is "yes" and act accordingly. Nareek 18:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Does meeting David face-to-face for the first time after the 9/11 film count? I'm more aware of the surrounding issue, not a personal acquaintance. I've done research and learned more. If the shoe was on the other foot, how would you answer the same question you've asked me? I just did the research on Wikipedia to see why your question was valid and felt it didn't need the detail you seem to require.72.234.240.129 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that your succession of evasive answers makes me skeptical of a question answered with another question rather than with a statement. Be that as it may, whether you're David Loren Cunningham, a friend of his or merely an acquaintance, you're still obligated to edit on Wikipedia like he's a stranger to you. The goal of a Wikipedia article is not to construct a rebuttal to arguments that we disagree with. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present both or all sides of the argument fully and fairly. This is especially true when the controversy is one that attracted national attention and became a major political issue. If we don't explain the thinking that lies behind that argument--whether or not we personally believe that thinking to be wrong-headed--then we are remiss in our obligations as Wikipedians. And whether you came here with the intention of serving as an advocate for Cunningham or not, when you started editing Wikipedia you assumed those obligations. Nareek 05:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. To answer your question directly, I am not anyone mentioned in the article, I am not acquainted with anyone mentioned in the article, nor have I ever communicated with anyone mentioned in the article. Assuming that you're not mentioned in the article. Nareek 05:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This was the earlier answer to your question on who I was: "As for vanity articles, it refers to autobiographies and that isn't the case here [That means I'm not David]. This statement does not apply to me: "Initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc"72.234.240.129 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)" That's the research from the vanity article. I didn't fit into any of those categories, therefore Wikipedia's policy was satisfied. So hopefully your question is now put to rest.72.234.240.129 06:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for providing clarification, your contribution to this article is appreciated. Addhoc 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality

What is legitimate criticism? If an untrue statement is written about a person, can that really become verifiable for Wikipedia purposes? Even journalism standards are much higher than that. When an opinion column writes several statements later proven false, it should seen as poorly sourced and removed from the biography.

In a biography, it is important to stay away from putting people in boxes, labeling them with political or religious slang as if it were fact. "Jettison the constitution" is very inflamatory and reveals religious bigotry. Keiko234 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia recognizes that people have different views of what is true and false, which is why it strives to include multiple points of view rather than leaving editors to limit articles to their preferred viewpoints. The criticism that Keiko seeks to include is notable and deserves to be included. People definitely have strong views, both pro and con, on Christian Reconstructionism, but that's no reason to pretend that it doesn't exist--or to accuse those who think it's important to talk about of religious bigotry.
By the way, Blumenthal's piece is not an opinion column--it's a news article for the U.S.'s oldest news magazine. It does have a point of view, which does not disqualify it either from being journalism or from being a source for Wikipedia. Nareek 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Even in a nationally recognized magazine, there's opinion columns, this is one of them.72.234.240.129 04:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, The Nation has opinion columns, and they're labeled "Comment". Blumenthal's piece is labeled "Article." Compare [2] and [3]. Nareek 16:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_Loren_Cunningham_ec66.html"