Talk:Cyrus Nowrasteh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Family

Quote: "They have two sons, Alexander C. Nowrasteh (born October 4, 1985) and Mark G. Nowrasteh (born November 30, 1985.)"

This cannot be right, unless Alexander was prematurely delivered with a cesarian, in which case this would be at least interesting to mention. Just presenting these dates makes one curious. JAL 82.92.15.150 12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Quote: "Although Nawrasteh's screenplay for The Path to 9/11 has been billed by the ABC network as having been "based on the 9/11 Commission Report", all the crucial scenes were complete fabrications, and the film was essentially a right-wing hatchet job put forward by Disney and ABC in collusion with conservative Christians funded by Richard Mellon Scaife."

This is hardly neutral language. I marked the article as such. Steven Hildreth, Jr. 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Those edits were reverted as all were made without edit summaries and some of them undid citations. It currently reads as follows:
Although Nawrasteh's screenplay for The Path to 9/11 has been billed by the ABC network as having been "based on the 9/11 Commission Report", there were multiple accusations that the screenplay evidences political bias because of its portrayal of the Clinton Administration[2]. In an interview Nowrasteh gave to the online magazine FrontPageMag.com on August 16th 2006, he said that the movie "dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so"[3]. Critics, including 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste have pointed out that this was not the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission and that certain scenes in the film are fabrications. Richard Miniter - a conservative author who wrote a book entitled Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror - conceded on CNN on September 7, 2006 that several of the complaints about the mini-series being made by Clinton administration officials were entirely justified, and that several scenes in the film were based on "Internet myth" [4]. The film is a controversial docudrama being aired by ABC/Walt Disney but was initiated by a Christian activist organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM), through their auxiliary - The Film Institute (TFI). The project has been criticized as having a political agenda and for fictionalizing the lead-up to 9/11 in order to redirect blame to the Clinton administration[5].
  • Hope this helps. Kukini 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WSJ Misquote

The quote from the Wall Street Journal article is incorrect - the following sentence: "My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism" IS NOT Mr. Nowrasteh's and should be stricken from the quotation; it is a "blurb" by the WSJ itself which appeared only in the online, not the print, version of WJS, and does NOT appear at all in the body of Mr. Nowrasteh's article. The actual paragraph reads, "'The Path to 9/11' was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment." I propose editing it accordingly. Bartleby007 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography and order

I have a couple of short paragraphs of History and Filmography info that I'd like to add, which for logic's sake I think should follow the Biography section and precede The Path to 9/11 section, since that section addresses the very recent controversy surrounding the latest entry in Filmography. . . Bartleby007 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Add away...do your best to be sure that all that you add is verifiable. Welcome to the process! Kukini 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Path to 9/11

Unless a citation is added confirming this misleading statement, I suggest removing the sentence in the middle of this section about the miniseries having been initiated by YWAM and TFI, since it has been pointed out elsewhere (most explicitly on the Discussion page of the David Loren Cunningham entry) that YWAM and TFI "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." I also suggest that the last two sentences of this section either be cited or removed, or at least rephrased.

[edit] Ancestry

I corrected the label "Iranian-American" because Mr. Nowrasteh is American - as already noted in the Biography section, he is of Persian descent but was born in Boulder, Colorado. Robert Rodriguez, born in Texas but of Mexican descent, is described on Wikipedia as "an American director" and Akiva Goldsman, born in New York, is described as "an American writer," not a "Jewish-American" screenwriter. Bartleby007 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Kukini 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph re Al Qaeda

I removed the following paragraph because not only is there no citation, but it's largely irrelevant, because this charge is not among the criticisms of inaccuracy leveled against the miniseries; indeed, the paragraph is easily proven to be false: "Further, Al-Qaeda had not started attacking U.S. interests until 1998 with the African embassy bombings, directly following their initial anti-U.S. fatwa. They had no proven connection with the Egyptian Islamic organization behind the first attack on the World Trade Center." Bartleby007 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It can be verified by simply looking at the related articles in Wikipedia. I'm restoring it. If the words aren't refined enough, revise it instead of deleting it outright. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am re-deleting your paragraph because it is not "verified" at all. It is not sourced (and if it's on a related Wikipedia article, then include the source/citation from that article, if there is one). It's not up to me to revise something that, as I've pointed out, is irrelevant because it is not one of the disputed points of the miniseries; it's up to you, or whomever adds information to a Wikipedia article, to source that addition or make your argument for it convincingly. Bartleby007 19:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-added it because it is a response to Nowrasteh's suggestion that Clinton had 8 years to deal with al-Qaeda. If you remove it again, we will need to remove Nowrasteh's comment as well. If you want cites, give me some time to find cites. Stop the bias, please. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stop the bias"? I am merely asking for sources/citations. How is that biased? I could argue that you are biased in insisting on this unsourced paragraph. I'm perfectly happy to give you time to find citations, but why should this paragraph stand until you do? Bartleby007 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why. Nowrasteh makes the comment "Eight years then went by..." As that is a biased (many would say infactual) statement, it requires balance. I revised the text to hopefully work better. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Stevietheman, your link do not prove your assertion about no al Qaeda attacks against American interests until 1998, and you have just conceded that there was an AQ connection to the 1993 WTC attack. Granted, in 1993 no one knew who AQ was, (and Mr. Nowrasteh states this in his quotation: "The principals did not know then what we know now."), but there is abundant evidence to prove that Mr. Nowrasteh is "factual," as you want to put it, that the years 1993-2000 were replete with terrorist attacks on Americans and American interests (among them a 1995 planned assassination of Pres. Clinton, thwarted by the Philippine police). Take a look at the non-profit, non-partisan site (or the book) The Terror Timeline(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project), which lists many and contains a wealth of legitimate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartleby007 (talk • contribs)

"replete" isn't factual as that suggests "frequent", but they were not frequent until 1998 and later. Further, there have been no verified attacks on U.S. interests by al-Qaeda before 1998 -- this is fact. If you don't agree, then change the other articles in Wikipedia that say or suggest this, if you can back up your position. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, if you want to make the assertion that a little advice and 660 bucks by one AQ member is an official "connection", I'll be looking forward to that being taken beyond assertion. Al Qaeda was *not* behind that bombing. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh at your suggestion that I back up my position, as this whole conversation has been about your inability to back up the paragraph that YOU inserted. I have given you a source, The Terror Timeline, and its website which goes on about AQ involvement in attacks or thwarted attempts from 1993 (including the connection to the WTC bombing, which you concede but astonishingly dismiss as a "minor advisory/financial connection" - as if just planning it and financing it absolves them of guilt) through 2001. I frankly don't have time to go through it with you; I've already spent too much time on this. But I'll mention some that took place prior to 1998: the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia, the Clinton assassination plot I mentioned, the 1995 truck bombing in Riyadh which killed 5 Americans, the 1996 Khobar tower bombings that killed 19 Americans. AQ was proudly behind all of these, yet you claim that "there have been no verified attacks on U.S. interests by al-Qaeda before 1998 -- this is fact." No, it is not fact, it is wrong. As for the definition of "replete," just how many terrorist attacks from 1993 to 2001 would it take for you consider them very numerous? Bartleby007 20:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The added paragraph is backed up. I will await a mainstream source for whether al-Qaeda was behind earlier attacks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, one would think that the Khobar Towers bombing article would mention al-Qaeda was behind it if that was proven. Hmmmm... Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's former Attorney General John Ashcroft [1] saying in 2001 that "Saudi Hizballah" (not to be confused with al-Qaeda) was behind Khobar Towers. Methinks we now know who is pushing bias. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh). I DID provide a "mainstream" source: The Terror Timeline, which I guess you're not going to bother to peruse. As for the Khobar bombing (your argument keeps getting narrower and narrower as I disprove your broad assertions), yes, Hezbollah was definitely involved, but bin Laden himself admitted instigating the attack in a 1998 interview (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=200#a062596khobar). Look, let's get back to the point: I'm not sure why you're so determined to leap to AQ's defense, especially since Mr. Nowrasteh's quotation doesn't even MENTION al Qaeda. You seem to be trying to disprove a point he didn't even make in that quotation. THAT is why I'm arguing the relevance of your paragraph, apart from its factuality. What is the point of your defense of AQ following a quotation that doesn't even mention them? You keep claiming I'm biased, but all I have asked for is for your paragraph to be relevant and defensible, and it has been neither. Now if we're just going to go back and forth like this, deleting and adding the paragraph, let's figure out how to make you happy. You want the word "replete" removed? Fine. But your defense of AQ makes no sense here. Bartleby007 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your responses continue to reveal your bias. And assuming that I am "defending al-Qaeda" (which is very outrageous and mean-spirited) could be considered a personal attack, which is against the rules in Wikipedia. Wikipedians work toward factuality in articles. Your source is absolutely not mainstream, and the U.S. government never said al-Qaeda was behind Khobar--this has nothing to do with what I think--it's what can be proven with appropriate sources. AG Ashcroft's words are superior to a little known website outside the realm of mainstream journalism (and I would say that whether it is right or left-based).
Further, Nowrasteh (as fellow individuals on the right) do indeed infer al-Qaeda in these and similar comments so as to confuse people by lumping all Islamist organizations together as if they are one, in this case to suggest Clinton had eight years to deal with al-Qaeda (this is a highly biased suggestion). I think it is fully appropriate to balance Nowrasteh's nuances with more nuance, so readers can make up their own minds on the matter. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It should further be noted that the added paragraph doesn't necessarily work to dismantle Nowrasteh's position (if that's what you're afraid of, given that you're likely closely associated with him). It just gives it more texture. If Nowrasteh's views are so unusually worthy as to not deserve to sit next to counterpoints, perhaps we should remove anything he says. On the contrary, if you find his views to be pristine, you should have no concerns about provable counterpoints. Again, it's not what we or a third-rate website thinks, it's what can be proven with reliable sources. By the way, if I'm wrong and al-Qaeda indeed did direct attacks on American interests before 1998, you've got a lot of Wikipedia editing ahead, and be prepared to face far harsher scrutiny than I have offered. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stevietheman, rather than respond to every point, I'm going to stay focused. First, about the "third-rate website": I don't know on what basis you rate websites, but the reason I have referred to it a couple of times is that this site (which by the way, is non-partisan and non-profit, as I have pointed out) is packed with links to what I assume you mean by "reliable sources." You can then pursue those links to original sources. If you would simply look at it, you'd see how the website works. Second, this is not the place for you and me or anyone to argue endlessly about AQ, and I shouldn't have let things go in that direction. The only point I insist upon here, as far as AQ goes, is that Mr. Nowrasteh does not even mention AQ in the quotation. Your argument is that Mr. Nowrasteh "suggests" Clinton had 8 years to deal with AQ, and that that's incorrect because AQ was not responsible for terrorist attacks on American interests before 1998. There's no need for us to debate the factuality of this because that's not what is said in the quotation. You have assumed that Mr. Nowrasteh is implying AQ, but where do you see such an implication? It is quite simply not there in the quotation. What is said is that terrorist assaults took place - I don't believe anyone can deny this. Third, I am not afraid, as you put it, of a counterpoint to Mr. Nowrasteh's quote; on the contrary, that quotation is itself a counterpoint to the paragraphs above and below it which are plenty critical, so I think it's fair that his response be included (yet this is what you call bias on my part). Speaking of which, you have accused me of bias in nearly every communication when all I've insisted upon is that your paragraph be relevant and factual; if we're going to argue over the facts, then let's at least look at the relevance. Finally, I'm tired of your aggressive, accusatory tone. I'm perfectly happy to have an administrator look over our communication and judge the merits of this debate and my "bias" and your tone. If you cannot see that your paragraph is not a valid response to the quotation, and insist on keeping it, then let's get fresh eyes involved. Bartleby007 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conservative"

In response to another's comment: no, "conservative" is not a bad word but Mr. Nowrasteh is not a "conservative" screenwriter. In his own words from his Wall Street Journal article, cited elsewhere, "I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe." Other screenwriters on Wikipedia are not labeled by their political beliefs (or by the beliefs others would like to ascribe to them). Bartleby007 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is not accurate, for example, see the first sentence on Al Franken [2] or Tim Robbins [3]. And the media has long put effort into painting the word "liberal" to have a negative connotation. Thus, the labels are most definitely used in other articles. I recommend going around wikipedia taking out all the labels if you are to take this stand. Kukini 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh...and I corrected Tim Robbins to "Progressive" as that was the link being used. Kukini 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Robbins is a liberal who may call himself progressive; nothing wrong with the word liberal. Likewise Cyrus is a conservative, regardless of what he might say. This is what the vast majority of disinterested people say... liberal or conservative,... later in the article we can say what they say they are, but neither person should get a pass to deny who they really are. Chivista 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kukini and Chivista, although I now concede my misstatement that other screenwriters on this site are not labeled politically, I disagree with your conclusions. First, I strongly suspect neither Mr.Franken nor Mr. Robbins would object to being described as liberal. If Mr. Nowrasteh asserts he is not a conservative screenwriter, can we not accept what the writer claims of himself? There IS nothing wrong with being liberal or conservative, but I am deeply opposed to the notion that we on Wikipedia have a right to label either one (unless the person embraces that label, as with, say, Mr. Franken). "Regardless of what he might say", Chivista? No one "should get a pass to deny who they really are?" Quite frankly, those are seriously judgmental statements. It's unfair to dismiss people's OWN responses to such labels. Second, to call Mr. Nowrasteh a conservative screenwriter is to suggest that he writes only on conservative themes or projects, which Mr. Nowrasteh certainly does not. Third, as for the media using the word "liberal" in a negative light, that could equally be said of their use of the word "conservative," and I don't see the relevance here anyway, since I am not attacking the "negative connotation" of the label, only its appropriateness for Mr. Nowrasteh. And as for suggesting that I personally go "around Wikipedia taking out all the labels," I think that's a little harsh, and does not address this specific case; my point is that Mr. Nowrasteh himself does not lay claim to the label "conservative," and therefore it is inaccurate and misleading. Bartleby007 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that Franken would prefer to be called progressive, but I know and you know he is a liberal ;) But at this point if ypu like change it in the lead sentence... but somewhat later say that these leading figures like Franken Robbins etc s/b called liberals... Chivista 17:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't change the word back on this article, as it really is not a huge issue to me and as you cited him stating he felt he was apolitical. Kukini 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Franken does not prefer to be called progressive, but liberal. I just saw him speak last night and my photograph of him is the lead on the Al Franken page. Franken is a proud liberal, and he declared it front of a room full of people at Borders bookstore in response to a question asking if he prefers to be called progressive. But that is beside the point: the real issue is that WP is not a place where the subjects get to define themselves. Right now, Nowrasteh has an interest in not being called a Conservative (which he has called himself in the past) to pass off a demonstrably inaccurate documentary as unbiased. It doesn't matter, though, what he wants. WP is meant to be objective, and that includes calling a spade a spade. Whether liberal, conservative, facist, communist, etc. Nowrasteh gets no say in the matter. We do. This site only has as much credibility as the accuracy of its articles, and if we are all going to spend so much time on here working at that, then regardless of our political persuasions we need to ensure we are writing things that resemble reality as it is, and not as we (or the subjects of articles) wish it to be. --DavidShankBone 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see that!  :D Chivista 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed "political bias" to "political orientation" since I thought this was less POV - Gave a number of citations of his various associations with the (self-described) "conservative" Liberty Film Festival. and quotation from an article on conservative voices in Hollywood.--Boscobiscotti 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Lewis "investigation"

I will recap the reasoning that I posed to one of the admins, Kukini, on this subject.

Here is my argument: 1) The allegation came from the Huffington Post, a self-proclaimed blog site - not the news media, not a "sourced investigation" in the least ... 2) The page on IMDB does not confirm the veracity of any identifiable information of the user that potentially acclaimed the film in question ... 3) The allegation involves only two pieces of identifiable information linked to Mr. Nowrasteh -- his wife's name and their hometown, both publicly available information ... 4) There could possibly be more than one person named Betsy living in Camarillo, CA ... 5) The post on IMDB could just as easily have been placed maliciously by someone intending to portray Mr. Nowrasteh in a negative light, given that all of the identifiable information was publicly available.

There are a lot of uncertainties about the circumstances, and insisting that the observations of a single person be called an "investigation" only introduces bias in how a person would want to perceive Mr. Nowrasteh. Adding links to the specific IMDB pages does not make the issue any more thoroughly researched, as the original page on the huffington post already had permanent links to the pages in question. If you have any disagreement with the way I have worded the sentence, please post your reasoning here for further discussion since there may be a problem with neutrality either way. EddieH 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly - it was not me who first changed this section of the article without offering a rationale on the Talk pages. Eddie H did that. I reverted it to the way it had been for a few weeks. And - responding to the concern expressed by Eddie H - went to the journalist's sources as cited in his news story and added those links to the wikipedia article to enable readers to directly see the evidence the journalist gathered and presented in his story.

Now...

1) The Huffington Post is not a "self-proclaimed blog site" It is a respected online journal that publishes news, blogs, columns and a variety of content. Including investigations by journalists. It contains posts by people of all political stripe. eg conservative writer John Fund posted an entry critiquing the work of Mr. Nowrasteh on the 9/11 film. Michael Smerconish also writes for it.

2) The text as originally written does NOT claim that Mr. Nowrsteh is guilty of the allegation. I have no means of knowing that. And neither judging by Mr. Lewis's Huffington Post story has Mr. Lewis. It indicates that an investigation "identified Nowrasteh as the PROBABLE creator" The article text reflects that.

3) Large amounts of investigative journalism is conducted by individuals. That does not discredit the journalism. It is the quality of the journalism and the existence of cited sources by which one gauges the validity of a story. In short - this was clearly not an opinon piece by a blogger. This was the work of an established journalist.

4) The IMDB post COULD have been posted by someone trying to portray Mr. Nowrasteh in a negative light. But it was posted EIGHT YEARS AGO - 8 years before Mr. Nowrasteh was a controversial figure. And 8 years before his personal life and the nickname of his wife were known to the outside world. That's a pretty prescient piece of planting...

5) I found the investigation to be sourced and credible. I was extremely careful to present the fact of the report carefully. And NOT assume or state that Mr. Nowrasteh has been found guilty of anything. I have presented the sources that the journalist identified. Readers of the article can then do their own research and decide for themselves.

For those reasons - the article text should be as it was before Eddie H decided to introduce his POV on it. Davidpatrick 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1) As a matter of fact, the Huffington Post is a self-proclaimed blog site. It even has a "Bloggers Index" showing all the people who publish viewpoints on the site (including Martin Lewis). I don't care about where the bias is coming from, left or right, but it is obvious in most all of the content, especially in the Lewis article (you can't tell me that that isn't one heavily slanted text). In any case, my subsequent revision does not refer to the Huffington Post as a blogger site, so please read before you edit things. 2) The original sentence said that Mr. Nowrasteh was the "probable creator," which is ALREADY a huge bias. That would be like me writing that George W. Bush is a "probable liar" ... that would never fly in any circumstances where bias can not be allowed. 3) Mr. Lewis is not a career journalist. You or I can not post our own individual investigations on Wikipedia and make them appear to have the objectivity of an administrated investigation, and neither can Mr. Lewis. 4) Mr. Nowrasteh has been scrutinized by the media in the past before his recent 9/11 dramatization - you would know that if you investigated the matter a bit more. 5) Wikipedians are not supposed to be able to post information in a biased way and rely on each user to spend hours ensuring that every sentence they read is objective. By the way, I would not consider this rebuttal to be the results of an "investigation" of your perspectives, but merely my perception of the situation. EddieH 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You make some points. I disagree with most of them. I DO agree with your last point. Namely that your rebuttal of my points is (in your own words) "merely your perception". And thus no more valid - or less valid - than my perceptions. Or anybody else's. You made the reference to a blog site in your notes on the Talk page and in your private appeal to an admin. If Huffington Post only published blogs - it would be a blog site. It also publishes news and other content. It's considered an online journal. Anyway - that is a minor point.

I think your edit casts a POV aspersion on a published story. However, I don't believe there is any benefit getting into an edit war over this. So I have compromised my position to accommodate many of your points.

A) I have changed the heading from "Trivia" to "Controversy" - thus it cannot be construed as a proven fact. (Even though at this point you may be the only person who is challenging the story.)

B) I have rewritten the paragraph and removed the word "probable" - so that it is now simply an allegation by Lewis.

C) I have followed your preference to identify Lewis as the writer of the story.

D) I have included 2 or 3 links to the IMDB webpages referred to in the story in order that those who wish to explore the matter for themselves and not rely on the conclusions reached by Lewis - may do so for themselves.

I have made these changes in a spirit of compromise. I think the paragraph was fine as it was. But Wikipedia is about achieving our work in a civil way that accommodates the views of others. I trust you will appreciate and honor that. Thank you. Davidpatrick 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It reads much more objectively than before - thanks. It may look like my edit was an aspersion to Lewis's claim, but the nature of the evidence has to be taken into account, knowing that the column was (in all obviousness) meant to attack Mr. Nowrasteh. After all, critical commentaries have been published on all sorts of political figureheads, many of them having little or no basis in fact, or making broad assumptions. Identifying the source of the accusation is one of the best ways of maintaining objectivity of course (rather than masking it in the generic term "investigation" which has connotations of its own), and not resorting to terms like "probable," "most likely," "almost certainly," and others unless it can't be helped. After all, there has been no comprehensive probabilistic analysis of the evidence -- a modicum of published public perception. EddieH 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad we were able to resolve our differences in a civil way. And I think to the benefit of the article which is what we both care about. Davidpatrick 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Debate about it's factuality aside, I would like to suggest at the very least a re-titling of the "Controversy" section, if not a deletion of it. "Controversy" seems undeniably appropriate to the topic of "The Path to 9/11," but here seems quite a bit overstated, considering that this is only an example (if true) of a relative writing an innocuous favorable review of a movie that apparently hasn't even been commercially distributed. Such reviews by friends and families abound on Amazon.com, for example; it's hardly controversial and frankly seems a bit silly or petty to even include on this entry. Opinions, anyone? Bartleby007 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jawbreaker

He's working on a screenplay of the book Jawbreaker (about the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan) for Oliver Stone [4]. Arrow740 07:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "conservative"

Saying he is "conservative" along with with the fact tag strikes me as silly, particularly given that he has expressed rejected the label and apparently with good reason. His film "On the Day Reagen was Shot" was apparently quite criticized by conservatives. --Jimbo Wales 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding the fact tag may have been silly, and I am not suggesting 'conservative' be restored. But like someone said, if you would not have something heard, do not say it. [5][6] Tom Harrison Talk 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huffington Post alleged sockpuppet "controversy"

The section on the Huffington post blog entry that talks about the alleged sockpuppey "controversy" appears petty and non-objective (due to being blown out of proportion) to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Nowrasteh#Controversy

a. So what if it happened?

b. Yes, ysteb is his wife's name "betsy" spelled backwards. How does the author (or how do we) know that his wife didn't write the fake review? It seems the most obvious possibility. Seems like a dumb, poorly researched criticism about a review that hardly anyone has ever read anyhow. It makes it seem like his critics are grasping at anything, even if it's just straws. My two cents.

Removed per BLP -poorly sourced to a blog. <<-armon->> 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree on removal. If the source had better proof that the concerns were true it would speak to character. But the "proof" in the Huffington Post article is flimsy. --Boscobiscotti 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

removed following material: {{{== Controversy == A column [1] by commentator Martin Lewis published on Huffington Post on September 9, 2006, alleged that Nowrasteh was the creator of a sockpuppet account on IMDB in order to praise of one of his own films [2]- the 1998 film The Island, which had not yet been commercially released. The story stated that the film had received a solitary consumer review [3] in 1998 shortly after its completion attributed to someone who lived in the same small California town as Nowrasteh and using the IMDB name of "ysteb" [4] to post a review of the film - the unreleased film by Nowrasteh. Lewis observed that "ysteb" was "betsy" backwards - the same first name used by Nowrasteh's wife [5] and that "ysteb" never posted another review on IMDB. }}}