Talk:The War on Democracy
 | Film: Australian Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Initial quick wikification
I did a quick once-over for the blatant wikification problems/issues. IMHO the majority of the article should be deleted - especially the "about the film-makers" sections, need to be on bio articles, not really here. I also added the NPOV tag because of the numerous weasel words throughout. SkierRMH 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
response - I have edited the article and removed the biogs for the film-makers, the rest of the article is 100% relevant to the film, could you further explain why you feel that neutrality is questionable, and being new to wikipedia could you let me know what "weasel" words are? Thanks
- You can find them described here: Weasel words and the policy: WP:WEASEL.
- I'd also question the "Q & A with John Pilger" as I am unsure it has any place here and if it does it must have a source. As it stands it has the whiff of copy violation. Either way it should reall be removed and relevant parts incldued in the main part of the entry and then use footnotes to reference the source. (Emperor 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
Note on neutrality of article
The opening paragraph is suspect though I have not edited it:
[quote]'The War on Democracy is a 2007 documentary film directed by Christopher Martin and John Pilger. Focusing on the political state of Latin America, the film is a rebuke of both the United States's attempt to bring democracy to foreign countries and its war on terrorism. The film was first released in the United Kingdom on June 15, 2007.'[/quote]
The film does not “rebuke” America’s attempt to bring democracy to other countries, it rebukes America’s intrusion into other countries already established democracy, because they set up puppet dictators who agree to let America buy out privatised companies, thus draining finance from the county’s coffers and distributing it only to the already rich! The whole point of the documentary is that America is NOT even trying to bring democracy to these countries!
The opening paragraph seems written with the intention of prejudicing people against the film before they even have seen it.
-Mat Cobb 12th July 2007.
- I've replaced it with a more neutral wording. Hopefully my replacement doesn't pre-judge the film in the way the previous wording did, but also does not take a pro-film/anti-American POV. You can check the diff yourself to see what I actually changed. Cynical 14:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:War-on-democracy.jpg
Image:War-on-democracy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely the link to the video of the entire film is a breach of copyright? 89.243.232.183 13:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since the copyright owner has chosen to make the entire documentary available online, then no, I wouldn't have thought so. Also, given that they have, shouldn't a link to the documentary be made available somewhere more prominently (perhaps in the side bar)? For the moement, I've added it under the External Links section. (I couldn't see the other link that the above commenter was referring to - perhaps it has been removed.)
"harmless bombing" / context / NPOV
Howard Hunt, when he mentions "harmless bombing" in this movie, has for the last few sentences explained a disinformation campaign dropping leaflets. The movie then cuts to a clip of actual bombing, insinuating that either Hunt was lying outright, or that leaflets were soon followed by explosives. - Rgrant (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that you believe the when Hunt says "a little harmless bombing" he is really referring to leaflet drops? That's ridiculous. How can you justify that position given the full quote, below?
"We sowed confusion through the countryside and of course by this time we had aircraft flying over dropping leaflets and doing a little harmless bombing." (Then the film cuts of a clip of he ground being bombed.)
This is another direct Howard Hunt quote from an uncut sequence in film (a little earlier):
"What we wanted to do was have a terror campaign, uh, to terrify Arbenz particularly, to terrify his troups, much as the German Stuka bombers terrified the populations of Holland, Belgium and Poland at the onset of World War 2"
This quote, when taken in its full context, shows Howard Hunt is speaking in a candid - if not confessional - way.
The documentary is available online here (the Howard Hunt section begins about 40-41 minutes in):