Jump to content

Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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. Qutezuce 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." Qutezuce 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". Qutezuce 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. Qutezuce 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 understanding of what the programme actually said! Nick Cooper 08:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
WTF ? This is a documentary which proposes that the threat of terrorism is PR hype and that al Qaeda isn't an international terrorist organisation. Wouldn't you assume that "contradicted by events" might relate to instances like the Madrid and London bombings or the scores of al Qaeda attacks, plans and operatives uncovered in dozens of countries since then ? I was under the impression "original research" meant that only the author had discovered or proposed a finding. This stuff made the front page on every newspaper on the planet. Attriti0n 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What also made the headlines was the fact that the London bombings were carried out by a group of young lads from Leeds and was "a modest, simple affair by four seemingly normal men using the internet." Meaning that there was no wider "terror network" involved and Curtis' thesis that such a network does not exist and that events are driven by ideas was strengthened, not contradicted.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah and it was also revealed that they trained in al Qaeda terrorist camps, that they produced martyrdom videos for use by al Qaeda who also claimed the attacks as their own organisation's. Unrelated like that you mean.
As for downloading info off the internet being an indication that no wider network was involved you are describing how most guerrilla manuals for fighters in Iraq are distributed. This is the primary method of distribution for all al Qaeda material targetting jihadists.
Why in 2007 you would suggest that this theory, that no international network of terrorists exists, is not only still existant but actually supported by all subsequent terrorist attacks and disrupted cells around the globe is baffling, but irrelevant. Clearly your opinion is worthless if it is based on ignoring 10 years worth of evidence contradicting your conclusion. Read SITE, SATP or counterterrorismblog.org once in a while. There are a hell of a lot of things you can declare do not exist if you ignore all evidence that they do. Attriti0n 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your continued line of reasoning leads me to suspect that either you haven't actually seen The Power of Nightmares, or that you watched it with an already pre-conceived agenda. So much of the way you have described the series is quite contrary to what it actually says. Nick Cooper 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had a DVD copy of it since it first aired. The continued reasoning you are replying to is a reply stating that the assumptions of another editor here are wrong and his conclusion contradicted by recorded history and well publicised news. I'd like to know though how you decided that my criticism of the film is based on "a pre-conceived agenda" rather than "knowledge that it is contradicted by all researched accounts". Would you care to make such a distinction? Attriti0n 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I'm mystified as to how you can so consistently mis-read the documentary in manner that allows you to "disprove" something it does not say in the first place. Nick Cooper 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I had concerns about someone with such a clearly uninformed or biased viewpoint deleting people's contributions I took a look at your revision here and it appears you have deleted this large body of text simply because it contradicts the premise of this film. Well that's why it was put in a section referring to the fact that the film was contradicted by events.

The fact that a core claim of this film has been shown to be false really cannot be debated unless even the small amount of material about al Qaeda, its members and operations here at wikipedia is insufficient.

The information deleted relates precisely to this premise of the film and by deleting information which explains how al Qaeda is known to operate you have omitted accurate information which adds context to this article. Further, the sources of the information cited were testimony in trial and the published works of a researcher and can hardly be deleted as being unsourced or original research.

Right now you have the film topic of this article claiming that al Qaeda doesn't exist as a terrorist network, material that contradicts that claim or places it in context with other terrorist organisations such as the IRA, and you deleting that information so that only the original claim remains.

Clearly you're obscuring detail and context in this article for the purposes of bias or simply because you hold an uninformed view and your deletions will be reverted unless you can justify why they shouldn't be. Attriti0n 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This was the edit you refer to [1]. Please seek further comment as to whether that deletion was within policy, and also consider reading WP:SYNTH. The only response so far other than your own was in complete agreement that it was an obvious violation of WP:NOR, as it forwarded a position that was that of an editor, not a reliable source, so I don't think we have anything to worry about. You go onto argue that my point is false, because I haven't read something called "counterterrorismblog.org", and describe that as "an uninformed view". But I suspect the problem lies in a misinterpretation of Wikipedia:No original research on your part. If no reliable or notable source has stated that the premise of Curtis's documentary was false, an editor cannot decide for themselves that it was false, and simply create an argument using a synthesis of sources that does not refer to the documentary. Also, please don't write "your deletions will be reverted unless you can justify...". That will be viewed as aggressive edit warring and will not go in your favour.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"" If no reliable or notable source has stated that the premise of Curtis's documentary was false, an editor cannot decide for themselves that it was false, and simply create an argument using a synthesis of sources that does not refer to the documentary.""
Using that reasoning the children's movie Happy Feet stands as an unchallenged account of how penguins behave in the wild, as clearly no zoological texts specifically refer to their depiction in Happy Feet as false.
The structure, function and operations of al Qaeda have been documented by terrorism experts through research, authorities via surveillence and investigation, numerous insider accounts and testimony in court records. These provide a picture of how the network is structured and operates.
The premise in this documentary is that because this network doesn't follow a different structure it doesn't exist at all. Clearly that's inaccurate and relies on a misinterpretation of the subject to arrive at a misleading conclusion.
If your argument was valid it could be applied equally to NWO documentaries about the Jews secretly controlling the world. There is after all no such thing as a textbook on how the US government operates that directly challenges such a claim.
If your argument was valid it could be applied equally to international hacking groups. After all, clearly no such networks exist where the members have never met nor know each others' names. Therefore stating that there are no such things as international hacking groups, based entirely on not understanding how their particular networks operate, would be equally valid despite being contradicted by every other account of their existence on record, including here.
BTW explained why I said your view was uninformed. I actually spelled out in several paragraphs that you were clearly uninformed about how terrorist networks operate as you referred to people "downloading something off the internet" as evidence that they had no support from a terrorist organisation. This is the publications page from SITE. Use the search box on the page for the word "manual". The results you will find for preparing botulism toxin, plague, nerve gasses, IEDs and the high explosives including those used in the 7/7 attacks, all of them referring to the source of these manuals as jihadist websites, are as you say just "something downloaded off the internet" in exactly the same way. This is how terrorist networks operate. To cite their well known normal operations as evidence that their network does not exist is you providing a case in point example of the problem evident in this documentary, by relying on an uninformed examination to arrive at a misinformed conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Attriti0n (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
Regarding your Happy Feet analogy, indeed that it is the reasoning of wikipedia. If no reliable source has challenged the film on that basis, then there is nothing to add to the Happy Feet article. An editor can't just start adding things to the article based on theories and a synthesis of sources that don't refer to the film. Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS which are fundamental policies of wikipedia.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Then we'll just have to go with the direct criticism from reliable sources then. Attriti0n 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. If there is such a thing as Al-Qaeda Inc. then it won't be difficult to provide us with a list of offices and dates of monthly conferences between those headoffices in Paris, London, Hong-Kong, Buenas Aires, Montreal, Perth, et cetera. In the case of Shell, Microsoft, Unilever, and other multinationals (that is: international organisation) we can. (split) Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed this suggestion already being undercut above, re- hacking groups. If organisations must function on the model of a multi-national corporation then none exist other than those of multi-national corporations. The Russian mafia doesn't exist as an international organisation if this is the case.
Also the documented, minuted meetings of al Qaeda concerning worldwide operations would also seem to undercut your point. You appear here to be asking for such a reference, but given that you go straight on to suggest you have read not just some of the more well known accounts of the leadership and operational structure of al Qaeda but "every report on the subject", I'll assume you're just joking. Attriti0n 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to show me those meetings proving that there is a global (in China, Australia, Canada, South-America, Europe, et cetera) unified organisation that is planning terrorist attacks based on one goal for every country in the world. Lacking that we can conclude such an international network does not exist.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Every report on the subject has shown that no global network exists. All we have is local groups with their own agenda which possibly sometimes communicate with others. A shared unified and global agenda between those seperate groups has been disproven time and time again! (split)Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What a complete bunch of nonsense. The most extensive, publicised and public-friendly intel report on al-Qaeda operations ever produced was the 9/11 commission report. The one where you can learn about the plot devised in the Philippines, proposed to and approved by the central leadership in Afghanistan. Where students from Germany travelled to Pakistan and were assisted entering Afghanistan by supporters in that country. Where in Afghanistan they trained in camps which have operated for 20 years for the sole purpose of training jihadists from around the world so that they could fight in other countries. Where in Afghanistan these students accepted roles to travel to the US to train and undertake the operation. Where financing was routed via supporters in Pakistan via others in the ME to the US. Where primary communication between the cell and Afghan-based leadership was undertaken via international travel. Where approval of Saudi assets to travel to the US for participation came from Afghanistan. Where confirmation of the attack date travelled via the opposite route.
All of their most serious attacks were directed from foreign countries. : Evidence of international networks and operations commanded by a central council ? Nothing to see here apparently. Sheesh.
You've pretty much just suggested, based on "every report on the subject" let's not forget (which somebody somewhere may believe you've read even one), that there is no such thing as international terrorism, as a concept. Wow. Attriti0n 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Apparently you choose to ignore those reports, so unfortunately there is no cure for your ignorance. Please show proof of people enlisting in an organisation that is managed through headoffices in every country and which conducts attacks globally. I think we have FARC, IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, et cetera, but those are seperate groups and do not share the same agenda. Unless you can provide us with evidence that those groups currently designated as being part of international terrorism share the same ideology, leader, agenda and cooperate in their attacks I see no reason to adhere to this fantasy of a major international terrorist ring.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Is it possible to entertain the thought that if today we are confronted with a global organisation this might falls under the heading self-fulfilling prophecy?[2] (split) Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, only if you ignore the fact this was achieved prior to this 'prophecy' being suggested in this documentary and the war that article discusses. It is possible that Bill Gates earned a fortune of tens of billions of dollars today because of the war in Ethiopia in the same way. That way being fantasy. Attriti0n 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Before the invasion of Iraq AQ was a pityfill bunch of fanatics. Today it is entirely different. How do we explain that? Hype? self-fulfilling prophecy?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Even if there is such a thing as a global network of terrorists with one goal in mind it is evident that looking at several avoidable causes of death terrorism is not a very important one. Please review how many people die as a result of malaria, AIDS, hunger, traffic accidents, gun violence (30.000 people each year in the US alone), war (Iraq alone killed more people than terrorism did!), heart attacks, et cetera. The list continues but you get my point. With this in mind it is difficult to see how the threat of terrorism stressed by certain politicians is not at odds with the facts. Isn't that exactly what the series is suggesting and certainly not "contradicted by events?"Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were observing when you came to this realisation, but we'll assume it wasn't anything in this discussion section. Apparently though, you believe that an arguement or position forwarded for influence of a public opinion being at odds with the facts is a problem. From your supposed phenomenally extensive reading on the subject you could probably take issue with the factually inaccurate claims in the documentary you know of. After all there are several claims which are contradicted by literally every one of those reports in existance you've alleged that you have read. No doubt you'll appreciate that overstating an existant threat isn't as grievous in terms of intellectual dishonesty as inventing fictional, unsupported, and universally contradicted claims and suggesting they are fact. Or not. Attriti0n 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, you demonstarte a lack of familiarity with the subject. Curtis says as much in the documentary, i.e. while terrorism exists, governments' reactions to it are completely disproportionate to the threat. Nick Cooper 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I am not knowledgable enough to determine any inaccuracies in the series I do know that terrorism is to most people in the world an irrelevant issue. They are more likely to encounter and die of other things, I mentioned a few of them before. To discuss terrorism in the apocalyptic way and to portray the War on Terror as a Good vs. Evil thingy is entirely ridiculous, dishonest and ignores other more pressing threats to our existence. Which to me is "inventing fictional, unsupported, and universally contradicted claims and suggesting they are fact." No, international terrorism as the prominent threat to our lifes is not fact! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Attriti0n, could you tone down your choice of descriptions of my person?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rereading your reply I think you agree with me.

  • Apparently though, you believe that an arguement or position forwarded for influence of a public opinion being at odds with the facts is a problem. Yes, that is a serious problem since what you are describing is propaganda. We all know that politicians applying propaganda usually reside in less democratic societies. Propaganda clearly means people want to hide the facts. Please tell me, what is wrong with telling the facts?
  • No doubt you'll appreciate that overstating an existant threat isn't as grievous .. This sounds you agree with the series regarding overstating the importance of the threat.

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of important section from Part Three summary

I see that Lenin and McCarthy has removed the following:

The arrests of various groups of suspected terrorists in the U.S. following the September 11 attacks failed to find any substantive evidence, but did show a lot of imagination on the part of investigators. Many of those arrested in Afghanistan were captured and turned over to U.S. forces by the Northern Alliance, who claimed that their captives were Al-Qaeda members. The U.S. forces had nothing but the word of the Northern Alliance to tie the prisoners to Al-Qaeda. In addition, the Northern Alliance had motives to lie about any given captive's ties to terrorist organizations, since they received a monetary reward for every "terrorist" they handed over to the U.S. and could do away with virtually anybody they wanted to by bringing him to the Americans and labeling him a "terrorist." Nevertheless, the Alliance's claims were taken at face value and the captives imprisoned indefinitely in such places as Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, in the U.K., arrests under new terrorism laws have resulted in only 3 convictions of Islamists, all for fundraising. Much of the media coverage of potential terrorist attacks is also highly speculative and sensational. For instance, a terrorist attack using a radiological weapon, referred to by the media as a dirty bomb, wouldn't kill many people from fallout because the radioactive material would be spread thinly by any explosion. However, the neo-conservatives had found they could use the threat of Islamist terrorism, and the claimed possibility of sponsorship by Iraq, as an enemy against which to unite the U.S., and other politicians such as Tony Blair claimed an important role in protecting their countries from attack. Politicians and counter-terrorist agents have decided that they must be proactive in imagining the worst possible attacks and in stopping those who seem likely to carry out attacks.

Although it may be open to a degree of compression, these examples are central to illustrating/justifying Curtis's thesis. Nick Cooper 06:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on a caffiene buzz and can't get any sleep, so I'll see what I can do to add mention to some of these things. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences and changes

Um, there seems to be something odd going on here. The cached page on yahoo of this page contains the description: power of nightmares is a award winning [etc] documentary, produced under contract for the BBC by Achaeron Films, and distributed [etc etc]. And yet the page itself does not contain this information at all. Presumably, this is because this information has been removed and the yahoo search description has not been updated. But the question is WHY has it been removed? Is it not correct? was the film not produced under contract by this company. Is there some issue we're not aware of? If so, then perhaps the wikipage referring to that particular film company should be updated too; since it still lists 'the power of nightmares' as one of the companies main achievments in its opening paragraph. Can someone please resolve this. I dont know who is right or wrong, but i think information should at least be consistent across the wiki network. 82.3.151.219 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Achaeron Films claims it is a "major United Kingdom production and post-production media company." Googling "Achaeron Films", however, returns only five hits. Googling "Achaeron" and "Gladiator" or "Achaeron" and "28 Weeks Later" - two films the "company" supposedly worked on - returns nothing meaningful. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a hoax.... Nick Cooper 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the last possible hoax reference. Lack of IMDB and Google results would leave me with no choice but to tag the pages for deletion. I will also inform The guy who made them.

Failed GA

I don't feel that it is possible to pass this article for GA at present due to stability and neutrality issues. Since this film series obviously covers emotive issues that people feel strongly about, stability and perceived neutrality is always going to be difficult to achieve in an article such as this. However, in my opinion as a reviewer that balance has not yet been achieved. A film's popularity on IMDB ratings etc is purely an expression of how popular it was as entertainment with an audience, not a measure of the truth of its claims. Given the extraordinary (or at least exceptional, non-mainstream) claims made in the film, exceptional evidence would be required. Since however this is a documentary rather than a fictional account it gains a burden of needing to present the truth and justify and explain any claims made. There is over a screen's worth of text of statements drawn from the film, but no evaluation of this. There is a criticism section containing criticism of the film as a whole and an evaluation of its critical reaction as an entertainment piece, but I would expect a GA on such a topic to contain a detailed critique of the ideas presented, just as in a GA on a book presenting emotive ideas would be - an example might be eg The Origin of Species, in which a summary of the work is followed by almost as much content again on the public reaction, on misconceptions, and on implications. In contrast, the criticism section of this article seems mainly to deal with emotive arguments between British and Americans. There is very little real analysis of the arguments presented. In order to bring proper neutrality to the article, I would argue for removing emotive reactions and comments (it would be enough to mention that it led to some hostility between Britain and America in the popular presses of those countries) whils adding in sections dealing with more serious scrutiny of the arguments presented in the film series. Either that, or have different sections evaluating its success as firstly a deliberately tongue-in-cheek shock piece and secondly as a serious attempt to present an alternative version of historical events based on sound logic and researched fact. There's some good work gone into this article but I think the authors gave their work cut out shaping the article into a form that can be indipsutably described as netural (a fundamental GA criterion) - good luck! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you're asking for me to write up some sort of "Analysis" section outside of third party sources (and I can't find many more of these, it evidently didn't get that much attention) that would be original research. An entire section was removed from the Xenu article on these ground, so such a move would not be acceptable by the rules. Furthermore, I can't find a lot of evidence of American-English conflict over the film, only the to-be-expected left-right conflict. I could try to rewrite the "reactions" section to two sections on critiques of the content and the format, but I don't think there's much more I can do. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your response. I understand your dilemna if there is insufficient information available to prevent a balanced counter to the points raised. However, it is not original research if you find published data that disputes points raised in the film, even if those points were not published specifically to counter the film. Do you see what I mean? As I say, I don't think this article fails GA based on any particular failing of its authors, just that its difficult to write a neutral article on such an issue - just by presenting the film series content without counterarguments or an evaluation of its plausibility (even if this is due to the fact that none is available) then the article is implicitly biased towards the account provided by the film series. If the available content allows only that then that's fine, I'm not arguing that the article is bad or should be removed, just that such an article cannot pass the criterion of neutrality demanded of GA nominees.
Please also note that irrespective of this issue I felt that the article was not yet sufficiently stable given its edit history and talk page - this is almost inevitable on any emotive issue and such topics require more effort to bring to GA than others.. I'm not saying that the article is bad, just that due to its nature its going to be tough to squeeze through GA criteria, certainly in its current form. You'll notice I had no objection to it on many of the GA criteria, which it passed fine - I have explained why it failed stability and neutrality criteria only in my view.
I am just one editor of course and who knows if another might have passed the nomination where i failed it, but such is the vagaries of the GA nomination system. Rather than getting too upset about it, I think you'd be best of working to address the issues I raised to the best of your abilities, and perhaps undergoing a (formal or informal) peer review process before renominating it for GA status. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to this comment: "...it is not original research if you find published data that disputes points raised in the film, even if those points were not published specifically to counter the film." I was under the impression that would necessarily be a synthesis and hence original research. A and B, therefore C. Best, MoodyGroove 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I'm taking this to GA review. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I find the reasoning that PocklingtonDan gives for the GA fail completely the opposite of my understanding of NPOV, I assume I'm missing something but to my mind the article presents the claims made in the documentary,without endorsing them. It then outlines every positive and negative response to the documentary in a reputable source. How is that not NPOV? IMO it is no business of wikipedia to "measure of the truth of its claims" in fact to do so would be POV not NPOV. PocklingtonDan seems to feel that the article is not NPOV unless it an evaluates the plausibility of the claims made in the documentary, which it does as far as reputable sources allow, any more would be OR. I do not understand this decision. --Shimbo 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the failed GA provided by Pocklington Dan are bizarre and entirely inappropriate. He writes "it is not original research if you find published data that disputes points raised in the film, even if those points were not published specifically to counter the film." It clearly is OR to do that and the point should be dismissed. I recommend that that Lenin and McCarthy proceed with the GA process and get a more experienced reviewer, because unfortunately, that review went against many of WP's core tenets.-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New Lead

I don't entirely agree with the new lead. I think it is a simplification of the films and is quite misleading. Here is the previous lead I wrote about a year ago, which I believe sticks far closer to the themes of the film:

This documentary argues that during the 20th Century politicians lost the power to inspire the masses, and that the optimistic visions and ideologies they had offered were perceived to have failed. The film asserts that politicians consequently sought a new role that would restore their power and authority. Curtis, who also narrates the series, declares in the film's introduction that “Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares”. To illustrate this Curtis compares the rise of the American neoconservatives and radical Islamists, believing that both are closely connected; that some popular beliefs about these groups are inaccurate; and that both movements have benefited from exaggerating the scale of the terrorist threat.

This can be easily sourced to Curtis himself. And I'm fairly sure he wouldn't agree with the present lead as a representation of the films. What do other users think? I'm specifically thinking about this sentence in the lead

More importantly, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by the Neo-Conservatives in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

I'm confident that the films do not state this. Certainly not in such sweeping terms. The central thesis was the development, use and misuse of ideas, as it is in all Curtis's films, not that the Neo-Conservatives created al-Qaeda. -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. That's not a sentence in the introduction, it's an extremely selective quote of part of a sentence, done in a way which actually changes the meaning. The introduction doesn't imply what you state.WolfKeeper 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can make any case for an entirely new introduction based on misquoting the current one.WolfKeeper 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The case isn't for a new introduction, it is to restore the introduction that stood for a year. Which I believe is more accurate than this new introduction. I'll just go ahead thank you, as I'm not sure what your point was.-- Zleitzen(talk) 01:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper: You pretty much wrote that paragraph. What do you mean, no consensus? And you can't have a sentence that states: "The film is arguably Curtis's most controversial film." which is pure WP:WEASEL, not sourced and is not a good encyclopedic statement.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the film. It argues that al-Qaeda as a proper organization does not exist, and that Neo-Conservatives play one of the biggest parts in stressing its danger. As this is the reason it got so much attention anyway, the emphasis belongs there.--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberals?

"a group of disillusioned liberals including Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz" - Is this some new definitions of liberal that I'm unaware of? 172.203.235.207 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of the section on further reading suggested by Adam Curtis

LenninAndMcCarthy removed this section as it was "too messy". Presumably he meant it needed cleaning up. Could he explain what kind of clean-up it requires before I re-instate it, please? I suggest that a link to the BBC web page where Curtis gives the list is not adequate as some of the books (potentially all of them) have, and should have, articles on Wikipedia. Further, they are clearly some of the sources Curtis used to made the film, and so are valid to cite as reference materials. Mr. Jones 15:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This subsection was entitled "Books recommended by Adam Curtis to follow up watching the series"

Islamism

  • Jihad - The Trail of Political Islam ISBN 0674010906 by Gilles Kepel and his earlier book, The Prophet and the Pharaoh ISBN 0520085434
  • The best insight into the ideas behind all this are in the writings of Sayyid Qutb - in particular Milestones (also translated as Signposts Along the Road) ISBN 0911119426
  • The Failure of Political Islam by Olivier Roy translated by Carol Volk ISBN 0674291417 and
  • Globalized Islam:The Search for a New Ummah by Olivier Roy ISBN 0231134983
  • Al Qaeda:The True Story of Radical Islam by Jason Burke ISBN 1850436665
  • "By far the best book on Afghanistan" The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System, Second Edition by Barnett Rubin ISBN 0300095198
  • "And Zawahiri's own account of the struggle which is actually very revealing - It is translated as Knights under the Prophet's Banner" says Curtis "I think you can still find it on the internet" Exerpts are here, translation here

The history of Neoconservatism

"The weirdness of the 1990s"

paid download as PDF format

My issues with the section are:

  1. It's copied almost verbatim from this page. It could even be read as an endorsement of the film's content in its current state.
  2. It's an extremely long section. Consider the corresponding section from Fight Club (film).
  3. There isn't actually any specific proof that Curtis directly used these as sources. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
On your third point, the cited source is credited to Curtis himself, and is on the website of the broadcaster which commissioned the series from him and transmitted it. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find such solid provenance. Nick Cooper 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it does not explicitly say he used them as sources. An even if we were to get beyond that the relevant information would probably be better off if integrated into the "Content" section. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Listing as GA following review at WP:GA/R

I have listed this article as a GA - following a review here which shows a clear consensus for listing this article as a GA.--VS talk 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how to properly note this article's history via Template:ArticleHistory if it was promoted on review? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Utopia

  • Thanks for using edit comments!
  • The main body of the text does not contain "utopia". Where is the explanation you refer to?
  • You should have addresses the text, not my edit comment: There are no utopias in the power of nightmares (ie. the idea from the film, not the film), and there are no utopian ideas in the power of nightmares. It's like having "more utopian broccoli". The ideas used to gain power before (socialism etc.) were utopian, the power of nightmares is not. Not less, or only a little, not at all. That change is one core point of the film: Changes from promised utopian ideas to promised less utopian ideas were common throughout history. This is different.-79.219.189.243 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Power_of_Nightmares/Archive_2&oldid=1131850310"