Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

untitled section

I got most of the external links from The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. Digital Distractions has BitTorrent links for the series. I don't think that redistribution has been authorised, so I expect downloading it to be illegal, but it was shown on free-to-air television without advertising, so I doubt that anybody cares. Tim Ivorson 13:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No ranting here. I just looked at the assertions and pointed out what was wrong with them. There's nothing non-NPOV about adding assertions a) as a placeholder if you believe that these arguments have been presented, or b) to provide context for an assertion. If a group of people started a smear campaign against Curtis, for instance, and said that he ate babies, one should say that there is no evidence that Curtis eats babies, and there is no police investigation to assess this, but X, Y and Z say he does, no? Please also see my comment below on non-sensical assertions.

Do you know how to use the article history and to view users' contributions, Willowx? Let me know on my talk page if not. Mr. Jones 21:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism?

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

you mean like this? [1] it's hard to know where to start criticising something so absurd. ObsidianOrder 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

How about [2], [3], [4], [5]? No one would describe PoN as a definitive, completely accurate account of the topics in question, but sweepingly saying it's absurd is extremely closed minded. The series is insightful and extremely thought-provoking.

ObsidianOrder article that (s)he posts doesn't really say much aside from the critisism that Richard Pipes was made to look stupid. Pipes, although notable, Team B may not have been his crowing achievement as he wasn't experienced specifically in what he needed to do. Concerning The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terror book, the reviewer dismises the fact that it is false by asking the friend who wrote the book if it was true.Blue Leopard 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Well the first section of the article is Distribution which contains nuggets like this about hiccups in the release of a documentary that reveals the threat of terrorism is nothing but PR hype and al Qaeda isn't an international terrorist organisation:

In Australia, the programme was to be screened on SBS commencing 12 July 2005 [1], however this screening of the series was cancelled ... in light of the recent London bombings...

It is also pointed out that it was first screened at a film festival a year after the Madrid train bombings. What more damning criticism could you get? "We interrupt this screening of the documentary Why The Berlin Wall Will Stand Forever to bring you breaking news from East Germany..." Attriti0n 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The documentary is quite clear that individual terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, the Spanish bombings only add evidence to the argument that there is no global "Al Qaeda" organisation thousands of members all over the world - the train bombings were carried out by a local terrorist group "inspired" by Al Qaeda. 172.203.235.207 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Curtis' views on Iraq

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

James, London

I can only repeat what I said in my previous responses on this site. I think one has to be very careful about this.

The films showed that Islamism is not a new phenomenon. Its trajectory in the 1980s and 90s is that of rise and fall. It tried to create a pan-Arab revolution and failed because it couldn't inspire the masses.

The answer is that no-one knows whether the war on terror is re-creating mass Islamism and giving it a new revolutionary appeal, or whether it is actually :fuelling a more nationalist opposition that uses an Islamist rhetoric - as seems to be happening in Iraq.

The problem is that it is so dangerous to report anything in Iraq that everyone - both pro and anti - project what they want to see onto the insurgency.

Yet again our perception of reality is being driven by political fantasies rather than an accurate understanding drawn from reality. "

Legality of downloads

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

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

I'm not sure, but it may not be illegal in Canada, due to a special tax there, but I wouldn't like to bet. Otherwise it's illegal nearly everywhere I think.WolfKeeper

This site has better quality versions of each episode. M. Stephen 22 August, 2005 22:54

This site has the best watchable quality version online. BTW under fair use terms this documentary is made availible in accordinace with international law.

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

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

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

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

Not legally. Such information seems mostly useful for people interesting in people breaking copyright. It doesn't seem to me that an encyclopedia should assist in criminal acts. And there are probably legal implications of doing that kind of thing that mean that the wikipedia should not do this.WolfKeeper 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say "not legally" what are you referring to?

As for the rest, it seems to be your opinion. My opinion is that linking to a site does not "assist in criminal acts" but provides useful information. It does not advocate breaking laws, nor does it assist people to break laws. It simply provides (legal, afaik) information. So we have a difference of opinion. Therefore I once again respectfully ask if there is a wikipedia policy on this issue. If not, I think we should put the link back, because it provides relevant, valuable (though obviously controversial) information. noosphere 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks like no one has stepped up to the plate to provide any kind of Wikipedia policy on this, and I can't find one myself. So, until someone does find such a policy, I'm going to assume there isn't one.

Now we're stuck with two opinions on how to proceed. I'd like to put up links to the site hosting the series, because I think this information is relevant, useful and valuable for people reading this article. Wolfkeeper wants to keep the links off the main article, for the reasons he went over above. I would like to reach a consensus on this. Are there any suggestions on how such a consensus could be reached? noosphere 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, I finally took a look in the obvious place where a Wikipedia policy regarding copyright can be found. And, under the "Linking to copyrighted works" section I found:

"Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us."

So it looks like Wolfkeeper is quite right. And, until we find out whether archive.org or any other site that provides downloads of the show is not violating BBC's copyright, or until and unless the courts decide that a link to these sites does not constitute "contributory infringement" and Wikipedia changes its policy we should keep such links out of the article.

Of course, linking to the copyright holder's (BBC's) site with information on how to get the program legally should be just fine. noosphere 00:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Qutezuce, where did you hear that archive.org "usually only contains works that they can legally provide for download"? If we can find out for sure that archive.org is not violating the BBC's copyright of the show by offering it for download then we are allowed to post a link to it. noosphere 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comment lower on this page here. Qutezuce 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm continuing this down there. noosphere 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The role of Leo Strauss

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

Unsourced assertions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A particular assertion can be described as nonsense. If a term is too loosely applied, or too inherently ambiguous, the result is non-sensical, tautological or otherwise trivial. "The Power of Nightmares is a conspiracy theory" is nonsense similar to "Ronald Regan is a film contract" Again the question becomes whether these assertions were made. I took it in good faith that the person who added those assertions knew them to have been made; some people are systematically loose with the use of language, and that should be represented.

Have lodged an objection to this aspect of the NOR policy as I think it is counter productive. Mr. Jones 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfalsifiable assertions made by the documentary?

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

If it's an accusation that's being made, it should be included. However, I can find nothing to indicate that it is.

It's better to say "have the potential to be refuted" than "can be refuted". There is no clear evidence that has stood up to examination AQ as a whole orchestrated by OBL directly. And certainly not about the London bombers. Just being clear on that, though I assume you were just making an academic point. Mr. Jones 13:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The programme misrepresents "neo-cons"

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

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

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

Strauss' role is exaggerated

I've seen the series, and it does blow out of proportion the role of Strauss influenced "neo-cons". It is dismissive of the necessity of confronting communism and of the Soviet Union's role in sponsoring terrorism, which I don't see how they can avoid, unless they don't count the actions of satellite states like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc.

Actually, Strauss was a key influence on the neocons, though it's not quite as clear as the movie makes out how his influence led to a certain foreign policy ideology. But the neocons in the Reagan era believed not just that the Soviets "sponsored" terrorism but that they orchestrated it. Behind every terrorist attack we were supposed to see the Soviet threat, not developments in the middle east or the rise of Islamism. That, I think, is correctly critiqued by this documentary (at least, the part I've seen - just 1 & 2). --csloat 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Dismissive of the necessity of confronting communism in the 1980s on the grounds that communism (in the way the Soviets used it at least) was an inherently flawed system and the Soviet Union was already in severe decline by the 1980's? I don't think I'm alone in saying that's arguably a pretty accurate portrayal of the situation. People had already noticed trends such as the decreasing life expectancy of Russian men, declining economic growth since the 1950s, etc. These were known and noticed in the west. So this isn't an idea that Curtis has come up with on his own after the fall of the Soviet Union. Average Earthman 07:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The film was not about communism. I'm not sure why the filmmaker should be obligated to deal with this information. The problem as I pointed out was the neocon distortion of the Soviet military threat, which was particularly notable when they dealt with terrorism, a different phenomenon. --csloat 20:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The documentary is reletavist

The documentary is reletavist as it does not criticise the greens. Also, to the extent it focused on this perceived parallel or analogy between the US and the wahabis in a way that doesn't morally distinguish the two, the implication is that the use of fear and nightmare scenerios is the province of the right. There is no attempt to also daemonize the the environmentalist or anti-globalist left for all their fear mongering, nightmare scenerios.--Silverback June 29, 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Surely a documentary should strive to present facts, not make moral distinctions? PoN makes the case that national governments are using fear of an invisible outside enemy to boost their own popularity and create a sense of purpose for themselves and their own rule. Environmentalism or anti-globalism have never gained widespread enough support to be used in this manner, afaik. Left-right distinctions seem irrelevant in this case. The current British government is comparatively left-wing on most other issues. Those that try to whip up anti-globalist sentiment in order to gain popular support tend to be right-wing, nationalist parties.

The dismissiveness of the need to confront communism seems to extend to mentioning that the main reason the Soviet Union crumbled was the flaws of the Soviet system rather than the personal merit of Ronald Reagan. Most historians would agree. The need to confront a nation like Cuba seems rather debatable to me in any case. Beyond that, the US has a history of supporting authoritarian South American and South-East Asian rule just as extensive as that of the Soviet Union but these things are not what PoN is about.--Peet 7 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Nations like USSR and Cuba, that were still shooting people that were trying to escape and were still overtly and surrupticiously trying to convince or undermine other nations to also turn into gulags of captive low wage labor, should be confronted whether they were crumbling from internal flaws or not. After all, every minute they crumble earlier. Your statement about flaws, seems to ignore the fact that the flaws had existed/survived for several decades. It was argued that Saddam's regime was even more flawed, yet he survived the terrible destruction of the war with Iran and the 1st gulf war with the UN. Don't underestimate the power of nightmares.--Silverback 06:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant as it is not the subject of the documentary, nor a popular criticism, AFAIAA (as far as I can make out you are complaining about what the documentary did not report). Perhaps you can find articles that express a similar opinion in the context of the documentary? Mr. Jones 20:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is biased

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

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

I agree, it is biassed. Not sure what to do about it though. ObsidianOrder 23:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Do it.WolfKeeper 11:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see people discussing the article here in an attempt to reach a consensus, rather than unilaterally removing a lot of what I'm sure were well intentioned edits. Having said that, if there is consensus that we should go back then OK. What are other people's views? --Shimbo 17:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see no weasel words. The current article has way too much 'people say' in it. Who says it? Who may have paid them to say it? Should an encyclopedia contain weasel words on such a contentious issue? I think not. If we take out the weasel words, their supporters can put them back in, attributed. Otherwise for all we know, the supporters made them up from whole cloth. WolfKeeper

I see you've been editing to attribute sources, well done.--Shimbo 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, that seems a negative, partisan approach.

I'm sorry, that seems to be a non sequitor. In no way is the principle that you have to support what you put in the wikipedia partisan (unless you are seriously claiming that a particular set of partisan beliefs are unsupportable, but should go in anyway???? Really???? Which set????)WolfKeeper

One should try to attribute assertions as far as possible, but only remove assertions believed on a firm basis to be false. A firm basis would be to say "there is no evidence for this that I can find" having looked with google, at least. To do otherwise should undermine one's credibility.

Why should I have to attempt to source some random claim some person made? If they're making the claim *they* should be able to support it. Wikipedia editors are not expected to be unpaid lackeys running around desparately trying to source the claims of people who may be highly biased. If they put the claim in, they should put the proof in. Besides, just because I can't find a source, doesn't mean there isn't one. It's extremely easy to claim something, it's much harder to prove or disprove it. Some things are easy to prove, a few things aren't. What am I supposed to do google on it, and read 100,000 web pages in the vague hope I may find evidence one way or another? No way! You haven't thought this through.WolfKeeper

Further, presenting a logical analysis of an assertion is justified. If an article presents an assertion with poor logical consistency such as "the Republican party is a conspiracy theory", "gerbils are a kind of cheese", "Russia has been invaded by USA capitalists" or some other unfamiliar syntax, it is valid to describe what is understood by gerbils and cheese and state that there is no immediately obvious consistent semantic for that syntax. These descriptions can be further refined, of course. This is a transitional stage, and research can be conducted to determine whether these assertions are believed (or at least espoused) by anyone or not. The period of the transitional stage should be based on the edit history of the contributor that made them. Mr. Jones 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. I particularly disagree with checking somebodies edit history, every edit should stand on its own.WolfKeeper

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

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

Wolfowitz "debunks Strauss myth"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you could provide a link to the great man's words? Seabhcán 19:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

• http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html
• http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t01232003_t0123cfr.html
• http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=221

These look like valuable sources. Well done in digging them up. Now, rather than critising others for failing to include them why don't you edit the article to include them? Otherwise, perhaps other people will accuse you of being 'lazy' too. BTW: Using terms like 'you people' is not helpful, there seems to me to be a wide range of views expressed here, which of them are 'you people'? Also please sign your posts.--Shimbo 12:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that people were too busy finding more critiques towards Wolfowitz than criques towards the Power of Nightmares. Im new to Wiki so I havent had time to sign on and learn the game, but I will soon. I just thought I had to throw in my two cents. I will refrain from using the term you people, if there would be a civil open discussion that doesnt resort to worse ad hominems like "war monger" or "neo fascist". I have plenty of more links to provide.

Fair enough and glad to have you on board. I feel you are jumping to conclusions if you feel there is some kind of plot to boost the programme. Wikipedia is not about defending or attacking a point of view it is about producing an NPOV encyclopedia. There are people with a variety of views editing this article and also people who have no interest except to see that it is NPOV. I think you will find that if you write with a NPOV, Avoid weasel terms and Cite sources then your edits will be accepted without any problems. Also, discussion of this article has been very civilised so far with no agression and I for one certainly hope it stays that way - civility is Wikipedia policy. I look forward to seeing you editing the page and supplying us with the other links you have.--Shimbo 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice anyone use those terms here. Mr. Jones 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Negative influence on the Arab world

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

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

I agree that this is a prime example of the use ofweasel terms and, I suspect, original research. I suggest the fact that it has been shown on Al Jazeera and they reviewed it and made part of it available via a link from their website [7] should be moved to the Distribution section. Unless someone can come up with a source for the criticism that is. --Shimbo 17:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that here I was more-or-less rephrasing the text that was already in the article when I edited it. An accusation of "weasel wording" thus stems from misunderstanding. Glad some of the other criticisms have been exemplified, BTW. NOR does not apply here: it's something that's been said or it's not. Structually it's NPOV as it frames a viewpoint, though of course it may be one that's not been expressed. There is probably something to be written about the influence, the percieved influence and the representation of influence on arab countries of the documentary, however. Mr. Jones 19:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be backed up by sources. But there is no doubt that this documentary has given room for conspiracy theories to cloud the truth. You may call me Anon.

Dear Anon, What is 'the truth'? Seabhcán 08:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The "truth" since you're so reluctant to think that its all relative, is that the neo-cons are a lobby group that advocate national force against terrorism rather than the intelligence gathering law enforcement that the CIA is under. They are a very small minority that have grown in influence over the years since Clinton and the W Bush administration.They have been advocating the the over throw of Saddam since the Clinton years and all the of the intell that Bush used was also used by Clinton, left over from the last UNSCOM inspection in '98. After 9/11 they saw that Iraq was a growing threat that needed to be taken out and convinced Bush to take immidiate action regardless of UN effort.

Thier ideas on terror are manifested in the National Security Stradegy and the clauses for War in Iraq are spelled out in the Joint Resolution for War in Iraq and Bush's speech to the UN. Its very simple. The neo cons may have helped sway the Bush administration, but all of the ideas that the group lobbies are not always approved. Read the Neo-Con Reader by Irwin Stetzler. Bush is not a neo-con. -Anon

I'd disagree that the CIA have any law enforcement role (Arn't you thinking of the FBI?) and about the real reasons about the Iraq invasion (I believe its more about controling the oil supplies of Europe, India and China with the aim of maintaining veto power over their economies - but thats a different arguement). But that the neo-cons are a small group with certain goals, that they have been advocating the invasion of Iraq since Clinton, or that they don't get everything they want, is not in dispute by either my self or the 'Nightmares' television series. Have you actually seen the program, Anon? Seabhcán 09:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The neo-conservatives have wanted to overthrow Sadaam Hussein since the first Gulf War under President Bush Sr.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

What the neo-cons wanted is to occupy iraq. There have been plenty of opertunities to overthrow the government, which have been rejected because they would not result in the US taking control of Iraq. This is what lead the US to betray the shia uprising in the 1990's. The US actually gave Saddam infomation on the Shia and allowed Iraqi forces to bomb the shia - 100,000's were murdered. The US's greatest fear has always been a spontaneous uprising in Iraq which would lead to improved relations with Iran or an independant democracy. The US and the neo-cons have always been very honest about wanting control. Seabhcán 09:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

HEY!! This stuff was supposed to be secret, how do you know about it?--Silverback 09:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha. Seriously - there's nothing secret about this stuff. It's quite openly talked about. Probably the only notable thing about the neo-cons is that they talk a lot and are very honest. The same power games have been played for centuries - there's a veneer of talk of freedom and democracy, but always the issues of power and resource control enter the conversation. Remember that the British empire brought freedom to Iraq in the 1920's and spent the following decade bombing freedom into the Iraqis using mustard gas. It was only the great depression that made this freedom uneconomic, and the British withdrew. Seabhcán 11:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, if the US didn't keep conquered territory after WWI, WWII and Korea, what makes you think their plans and hopes for Iraq are anything but an improvement for the Iraqi people? The necons were no longer in power after Reagan left office, so had nothing to do with the post gulf war I, activities. There is no way they would have acquiesed in leaving Saddam in power. After all he had no more right to oppress the Iraqi people than to oppress the Kuwaitis. Unfortunately the first Gulf war was too multilateral, with the UN and arab allies involved who did not want to see the Shiite majority gain power. Too bad the neocons weren't around then. Recall, that they lead the chorus of outrage that the shiites were abandoned.--Silverback 12:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

US didn't keep conquered territory? Remind me again when the last US forces left Japan, Germany and South Korea? Seabhcán 13:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We left every time we were asked. The necons definitely want to close bases in Germany and forward deploy elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, those countries are democracies. I suspect the democracy of Iraq, will want some continued US presense also.--Silverback 13:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You realise of course that that is precisely the arguement that the Soviet Union gave for not withdrawing their troups from central and eastern Europe - they were never asked. Its difficult to ask when there are hundreds of thousands of foreign troups on your soil, dangerous to ask, in fact. Yes, following the final withdrawal of the Russians from easern Europe back to Russia, the neo-cons want to move US troups after them, closer to their new bases in Russia. The 'democracy' in Iraq will undoubtly ask for US milliary backup. As did the 'democracy' of south Vietnam 40 years ago, as the newly freed Norway asked for Nazi occupation after Germany invaded that country to "free it from the dangers of the war", as Hitler said. But then, America is exceptional, isn't it? Seabhcán 14:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now would be the time for them to do it. US military is stressed to the limit by tiny ole Iraq. Yes, the US is unique, when you consider the rebuilding they did post WWII in Japan and West Germany. But they're not perfect. Their attempt to export their drug war is a good example. --Silverback 14:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Everybody thinks their home country is unique. Everybody is right - all countries are unique. But I don't think that will save the ordinary GI doing the hard work in Iraq. They'll be there for decades. But it is remarkable how badly the war has been organised so far. It shows that all this super-hyper-mega-power talk is a fiction. America is unique like the rest of us. Seabhcán 14:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"I'd disagree that the CIA have any law enforcement role (Arn't you thinking of the FBI?) and about the real reasons about the Iraq invasion (I believe its more about controling the oil supplies of Europe, India and China with the aim of maintaining veto power over their economies - but thats a different arguement)."

I meant that the CIA wants to keep it an international intellegence gathering stradegy. It still wants to play the Kissinger game. The neo-cons advocate the Truman Doctrine of full force. And your supposed "real" reasons about the Iraqi invasion are just speculations. Everything else isnt disputed because it's simple and been proven. The rest has been thrown into the speculation game and turned into conspiracy theories. Yes, I've seen the program. I dont argue with much of its content. But like most propaganda pieces they do throw in truth, but brand it to thier liking. I think that programs like this are just an excuse to promote anti-globalization causes, even at the expense of denying a serious threat like terrorism as nothing more than a ruse for "power". - Anon

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

removed *completely* unattributed criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it says that it's exagerated then it pretty much denies it or might as well deny it because it denies the magnitude of it's danger. This is what I dislike about the opposition groups that fanatically diregard the threat of terror to something of a grab for power by a group of elites who actually want to globalize the world with a neo-liberal stradegy. It's too Dr. Evilish. And I am surprised that so many have quickly fallen into the trap of it. It's a ploy by the anti-globzalization crusaders that read too much into foreign policy and speculate on every little detail that the administration does.

The most likely danger is a few hundred or low thousands more will die. But the nature of terrorism is that it relies on people not realising that they will die anyway, with probability 1; and the chances of getting struck by lightning are literally higher than dying from terrorism. But guess which one has the press and the politicians acting on it? Not lightning. That's the real point isn't it? And the politicians are making political capital from the very many stupid people that don't understand this. Bush invaded Iraq on the strength of it; mainly he wanted the oil, that's why he spent over $100 billion on it. He probably wanted Saddam gone too. But it was the oil that was the deal maker. Political capital. It's nothing to do with being evil, it's just opportunism.WolfKeeper

Not prominent enough???

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

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

I am open to other ways of balancing a minor barely reviewed work like this. I will consider your suggestions above, and self revert for now, so you won't use up yours.--Silverback 07:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Silverback. The concept of balance is a very difficult one. I doubt a completely balanced article can ever be produced. The article as it stands is not truly unbalanced, since it includes comments by a wide variety of points of view, but it certainly can be made better, with care.WolfKeeper

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

Anon one, my counter points are not original research. They all can be backed up, and the ones I worked out so far, can be backed up in articles right here on wikipedia. Hyperbole and distortion cannot be allowed to get into wikipedia through a back door like this. Citing Curtis spinning responses to unpointed objections from emailers, does not provide an objective view.--Silverback 07:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, capturing any hyperbole he has made, or any of his critics is an entirely objective process. What we cannot do, is interject our own hyperbole. Encyclopedias do not attempt to change the world- they merely catalogue it.WolfKeeper

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

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

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

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

"The war was about upholding UN Resolutions". Oh my god. Please. I can't stop laughing. That was a good one! What made it really funny, you see, is that Blair was desperate to get a UN resolution but failed and, in the end, ignored the UN security council altogether. Next up: USA invades Israel to enforce UN resolution on occupied territories.

The programme employs selective evidence deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

"The programme plays on anti-american sentiment"

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

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

txWolfKeeper 12:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be taken out. It is not sourced, nor does it quote any part of the program to support its assertions which are:

"[The program] has also been accused of playing upon anti-American sentiment, by fostering the view that the US is somehow 'parallel' to Al Qaeda in extremism, or that the US is manipulative and scheming."

First, what is the source for these accusations? Where were they made and by whom?

Second, the program does not focus on "the US" (the nation as a whole, nor the entire country's population) but on certain factions within the US government (in particular, the neocons in the current executive branch). So this characterization of the program is inaccurate.

In fact, the program is relatively salutory in describing certain Americans (quite powerful and influential figures in previous administrations), such as Henry Kissinger and Bush Sr., who are described as striving to make the world "safer" (in contrast to the neocons in the current administration, who are accused of using fear to gain power for themselves). Clearly these Americans are (arguably quite important) parts of the US. So, to show them in a relatively positive light could hardly be described as "anti-american" or as "'parallel' to Al Qaeda in extremism".

It is fashionable in extreme rightwing circles to conflate "America" or "the US" with the neocons in the present executive branch or, more generally, with the actions or policies of a particular American administration. This way any disagreement with these policies, actions, or government officials can be branded "anti-american", "unpatriotic", "treasonous" or what have you. The main article section in question is a prime example of just such a (unsourced, unattributed, innacurate) political smear.

Finally, even modifying the main article section to read:

"[The program] has also been accused of playing upon anti-neocon sentiment, by fostering the view that the neocons are somehow 'parallel' to Al Qaeda in extremism, or that the neocons are manipulative and scheming."

and providing a valid source of this accusation would be inadequate, since while the program does focus on the neocons, it never says that they "parallel" Al Qaeda in extermism (if by "extremism" you mean the deliberate killing of civilians to achieve political ends). The parallels the program draws are between *some* of the neocon ideologies and methods and those of some radical Islamists. In particular, their joint fear of liberalism and the use of fear to achieve political power.

To describe the program as charging the neocons with being manipulative and scheming is accurate. However, note that it is the necons and not "the US" who are so charged. noosphere 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

misrepresenting the past

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

That's all possibly quite true. But for it to be a criticism of the piece you need to show where Curtis denied this. I don't recall that being a claim of the piece. I'll accept quotes from the program transcripts. Otherwise, I will need to delete this irrelevancy grounds.WolfKeeper 14:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from this very article:

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares.

I have bolded the various over generalizations about the past and how it is different from the present. History shows there is nothing new about appealing to fears in the past or the present.

On the contrary, you're overgeneralising. Curtis doesn't say 'In the past ALL politicians claimed to create a better world'. Incidentally, that's from the intro, you pretty much have to simplify in the intro.WolfKeeper

And when he says today people have lost faith in ideologies he's really talking about communism, and to some extent capitalism. Don't forget this piece was written not long after Enron.WolfKeeper

And the new role is supposedly protecting us from terrorism (sic), as becomes clear later in the piece. Quite how invading Iraq is supposed to do that is not clear (IMO it isn't at all).WolfKeeper

This documentary is just overgeneralizations, misrepresentations and the selective assembling of evidence.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference between a different representation from what you are used to and a misrepresentation? How would you know the difference? Selection of evidence is very important. I'm not being facetious. Curtis isn't saying 'the world is like this'. He's saying 'have you thought of the world like this?' He's an academic. That's what they do. It's a much more sophisticated position, and it allows you to look at the world from multiple different, even somewhat conflicting ways. But you haven't lost the old ways of looking at the world. By looking at the world from different angles you see different things.WolfKeeper

The clique editing the communism and anarchism pages here on wikipedia would be surprised to hear that "today people have lost faith in ideologies".--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they would. That's a highly selected group though. Ask the same question of people on the street; and you would probably get a different answer.WolfKeeper

The threat of communism in the past is just misrepresented and dismissed in the documentary. The idea that using nightmares to motivate is something new, is not just an overgeneralization, it is a complete fabrication.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Curtis never says it's a new idea. On the contrary, he's saying that that was rife during the cold war and the politicians are trying to use fear of terrorism in the same way they used fear of communism.WolfKeeper

Frankly, the uncritical synopsizing of the "documentary", is just a ruse to get POV into wikipedia without balance.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The synopsys should by trimmed way down to just a paragraph or else, critique should be allowed both within the introduction and interleaved within the synopyses to challenge the so called "facts" probably easily with articles here within wikipedia and to balance this selective assembly of "facts" with other facts which support an alternative interpretation.--Silverback 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I and you need to be very clear here. Contrary to popular belief, POV is not at all incorrect in the wikipedia. NPOV (read it!) is about capturing multiple opinions on a particular topic; it is NOT about some mystical notion of balance. If you want to add opinions to the wikipedia, that's perfectly fine (if they are supported by evidence). If you take them away- except in the most obviously and unsupported cases; then that is vandalism, and your edits will be reverted. Clear?WolfKeeper

" a much more sophisticated position"

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. If you are refering to my comments, I talked about Curtis's documentary being relatively sophisticated, not the introduction of the wikipedia article.WolfKeeper

Yes, but earlier you also pretty much admitted "Incidentally, that's from the intro, you pretty much have to simplify in the intro",

I still don't see the connection between my comment and the intro.WolfKeeper

yet the intro of the program, was also the same language used in the original introduction to this article. You were stating that as an excuse for the overgeneralizations, at the same time you were deleting my balancing of those.--Silverback 13:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I remind you that this is an article about the TV series 'The Power of Nightmares'. In order to discuss the article we need to state somewhat what the program said, otherwise the wikipedia page would be incoherent. Clearly to do that we have to summarise or introduce the material. Now since the program itself needed to introduce itself, so by including that introduction in the article (under fair use) we have a starting point for the discussion. Now, the structural problem we then face is that the summary is a little long, so a quick one-paragraph summary is produced of the introduction. But you appear to be criticising that introduction for using the same words as the thing it is trying to summarise. Note that the summary is not a summary of the wikipedia article, it is a summary of the program.WolfKeeper

Now, you could argue that perhaps we shouldn't quote from the program to summarise the series. But a very common technique in discussions is to a) carefully state what is being claimed b) lay out the counterclaims c) lay out the rebuttals to the counterclaims. (Note that b/c can be interleaved). That's what this article is trying to do. Done properly, it gives a quite reasonable overall balance, with everyone's views captured (in accordance with NPOV). what you appear to be doing Silverback, is trying to balance every word of every sentence. IMO that would almost certainly end up incoherent or worse.WolfKeeper

The Synopsys is still way too long, and merely allows a repeat of the POV without balance.--Silverback 06:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I can only repeat again, and again, POV is not wrong in the wikipedia, contrary to popular belief.WolfKeeper

please I beg of you, read the NPOV it is the non negotiable part of the wikipedia.WolfKeeper

"politicians are identified"?

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

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

I can explore something 1mm or I can explore it for miles. That's still exploration.WolfKeeper

Yes, but a 1mm exploration is not noteworthy. You stated that the program named the politicians that promoted the ideal and utopian visions. I don't recall them, do you?--Silverback 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

An introduction is NOT a summary. If anything, the whole article is a summary of the piece and criticisms of the piece. That's what encyclopedias do isn't it? An introduction just gives the broadest of thrusts to explain what it's about. Nothing false should be in the introduction. So far as I can tell nothing false is in the introduction. e.g. 'politicians' -> plural of politician -> more than 1 politician. It does NOT mean ALL politicians.WolfKeeper

I repeat, contrary to popular belief, POV is not incorrect in the wikipedia. Take three reads of the NPOV and get back to us if it's still bothering you in the morning.WolfKeeper

Sources?

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

The transcript is here, I'll add it to the sources. - FrancisTyers 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the criticisms section comes from two articles on the BBC site, first, second. Qutezuce 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then specific arguments need to be attributed to particular sources, rather than asserting that some disembodied wikinarrator believes "it should be noted that...". Babajobu 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing these stupid templates. The first is only suitable if there are NO sources, but there's plenty. The second claims original research, but the only example given is of one where the information is extracted from *one* source that is the transcript of the program this artile is about! That's not research. Research is when you look at many different sources and draw conclusions. If you don't like the style of the article, by all means improve it, but don't insert utterly asinine accusations.WolfKeeper 17:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Your comments here amount to a weaselword attack on the article, as in, you are almost totally nonspecific. I've removed the only example you've actually claimed, as well as the tags. If there are others i suggest you fix them yourself rather than whingeing about it.WolfKeeper 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wolfkeeper, please try and remain civil when discussing articles. Accusing another user of whingeing, not matter what your belief is not condusive to a harmonious editing environment. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, leaving comments on the talkpage is not "whingeing"; the point of doing so is to allow other editors to respond to the points before going in and removing the content. Also, I think "totally nonspecific" is a strange criticism to lodge against my comments, as you were able to address them by taking a specific action: going in and removing the long section of original research I pointed out. Anyway, we have now deleted four sections of original research. There is still plenty left, but since you seem to be the only one engaging with me, and since you seem to prefer not to do so, sometime in the next day or so I will go in and just start cutting out the OR, and will explain my actions after-the-fact on the talkpage. Babajobu 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the criticisms/responses section is now free of flagrant OR, though it still employs many weasel words. Babajobu 13:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Annex to photo request

I read some ebook on a PDF after a Google search to find out about that film, and it appears to have been produced by some private uber-conservative Christian group. Its copyright status may somehow have lapsed, but if someone tries to find it, please double-check. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Google video linkage safe

The thing is, isn't Google subject to DMCA Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and as such, they have safe harbour unless they get a notification from the copyright holder, or their agent? And isn't the wikipedia being served from Florida, also in the same boat?

So it should be perfectly safe to link to it, provided google or the wikipedia don't get DMCA notices, and then we would just take it off.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Safe" isn't the point. The fact is that Wikipedia shouldn't be linking to blatent infringements of copyright, even if the rights holders haven't got round to addressing it. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was nervous about this as well, but it looks to me that the BBC have chosen not to enforce their full rights under copyright on this particular film right now. If they wish to market the film then they can issue the takedown notice and it will be gone in a day or two, but there's absolutely no legal issue at the moment, and I'm completely unclear that there's any moral one either. I wouldn't describe this as a 'blatant infringement of copyright'; I would reserve that phrase for cases where people have ripped off parts of the video and claimed it as their own, here the attribution and copyright ownership is completely clear.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's an infringement of copyright. It's been put on Google by someone who is clearly not connected with nor authorised by the BBC (nor any of the other various broadcasters whose material they've used) to thus upload their copyright material, and it's an infringement as soon as it gets uploaded. On Wikipedia we jump through hoops to avoid breaching copyright on the images we use here for very good reasons. Linking to illegally hosted material does the image of Wikipedia no good. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Google are perfectly entitled to host it until they get a takedown notice (similar laws in the EU also). Further there's the comments by Curtis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm where he says that he's keen for it to be seen very widely in America, which is consistent with google hosting it. It's also been up online for quite a while, and in a variety of stable locations. If the BBC wanted this gone, it would be, they just haven't. I just don't see that this is bad in any way. Curtis himself could shut it down in minutes, but he just hasn't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone contact Curtis himself or the IA? I tried emailing the Beeb a while ago, but I got no answer --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody did contact the IA, and they said it was fine IRC.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See the above comments on: 26 January 2006.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the IA was told by the director, Adam Curtis, that it was OK for them to host the video, then there's simply no problem. While the BBC is not a monolithic entity, he must be highly influential within it, and he would receive royalties on sales. It's inconceivable that Adam Curtis would OK it without BBC authorisation. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the confirmation. The link doesn't work, and when I looked for the meta page myself it said nothing about this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Google have a get-out that means they don't have to police their own site and are not liable for what other people put on it. It does not mean that it is not a breach of copyright until someone objects. Pretending that that's what the situation is is like saying that stealing something from someone's house isn't theft until they (the owner) notices it's gone. You are also mis-attributing Curtis, because he was talking about the series being more widely available within the context of the cut-down version shown at Cannes, it being picked up by a US broadcaster, or a DVD/video release. As was pointed out in January 2006, the copyright is owned by the BBC (and it clearly labeled as such in the end credits), not Curtis, and while he may personally have no objections to various online hostings, he is not in a legal position to authorise any of them. In fact, if Curtis owned the copyright, then clearly it would almost certainly have been released on DVD by now. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note of clarification; it has been released on DVD as part of the Wholphin DVD series (Wholphin is a DVD magazine). I'm curious why you are so invested in this, even to the point of calling the video "illegal." If you have specific evidence of illegal activity please let us know but you really don't seem to. csloat (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The series has indeed been included in Wholphin, but there is little evidence that it was authorised by the BBC. Looking at the first episode, there is no acknowledgement of the BBC copyright on either the packaging or the disc itself. The booklet does, in fact, include the statement that, "If there is not Power of Nightmares in your package, it means something went horribly wrong and the retailer was asked to remove the film." This suggests an anticipation that action may have been taken to prevent distribution. Bear in mind that in April 2005 Curtis stated:

"The problem is that the films are full of archive film and music from a multitude of sources. The reason my series are normally not released on DVD is that it is prohibitively costly and a nightmare - no pun intended - to clear the rights."

If WHolphin had been in a position to do the above - i.e. if their release was authorised - it is inconceivable that any of a number on small independent DVD companies in the UK could not have done the same (e.g. Network DVD - a logical choice in light of their release of three extensive volumes on John Pilger documentaries), yet no-one has. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see - so the point of your edit warring is that you don't believe BBC owns the copyright to this material either, that the whole film is, as you say, "illegal"? If so, you will need more evidence than an ambiguous quotation from a DVD. Can you cite a WP:RS indicating that the BBC has been challenged for distributing this video illegally? Quite apart from the relatively trivial issue of whether to link the video here, that would seem to be a significant enough issue to discuss in the article. csloat (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that at all. You seem to have missed an important part of my comment at 12:47, 30 June 2008 below, i.e. "It is standard practice for the BBC to primarily make programmes for the UK market only, paying only for UK broadcast rights to use music or archive footage from other sources". The programme is copyrighted to the BBC as a whole, but - as acknowledged by Curtis himself - individual elements within it are owned by others, and would require additional rights clearance for any non-broadcast market (given that the series has been screened outside of the UK, we can assume the they paid for worldwide broadcasting rights for non-BBC footage/music, which they will do if they anticipate overseas sales). This is particularly true in the case of music, and is not in any way something new. Numerous BBC drama and comedy series have been released on VHS and DVD with music substitutions, because while it is relatively cheap to clear music for broadcast, video releases have to be cleared separately, and can be prohibitively expensive. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition, the definition of 'violation of copyright' is whatever the law says it is, not what you naively think it ought to be. Google have not violated copyright by hosting this video. Whoever uploaded it may have done. Then again, for all we know, the person uploading it worked for the BBC or may actually be Curtis who may be allowed to make a limited number of copies due to his agreement with the BBC when he made the piece, so we don't even know that it is a violation at all. The bottom line is that neither Google, nor the Wikipedia is in any way liable. There also is, after this quite long time, a reasonable presumption that the BBC don't care about this. Curtis must know it's there, he certainly knew the transcripts were. He would be perfectly entitled as an agent of the BBC to send a takedown notice, as could a distributor for that matter.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What we clearly do know is that copyright to the series is owned by the BBC, although elements within it (music, archive film clips, etc.) are owned by others, as acknowledged by Curtis in April 2005. It is standard practice for the BBC to primarily make programmes for the UK market only, paying only for UK broadcast rights to use music or archive footage from other sources. In most cases, these rights have to be renegotiated for video/DVD release, and sometimes cannot be, leading to programmes being released in edited or re-dubbed form. Frankly, your suggestion that whoever uploaded the series to Google may have been in a position to do so is laughable. On the other hand, the BBC is a publicly-funded non-commercial broadcaster. It is not Viacom or Sony or Disney, and cannot employ an army of lawyers to hunt down and deal with everyone uploading their copyright material to Google or YouTube, or selling it on eBay or other online venues, for that matter. None of this, however, legitimises that unauthorised uploading, selling, etc. There are plenty of obscure feature films and television programmes that are not available officially, are available from non-authroised sources, yet we do not link to them, primarily because to do so would draw the attention of the copyright owners. The Power of Nightmares should be no exception, no matter how much we may personally feel it should be more widely available. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If this was part of a game of wack-a-mole where a video popped up, the wikipedia linked to it, and then it got taken down and the popped up elsewhere and then it got relinked, then you might have a case, but legally and morally, when something has been stably hosted for years in several reputable places, sorry, no you don't.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam Curtis works in the BBC News department (I can supply his email address privately if somebody wants to contact him). He has explicitly approved of file sharing before today. In one interview, he was pleased to discover that TPON was a top torrent download. ~ smb 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that - deep breath - Curtis does not own the copyright on the series. No doubt he does want to it to be widely seen, and on a personal level may well approve of its non-official distribution by various methods, but he is not in a position to sanction them in any legal sense. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's worse than that, nobody has the ability to release it. If it contains other copyright work, then it's a derived work, a blend of multiple copyrighted pieces. Not even the BBC can release it. And not one of the copyright owners have asked for it to be taken down. The people that the copyright owner would have to sue would be likely to be in a different jurisdiction and it's unlikely that they would be worth pursuing, they may not have any money anyway. The people that make the money off it, google and internet archive have a get-out-of-jail free card because it's user contributed material.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a case that the BBC are in the best position to clear it for release, either in its original form, or edited to get round anything that either couldn't be cleared at all, or at too high a cost. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Really what we're seeing here is copyright law molding to the digital age where duplication of material takes seconds, and is essentially costless. Your attitudes are a bit behind the times really. The legality and morality is rapidly changing, and the wikipedia is lagging.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit like advocating that people should be allowed to jump red lights, just because it's easy for them to do so already. The simple fact is that Wikipedia does not generally link to non-official hostings of film and television material, for very good reason. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is anti-Obama

Please consider this. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's mostly anti politicians that use fear to maintain power.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that it's anti-Obama to me. The film certainly wasn't - it's from 2004, while Obama wasn't made a senator until 2005 and had practically zero notability in the UK until the current presidential election campaign. I can't see any real bias evident in the article itself, while the subject matter is more critical of the Republicans than Democrats, in my view. Adacore (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11

Are they really necessary? They seemed tacked on and out of place. Beam 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. — eon, 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting "Neo-conservative"

In most publications -- and indeed in Wikipedia's own article on the subject -- the name of the Western political grouping that is one of the subjects of this documentary is treated as a common noun and closed up -- that is, written "neoconservative" or abbreviated "neocon". In this article, it's wince-inducingly written "Neo-Conservative", which formulation has made its way to the front page as this article has been featured. I feel strongly it should be changed to the more common punctuation, but wanted to make sure there were no objections here first... --Jfruh (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on the matter, but I'd say go for it - the Guardian manual of style, which I like to use alongside WP:MOS, is quite succinct on the matter: "Inventions, ideas and new concepts often begin life as two words, then become hyphenated, before finally becoming accepted as one word. Why wait? "Wire-less" and "down-stairs" were once hyphenated." Adacore (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow BBC usage. Jooler (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I want to congratulate everyone who helped bring this to FA status! Jeh (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait to see Conservapedia's version. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations editors! I have not edited this article at all, but I think the film series is a most outstanding work. My congratulations to all who worked to bring this article to featured status. Perhaps this will help more people to see a very eye-opening and important documentary. Calicocat (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Keep up the good work. After you have gotten McCain elected you can spend the next four years sitting around thinking up more conspiracy theories. If you let Obama win progressives might have to get up and do something constructive. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not use this talk page for a political argument. Mycroft7 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But let's do use the front page for political agenda... Gratz Jeh on politicizing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.118.157 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is using the term "progressive" in the article really NPOV? I think a lot of people right of center, particularly on economic issues, would consider themselves progressive on some things. I would have thought "left leaning" was more accurate and neutral... TastyCakes (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is referring to the accepted political movement Progressivism and is therefore correct. Adacore (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources of Curtis's information?

I can't find any references. Under "Criticism" is just a poll of readership. Can someone please kill this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.42.120 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to check Curtis's sources - we're just reporting what happened. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He gives many of his sources in his documentary, go and watch it. Much of the rest is trivial biographical information (e.g. essentially everything about Qutb) and can be found via the article's interwikilinks (or ought to be). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Moonbat BBC propaganda

...doesn't belong on the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.118.157 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go write a Conservapedia article if you feel that strongly about this neutral discussion of the subject matter. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This movie is Not anti-conservative. It is an example of conspiracy mongering, and fear mongering. It is a perfect example of what it purports to be against. Comparing Wolfowitz (usually pronounced with a German 'w' on the BBC), the bookish undersecretary of state with a liberal streak, to Ayman al Zawahiri is on the same level as the cartoon of Barak Obama on the July New Yorker cover, only that was a conscious joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it even possible to pronounce a name ending "-witz" without a german W (ie not as "-vitz")? I'd certainly never do it, and I've never heard it done - is it common practice in the US? Anyway, the bias of the movie is irrelevant to whether it should be featured or on the mainpage. Unless you feel any bias in the movie is not correctly explained in the article, in which case please provide relevant sources so this can be changed. Adacore (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in the US we tend to pronounce it with a flat "W" rather than the original German "v" sound. So "Wolf-o-wits" rather than "Wolf-o-vitz" or "Volf-o-vitz". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird - that sounds so strange to me. You learn something new every day. Adacore (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is technically indeed German, i.e. pronounced with a "vee" not a "dubya". But the origin is Anglicised Slavic "-vich", "son of". "-witz" is a common component of family names (and some toponyms even IIRC) originating in the area of eastern Germany and western Poland.

Thus it is actually the same word as Wolfensohn co-evolving through slightly different languages: "Son of the guy called 'Wolf'" (cf. "Wulf", "Ulf" and similar Germanic given names).

(As Witz means "joke" in German, these names have a somewhat hilarious air in German, more so in the FRG before reunification) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet archive link and copyright

I have just reverted the removal of the internet archive link to the film. I too was concerned that there might have been a copyright violation. Nevertheless, the permission is not at all clear so I have made two emails requesting clarification, one to the BBC via their webform and a second to the internet archive. Here is the second email:

Dear Internet Archive,

did the BBC or Adam Curtis give you permission to publish "The Power of Nightmares" for free download from your website?

If yes, please could you display the permission at the top of this page:

http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=ThePowerOfNightmares

There is some confusion among readers and other websites concerning whether permission was given, and if so what kind of permission. For example, is the permission "download for personal use only"?

Thank you for any clarification.

I would rather any response be made at the internet archive page rather than to my email address, so that other readers can also be informed.

Regards ...

Myself

84user (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been done to death before. The nature of most of Curtis's programmes precludes them from appearing in medium other than broadcasting. If they could be released on DVD officially, they would have been already; if they could be made available online, the BBC would be doing so itself via its own service (i.e. BBC iPlayer - it generally does not licence such content to other websites). The IA hosting is not "official," full stop. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you just reverted my re-instatement of the link to the internet archive. I will not put it back in. To help others, here are links to previous discussions on this:

• Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 1#Legality of downloads, 4 July 2005 to 12 January 2006, continued at:
• Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 2#PD?, 5 January 2006 to 28 January 2006 ending with Ben's opinion that "enough effort was made" to determine that archive.org is not violating the BBC's copyright. (my summary of Ben's opinion) (26 January 2006's meta.xml link is stale and is now at [9] and seems to identify the uploader and updaters)
• Talk:The Power of Nightmares#Google video linkage safe, 27 June 2008 to 30 June 2008, for example: "Curtis does not own the copyright on the series".

84user (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this has been revert warred to death, by Nick Cooper and others are repeatedly taking the law into their own hands and removing links to the material even though:

• it's probably not illegal to link to other sites where the material can be found anyway
• the wikipedia wouldn't be liable, provided they removed the link if requested by the copyright owner (DMCA takedown notice)
• no request to remove it has been received by the wikimedia foundation
• the BBC are extremely unlikely to request removal of the link anyway, they would perform a takedown notice on the host of the material.

On the whole, way to go guys!!! Pointless edit warring away of links that the users probably want, for absolutely no reason at all!Rememberway (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because people are getting away with illicit hosting, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should condone it. There are plenty of places where those inclined can find illicit copies of copyrighted material, but they don't get linked on WIkipedia. Why should this documentary series be any different? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcript references

These linked to the copyvio site wanttoknow.info which we can't do (and may soon be blacklisted). I've removed the links although they can be seen in earlier versions. Anyone wanting to add references can just check the original source to see if it's correctly reflected in the article, and then cite the program without the copyvio link. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)