Talk:The Road to Guantánamo

Torture music

Wasn't the American metal played in one of the torture scenes by Cradle of Filth? It sounded a lot like a song by them I've heard, but I'm not a fan of them so couldn't swear to it. It would make a good point for a trivia section if we knew for sure. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC

It's "The Promise of Fever" by Cradle of Filth... Notice the credits.

Gender

It says "A spokesman for Bedfordshire police said that none of the men were arrested and that the Terrorism Act allows the police to "stop and examine people if something happens that might be suspicious"" but then it says She did not clarify what the actors had done to arouse suspicion, could someoneone please clear this up?

I just changed it to spokesperson - hope that's ok Anthropax 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• It was a woman. I personally couldn't care less about the whole spokesman/spokeswoman/spokesperson issue (though I know which rolls off the tongue more easily), so the change is fine with me. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I removed the disambiguation to Guantanamo (disambiguation) that E Pluribus Anthony added. There doesn't seem much chance that someone would enter The Road to Guantanamo when they were really looking for Guantanamo, given the three extra words. We don't disambiguate Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to Las Vegas, for example. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reception

Is exile.ru a reliable source? "Any magazine whose website carries an opinion poll asking readers to pick their favorite style of pubic hair on a woman is not going to be the Wall Street Journal is it?"[1] --duncan 20:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That quote seems really out of place. Can't we get a critique from a more reputable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.231.238 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 November 2006

This isn't relevant anymore. One of them has confirmed they were there to do military training. I suggest deleting the dodgy quote. --slevdi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.79.38 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2007

"The film tells the story"

Randy2063, a story is a story is a story. It's an 'account.' This film is a story, an account, and a synopsis should be an outline of the story, pure and simple. It's not meant to be a judgement of the film. It's a simple outline of the plot.

Furthermore the second paragraph quite clearly points out that, "the film contains an account of the three men's experiences." That's quite sufficient to give readers an understanding of the origins of this film.

---

No, this isn't just a "story." It's a highly contentious issue, and it's not universally agreed upon that those who made this film had good intentions. For their part, I don't think they ever claimed any desire to be even-handed.

An "account of the three men's experiences" might be just fine if the three men were ordinary people. They're not. In fact, from what we now know it doesn't appear to be their complete story.

Please note that you hadn't said my version is incorrect. Your dispute seems only to be that I'm saying too much. That's hardly a reason to want to cut a few words.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your convoluted wording is inherently critical to a degree that should be supported by corroborating citations from reliable sources. As has been alluded to, there are numerous "based on a true story" synposes on WIkipedia which do not have such tortuousnous inflicted upon them. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What you seem to be describing is a clear path to a backhanded insertion of POV.

It won't matter so much here, as I do have references, but what happens when it's an even lesser known film than this one? The DoD isn't in the habit of running a press release for every little bit of enemy propaganda. Films like this one aren't treated seriously in the pro-U.S. side of the blogosphere, and even less seriously by the high profile analysts. What happens when some off-off-Broadway production promotes outright lies but isn't reviewed by saner heads?

The NYT says, "The real Tipton Three tell their stories in interviews throughout the film. .... The film doesn't question the men's version of events, but it creates a believable story with staggering force." No one denies that the film is their version of the story. If anything, I'm being too kind.

And The UK Times says(2nd link), "The survivors tell their stories straight to camera. .... The sheer stupidity of these Brits mocks the sincerity of the film. Winterbottom refuses to ask the bleeding obvious. His unquestioning faith in his 'cast' is bewildering."

And I'm bewildered by this opposition to my relatively minor edit. My edit was really only stating what should have been blatantly obvious to half the people who read this article, and I don't sense that either of you is among the half that doesn't see it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the oposition - not just from me - is your tortuous prose. "Portrays a version of the story partial to the views of..." hardly trips off the tongue, does it? As such it inherently draws attention to the implicit accusation that you seem intent on making, which is not actually corroborated by the sources you suggest. All you have cited are reviews of the film, and the opinions of the reviewers that they have not heard the "whole story," or that Winterbottom did not ask "the right questions". These issues are, of course, already appropriately addressed in the "reception" section.

By your reasoning, one could just as validly claim that the film didn't tell the full story, because it did not show the Three meeting with CIA officers before entering Afghanistan, or that the Three did not admit or deny on-camera that they had done so. Your use of terms like "enemy propaganda" and "outright lies" also does not demonstrate an unbiased viewpoint on your part.

The bottom line is that neither I, you, nor the above cited reviewers know what the Three told Winterbottom off-camera, or even on-camera that ended up on the cutting room floor. He may very well have addressed the issues some people think he didn't, and was either satisfied by their responses, or judged that whatever else they recounted wasn't relevent to what happened to them. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If my prose sounds torturous it's because I'm being excessively diplomatic. The reviews I gave as sources are observations made by people who've studied the film.

My use of the term "enemy propaganda" was part of an example of "what happens when." That said, I make no pretense of having no opinion on the matter. Most people do have opinions. I don't think you'd say you're different. All we can do is try to make our edits follow NPOV.

I'm adding a third source from an interview with Winterbottom himself: "The events as they describe them, once you get into the main narrative of the film, regarding what happened to them in Afghanistan onwards, all seem to be fairly indisputable. We're telling their story in their words, and trying to tell their version of what happened to them, just as a lawyer would tell their version of what happened to them. So we weren't trying to independently check or cross-reference what they were saying. At the same time, I wouldn't remotely want to suggest that I think what they're saying is not true; but the point was for us to tell their story."

That's pretty conclusive. It was his intent to give their view as they wanted it depicted.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusive of what, exactly? The biggest problem is that you are introducing a degree of speculation that is largely supported by nothing more than the partial opinions of reviewers and yourself, quick to read naive curiosity as calculated intent. Of course, the quote from Winterbottom above actually weakens your claims via the bits that you didn't' highlight, i.e.: "The events as they describe them, once you get into the main narrative of the film, regarding what happened to them in Afghanistan onwards, all seem to be fairly indisputable. We're telling their story in their words, and trying to tell their version of what happened to them, just as a lawyer would tell their version of what happened to them. So we weren't trying to independently check or cross-reference what they were saying. At the same time, I wouldn't remotely want to suggest that I think what they're saying is not true; but the point was for us to tell their story." He effectively covers both bases in the same statement.

Your choice of words is far too accusatory, and I would think that most people would think my amended wording - which you so rashly reverted - of "the film documents the personal accounts of (the Three)..." is both accurate and adequate for what we actually know. I would also note that in your haste you reverted the many date formatting corrections that I made, only re-amending some of them. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How could it be far too accusatory? I said "partial to the views of..." If anything, I think "partial" is too lenient, as it implies it leans toward their views rather than parroting unsworn testimony. Winterbottom is saying here it is exactly their views with no room for doubt.

The part of my excerpt that I didn't highlight does not change a thing. Winterbottom is describing what he claims to believe about the events in Afghanistan (where he was not present), whereas in the highlighted part he describes his intent in the film's production (where he was present). I included the entire paragraph for completeness, as well as to dissuade anyone else reading this from thinking it's an admission of malicious intent on his part.

Your change was accurate but it wasn't precise. An "account" could imply it's been vetted in some way. Now we know that it hadn't.

I'm sorry if I had missed a date reformat. You yourself had stomped out a reference I had fixed. It happens.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/12/bbc-broadcasts-tipton-three-lies/

  Triggered by \bhurryupharry\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)