Talk:War on terror/Archive 2

message: is this news item useful to anyone here? Kingturtle 17:04, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  news item 

message: There probably won't ever be a concensus on this, and the ridiculous POVs being thrown back and forth are doing nothing to help create an accurate article.  There needs to be extensive, indexed representation of all POVs here, not some farcical "war on error" to create a "neutral" article, especially considering the intense speculation that every "fact" (big or small) even remotely related to this topic is currently under. --Mymunkee
i concur, and some people have been trying.  --Iosif 22:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field Day 

message: It's hardly POV to dispute Michael Moore's movies as documentaries.  Given the myriad problems with them and devices that HONEST filmmakers eschew (splicing together different events so they look like a single one, STAGING events for the camera and saying that's how they are rather than a reenactment or dramatazation) ensures anything BUT POV that he's actually a documentarian.  Polemicist?  Yes.  Filmmaker?  Definitely.  Political filmmaker?  also definitely.  But Documentarian?  Hardly - he merely presents his films as documentaries, when in fact they're highly fictionalized, and employ elements that documentarians would never stoop to use.  Both "faux-documentarian" and "documentarian" are POV (which was the point I was trying to make)... how's "self-styled documentarian" or "filmmaker"? --Loweeel
"propagandist"?  --Iosif 06:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Documentary" does not imply that a film makes pretense to '"objectivity". "Documentary" does not mean "nature special". It means that a film is a piece of non-fiction. The non-fiction genre includes editorial opinion works and even propaganda just as much as it includes works of news, science exposition, history, or what-have-you. Triumph of the Will is a documentary. The Atomic Cafe is a documentary.  --FOo 01:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My POV? 

message: While we're at cleaning up this article... What do you think of creating a disambiguation page? IMHO this article is a case of primary topic disambiguation. I hear the phrase war on terror(ism) almost exclusively in the context of US-led military activities following Sept. 11. Actually I have never used this phrase in any other context. OK, there are historical, mostly regional, precedents, but few would call them war on terrorism. So when I look up war on terror(ism) in Wikipedia I expect to find something about the global war The US and selected friends against "terrorists" all over the world with keywords Sept 11, AUMF, Afghanistan, Feb 15, Iraq, axis of evil, Saudi-Arabia, you name it. On the other hand I'd also expect to find references to other uses of the phrase. If Bush's war on terror somehow builds on Reagan's war on terror, I expect to find the link explained in the article. If both presidents used the same phrase more or less independently, a link on War on Terrorism (disambiguation) would be fine. Same with the British in Palestine or Russians in Chechnya. Actually I'd expect links to some of these conflicts in the see also: section at the end of the article or the disambiguation page. Note that the phrase war on terrorism for non-military activities is rarely used outside the US. Even organizations like NATO and UN don't use the phrase war on terrorism for their actions to reduce terrorism in the world. So I'd say the article war on terrorism should refer to US-led military acitivities as authorized in the AUMF (9/18/2001). I cannot think of any other use of the phrase war on terrorism that matches the impact of this global war that has been going on for 2 1/2 years -- with no end in sight. --145.254.51.34 09:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation?