Talk:The Power of Nightmares/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: untitled section

message: Hmmm... Good article about a fantastic documentary... but where's the criticism? Seabhc�n 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)
: you mean like this?   it's hard to know where to start criticising something so absurd.  ObsidianOrder 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
:: How about , , , ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Strauss' role is exaggerated 

message: :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)
thread_title:  The documentary is reletavist 

message: 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 () 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)
thread_title: The programme employs selective evidence deleted.

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sources?

message: 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)
thread_title: Annex to photo request

message: Please consider this. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, it's mostly anti politicians that use fear to maintain power.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: This article is anti-Obama

message: Are they really necessary? They seemed tacked on and out of place. Beam 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. — eon, 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons to [[Fahrenheit 9/11]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Follow BBC usage. Jooler (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting "Neo-conservative"

message: I want to congratulate everyone who helped bring this to FA status! Jeh (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't wait to see Conservapedia's version. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Where are the sources of Curtis's information?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transcript references