Talk:Brainwashing 101/archive

OK, we now have a new problem. Should the critical article be referred to as "unsigned" and should the article claim that it was "probably" written by this professor Geoff S.?

I don't think it's such a big deal, however to be proper, the article is not actually "unsigned" -- it is described as "Catalyst's response" to the film; it is no more "unsigned" than an Editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

Furthermore, there is no source that suggests or alleges that the professor Geoff S. wrote the article, and Geoff S. does not appear on Catalyst's editorial board. Geoff S. may indeed have written the article, but unless there is an external source that suggests this, wikipedia cannot include it (per wikipedia rules, everything contentious must be attributed to an external source.)

Sdedeo 19:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just uploaded evidence suggesting that Schneider is indeed the author. This letter ([1], [2]), signed by Schneider, is in many places identical, word-for-word, to the piece that ran in The Catalyst [3].

Foo-fighter 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks, that's what we need. Minor correction: Schneider is not actually the BCFJ advisor; that is Paul Susman [4]. Sdedeo 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also restored the description of the specific content of the critique ("the filmmakers of manipulating a professor into appearing in the film, selectively editing statements in misleading ways, and misrepresenting events"); there is no need for euphemism. Sdedeo 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Where does one draw the line between citing that there is criticism and citing each bullet point of that criticism? It seems that if each different critique is going to get its own space within the article, then the article should also include each specific award received by the film and comments from major journalists about the film (such as John Fund). These accolades were deleted, but it seems that they should be no less prominent in the article than the critiques of a single man.

Foo-fighter 21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the balance we have now is just about right. Take a look at Roger & Me, which does the same thing: describes what the film puports to show, talks a bit about how the movie was funded and what the reception was (actually, it omits any specific mention of awards), and goes into a similar level of detail about the criticisms.

I'm not sure if you are Evan, but you certaintly know a lot about the film; can you point us to a source that says where funding for the movie came from? Sdedeo 22:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything I wrote about the film is public information on BrainTerminal.com and AcademicBias.com. As for who I am and how I got copies of Schneider's flyer...let's just say I have a recent connection to the Bucknell campus.

Somewhere on one of the websites it mentions all financing came from one of the executive producers. Forget which. . If you can't find the citation, reply and I will do some digging.

You're a stickler, slightly frustrating, I suspect you're a leftie, but I also can't help but like you. You seem like an honourable chap.

---

I will dig around for info re: funding, but later. I am a stickler; I'm an academic (but not in the humanities; I'm a scientist.) Talk pages are not really meant for discussion of anything other than the mechanics of the article; I had a longer personal comment here, but I've moved it to your talk page. Sdedeo 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

What's the big problem? Does Schneider keep editing this to remove his name from credit for the Catalyst article? Read the Catalyst article and then his letter. The article wasn't "based on" his letter, IT WAS HIS LETTER, with some stuff removed and a few minor edits. There's no evidence that it was written by anyone BUT Schneider, but for whatever reason doesn't want to take credit for his own words (which seems to be his real gripe with the film). Where is the proof that it was written by members of the Caucus? There isn't any, other than the fact that it appeared in a paper that happened to be published by them. That doesn't mean they wrote it!

ALL EVIDENCE points to the Catalyst article as being Schneider's. NO EVIDENCE points to it being written by anyone else. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The gripe of one man is allowed to colour this entire Wiki article by giving it such prominent placement. And let's be clear: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE BUT SCHNEIDER HIMSELF wrote the Catalyst piece. Since the wiki is understandably intent on evidence,let's go with the evidence that exists. Anyone who reads both will easily realise who the author is.

The most recent formulation of Sdedeo seems the most fair. It leaves the criticisms in, but it also points to the fact that those criticisms are from Schneider.

I have restored Sdedeo's edits, and I will continue to do so until they stick. Feel free to keep changing it; I'll just keep changing it back.

Foo-fighter 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

OK, team, this is getting super minor. I mean, super minor. Here is what is completely uncontentious: there is an article in the Catalyst, described as "Catalyst's opinion". The article is very similar to a letter by Prof GS. That is all that is needed. I didn't really care if people speculated on the absolutely minor question as to who wrote the "Catalyst opinion", but it seems to be causing conflict, so I have returned the version to the actual, verifiable facts. Some people think the word "unsigned" makes the piece look bad; fine; I don't think it does, but it doesn't convey any essential information, so whatever.

Whether or not the piece "is thought to be written" by Schneider is such a minor point I believe even St. Thomas Aquinas would ignore. In fact, just to forestall things, even if there was an external source that suggested Schneider wrote the catalyst piece, it is so irrelevant that we shouldn't bother to include it.

Since everyone seems to be watching this article so closely, let me say for complete transparency that I altered slightly the wording of the "external links". In particular, I edited them down so that all they do is provide a minimal description of what they are, to enable readers to identify them from the main body of the text. This just saves us what could be another round of edits, since anything more than a minimal description "critcisim of X", "respone to criticism of X", means we have to go through the same thing again.

On the up side, assuming that this "did Schneider write it" thing was the last possible argument that could be had over these 365 (!) words, we seem to be at a consensus version of the article. Sdedeo 23:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I realise that you and I may have different views of the world, which is fine, and I appreciate that you have treated me respectfully. I hope that I have done the same.

My emotions might be colouring my impression, and may have led me to be more combative on this particular article than I would be otherwise. But I recognise fairness when I see it, and your input has helped pull me back from insisting on changes to this article that might not otherwise be fair.

Foo-fighter 03:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

P.S. I forgot to mention in my earlier rant that I don't have any major problems with your changes, and I won't be modifying it again if it stays as is.

Foo-fighter 03:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

P.P.S. How do you know so much about Bucknell's internals? Did you also have a connection there?

---

Great. This has been a very positive interaction, and I think the article has been well improved. We cover the film, we cover the response. I've no knowledge at all about Bucknell, save what google pulled up during our editing here. The article is on my watchlist, so don't worry. Sdedeo 03:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Your recent changes look good to me.

Foo-fighter 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi all -- this is just to remind everyone that wikipedia talk pages are reserved for discussion of the mechanics of the article, and are not a place for discussion of the subject of the article itself. GS, if you have a source (online or off, but if off, we probably need a "scan") for an "official" statement from Bucknell administration, that would be useful for us to include. When things get contentious, wikipedia can really only point people to reasonable sources elsewhere. Thanks all, Sdedeo 08:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Sounds good. Can we delete the editorializing above? Perhaps clearning this page would be a good idea.

On a separate note, I am away from my office on work-related travel and won't return for several months. At that time, I will try to provide additional statements from others that address the falsehoods and distortions contained in this film. But I won't be able to do anything for quite some time. Sorry that this process has been so complicated. As you can tell, it's a contentious issues with stronglyl held opinions on both sides. -GS

---

In general, talk pages (in distinct contrast to the articles themselves) are a complete free-for-all, and things on them are never deleted even if they are offensive, patently false or whatever. Eventually, this stuff will be moved to an archive, where it will become even more obscure. I kind of want to leave it up for now, just until all the controversy subsides. In let's say one week, I will move all of the content to an archive; it will however, still be accessible via a link from the talk page. (Moving things to an archive is just to "clean the slate" so that people don't have to scrolllllllll down to contribute new comments.)

GS, thank you for offering to provide additional sources for the article. We don't, however, want the article to grow without bounds -- wikipedia cannot link to every blog post or casual mention. Let me suggest that you try to find a very comprehensive source that centralizes the information. For example, you may wish to create a webpage of your own that contains links to more content. If you are Professor Geoffery Schneider (sorry, internet identity is very fungible), and the webpage exists on the personal space from your University account, that would be definitely something we could link to (e.g., "Schneider has also created a webpage containing links to additional critical responses to the film.")

I anticipate that if you add an additional critical source, others may wish to contribute a link to a positive source. I am going to preemptively suggest a "cap", so that we add only two more sources, one from each "side". If there is an "official" Bucknell University statement, I also preemptively suggest it be exempt from the cap, since that is very important to include. So the article could have: one more positive, one more negative, plus the official BU response. However, it could also have one more negative plus official, etc. etc. Sorry to be laborious.

I will also say the same thing I said to Foo-Fighter: I am not an "official" wikipedia admin of any sort, just someone who occasionally does things around here and sometimes tries to build compromise about article content. Nothing I say is in any way binding. I also recommend you create an account with wikipedia; you do not have to give personal information, but it is very helpful and gives you access to useful tools. Sdedeo 09:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

New Round of Edits

---

Here's my view:

Why have the same criticisms from essentially the same source listed twice? List it once, and list it from the original source, not once from the original source, and then once again from another source that is clearly a derivative of the original source.

--Wicky P. Dee-uh

Well, they are different sources. You have also removed more than just the source, you've removed content from article. In particular, you've removed a description of the criticism. Please take a look at Roger and Me to see how we handle controversial documentaries; in particular, we don't just say "the film was criticized", we also include some of the content of that criticism.

Including both the Catalyst and Schneider criticisms is something a number of people have now agreed upon. Could we do it a different way? Yes, we could. Is the way we have it right now just fine, consistent with wikipedia rules and traditions? Yes. Is this way something that a number of people have settled on? Yes. So we should leave it alone.

I noticed you also want to change "many" to "some"; that is fine, and we've now made that change.

Also, welcome to wikipedia.

Sdedeo 17:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed you've just reverted my most recent edits. Please discuss this here, on the talk page, before doing that again. I will roll back your edits if I don't hear from you on the talk page soon. Sdedeo 17:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I haven't heard back from you, and it's been more than twenty-four hours. What you seem to object to is that two sources are referenced in the text as criticisms. I have removed one reference (although it still appears in the external links) from the text. Hopefully this will stand as a consensus version. Please discuss further criticisms here on the talk page; we do not want to get into a revert war over this. Thanks, Sdedeo 00:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The most important thing here, as far as I see it, is that we include a description of the substance of Schneider's complaints, in particular, "accused the filmmakers of manipulating a professor into appearing in the film, selectively editing statements in misleading ways, and misrepresenting events", and a link to either the Catalyst piece or Schneider's piece. Again, Schneider is not someone random from dailykos or whatever; he appears in the movie and accuses the filmmakers of some pretty serious stuff, breaches of ethics, etc.. We really have an obligation to include that if the article is not just going to be a cut and paste from the B101 homepage.

In the end, I don't really care if we include the stuff about the Catalyst (which is probably an accident of how the article arose) and this crap about letters being handed out after film showings; I am probably a little sensitive because it took so long to hash out the article before.

Also, Wicky, I am curious: you have been a user on wikipedia for now three days, and the only edits you have made have been to this very minor article sitting in a forgotten corner of wikipedia space. How did you come across it? Sdedeo 04:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have gone through and made my minor edits to your new version. In particular, I replaced the euphemisms about Schneider's criticisms with the actual content of his criticisms, I made some minor NPOV (changed "points out flaws" to "claims there are flaws"), and, in your spirit of reducing the number of links, removed the links to a "speech code" website and the two film festivals. I hope we can consider this version final. Sdedeo 04:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I actually have many Wicky handles, and I use them all for different subjects that I edit here on Wikcy. If you've been here long enough, especially in controversial areas, you know how some of the flamewars/revert-wars can get. I decided that any bad blood from a fight over the origins of Shakespeare's works should not carry over into a completely unrelated discussion on the politics of Woody Guthrie (to use a fictional example). I created this handle specifically for these edits.

Wick E. P.

---

I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the whole debacle was a carnival of fools, but I can assert that campus controversies are rather annoying. One thing that working on wikipedia has taught me is watch out.

Re: switching handles. Be careful! I was very skeptical about you when you first showed up; in fact, I was reading all kinds of things into your motives because you didn't have an edit history. So yes, I understand the desire to clear the slate; on the other hand, I probably would not have reverted as much if I saw that you were a "legit" contributor doing things elsewhere and not just someone with an agenda who homed in on the article. All the best, Sdedeo 05:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry, Sdedeo, one last change: I noticed that the wording of the previous Schneider criticism sentence was a little clunky; it seemed to imply that Schneider was saying that the producers of the film misrepresented events in a letter they (the producers) distributed. I rearranged it to make it more clear that it was schneider's letter making the accusations, and not accusations about a letter they distributed.

As far as switching handles, that is a valid point. I obviously hadn't thought that people might react that way.

Wicker Petrie Dish

---

I've been involved in some controversial stuff, all on the same handle, and haven't had any problems. One time someone I was in conflict with essentially threatened to go through my edit history and so forth and vandalize articles, but that never materialized (and if it had, I think I would have just had to contact some of the "admins" and they would have sorted things out.) The weird thing about this anonymity is that all you have is your edit history; it's a sign to other editors that you've invested something in wikipedia and "get" what's going on. Also be aware that the "PEE" in your handle at least to me made me think at first you were possibly trolling. Anyway, all the best, Sdedeo 05:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Original purpose of moving this disc. to archive was so the personal attacks could be deleted. I accidentally cleared the whole page...oops...but didn't mean to. I have restored the previous attack-free version. 209.200.16.16 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)