Talk:Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

As is my habit, I have expanded the stub of a book-related page into an entire article.

I have no desire to get involved in the whole capitalism/communism, pro/anti globalization pissing contest, and have asked that readers go to other articles to read/post on that topic. If there is a proper page for ideologues to visit, by all means, provide that link, please. --L. 15:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what the nature of the capitalism/communism pissing contest might be but one should not assume that it is only communists or socialists who disagree with the theories put forth in the book and documentary. --137.226.115.196 17:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The place to discuss the issues here are on the pages on "colonialism" or "US militarism," not this article itself.

2. You are providing an excellent example of the "pissing contest" in the severly loaded language you use.

3. You add passages that indicate you have not bothered actually reading the book through (i.e., the claim that they never bother discussing the crimes that occur in Chile).

I'd go on, but as far as I (and Wikipedia) is concerned, individuals without accounts are non-entitites, especially ignorant and ideologically-biased ones. --L. 14:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Please spare me the holier than thou attitude and let’s try to be civil about this matter. You know my bias, but yours is also plane to see from the article you have been policing, and I am merely trying to restore some balance to it. I did not for instance attempt to modify the explanation of the arguments made by the authors, but merely the critics, and given my bias, I might be more qualified to do so than you, since you don’t seem to have any idea why (or who) might disagree with the book, if I may say.

By all means attempt to correct anything you see as "severly loaded language" but you basically cut out everything that would explain the nature and substance of the dispute between the critics of the book and documentary. For instance, you characterize the disagreement as one of prior ideology rather than explain the actual argument made by the critics. The left and even some libertarians and anarchists disagree with the thesis put forward in both book and documentary (I was in fact referring to the documentary, so stand corrected there) precisely because it is seen by them to omit (rather than dispute) facts of history, most of which are not in dispute by left or right (i.e. that those who claimed responsibility for 9/11 did not make any claim that they opposed "capitalism" or "globalism", but in fact said they were responding to American foreign policy and military action). I did not site this merely to piss or rehash the issue, but to demonstrate how the particular historical POV of the authors leads them to their thesis, a thesis that their critics, having a substantively different POV, therefore do not agree with. I did not try to prove which POV was right, and I clearly characterized the arguments made by "critics" as such.

I will rewrite my additions to identify where they refer to the documentary and where they refer to the book and/or general argument put forth by the authors, but I will first offer you the chance to put back some semblance of what I added with whatever modifications to perceived bias you deem appropriate. However, as is, I think your present edit is biased since it seems to suggest that criticisms of Commanding Heights are merely groundless and partisan, and that itself is ignorant and ideologically-biased.

--137.226.115.196 18:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - Now I have an account. I feel so special. --Betamod 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize the above:

1. You admit having a bias.

2. I hold I have no bias.

This entire article, including the criticism section, was entirely created by me after review of both editions of this book, as well as the documentary version. Any accusations of bias against me is unfounded.

However, since you admit openly to bias, all future edits by you may be freely ignored and deleted. Wikipedia Policy: NPOV. --L. 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Interesting that you mention the NPOV policy:

1-“The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them".”

This is what I was attempting to do by being clear that the critical views presented were just that, disagreements by critics with the arguments made in the book and its view on history.

2- “Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view.”

This is what I claim you are doing by not presenting (and now suppressing) the basic substance of why critics disagree with the authors of CH. You obviously believe that you are perfect and above all criticism but most reasonable people realize that they may be biased and so are open to discussion and negotiation. I do not claim to be perfect, but I am trying to present what I know of both the documentary, which aired in Canada, and for which there was significant press coverage all of which I watched and read. If you force me too, I will even dig up the specific sources and site them, which I think would be excessive, but I guess I will have to.

One example of your bias is that you label those who criticize the CH as communists and socialists. Do you really know that to be true? It seems more like a groundless assertion. Yet even pro free market capitalists and liberal press sources have been critical of CH. You seem to be suggesting that the reason for the disagreement due to ideological prejudice rather than rational analysis, or historical point of view. Maybe you did not intend it, but this choice of words shows your bias.

Ideology can not be transcended by pretending that one has none. Everyone has a limited POV and it is only through having our limited points of view challenged by others that we might get out from under our prejudices. Claims of infallible unbiasedness are a sure sign that precisely the opposite is true.

However, I remain open to being proven wrong.

Show me where I was asserting a give viewpoint in what I wrote. If you can’t then stop sitting on this page and let's come to a compromise. This article is not your private property.

--Betamod 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that amusing remark - see my talk page for how I fit it into the arguments.

If you have not read both editions of the book and watched the documentary, and individuals such as yourself insert what are incorrect statements about what is in this book, it is indeed not only my right, but my duty, to "sit on this page" and watch it against vandalism. --L. 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what Betamod did either, it certainly wouldn't hurt if you at least clarified your reasoning a little bit more? Fephisto 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

L.'s vitriolic attacks on Betamod provide evidence that he/she does indeed have an agenda. Anyone of any intelligence who claims not to have a bias on the issues discussed in "Commanding Heights" is either fooling himself/herself or outright lying. As human beings we of course have biases. The trick is trying not to let those biases show through in a venture such as this. Dirkmanley 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)