Talk:Department of Defense report lambasts communication failure in US War on Terror

It seems to me like this report would be of great interest to a lot of people, but it is over 100 pages long, so most people will never bother to read it. So it seems like an article analyzing this report is exactly what Wikinews was made for, especially since the mass media seemingly hasn't reported much on it. Are others willing to help? Perhaps different people could be assigned different parts of the report so we can share the effort? - TalkHard 02:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I can help with it, but it would be unusually long and not particularly timely so I'm not sure where to start. If you can do an intro paragraph or so with how you want to structure, I'll jump in. 119

Will do that soon. For now, I'm gathering some of the more interesting parts. - TalkHard 12:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help as well, but, like 119, would like to see where you'd like to go with it... jkrusky 04:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should be clear at this point where the article is going. I've written the first few paragraphs, and have named the next parts I plan to write. I can probably finish the bulk of the article myself if you guys are hesitant to jump in. But there are still ways to help. First of all, I have so far focused on the first 2 chapters, and only have excerpts from these two. I haven't read 3 & 4 yet. Are there interesting parts there too that need covering? Also, of course I'll want to be sure that what I've written is interesting, succinct, NPOV, and accurately reflects the report. So any fixing up in this area is appreciated. I'd like to hear from both sides on this. - TalkHard 06:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, also I'd like to put up at least a little bit about the Defense Science Board on Wikipedia. - TalkHard 06:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The title is POV

The title of this article is POV. It could just as easily have been written with the opposite title.

"U.S. Department of Defense committee releases report strongly supporting George Bush's views on the war on terror" For example, from the report: "To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam." This is a common theme of Bush's speeches. And is hardly "critical of the war on terror".

The report does support a lot of things Bush has been saying about how this should proceed, of course. But our interpretation of it is just muddled and POV. --Jimbo Wales 14:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disagree

Read that quote in context and its extremely clear that it is part of an extremely critical analysis - perhaps the core of their argument. They are criticising the Administration precisely because they are making the WOT look like a war between the West and Islam. Now, you may not agree with that analysis, but there can be no reasonable argument that it supports the Admin view. From what I've read that goes for at least a clear majority of the report. Which, in my view, means the title of the report is strictly accurate.-- Harry Stottle 23:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both are right

I think that the central subject of the report is: The report details communication failures with the Muslim world, and notes that current efforts may have achieved the opposite of their intended effect.. I think this is right and that is what the report says. I think that both of you are right: the title is correct, but the title is POV(because it is incomplete). The title must be fixed and the title should be more precise and say what the report criticizes. My suggestion is something like: U.S. Department of Defense committee releases report claimming communication failure with Muslim world or US Department of Defense report analyses possible flaws of war on terror. I think we should work at this direction. This is my idea, you are free to criticize, give better suggestions, etc. -- Carlosar 16:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could have put a title just like this:U.S. Department of Defense committee releases war on terror report. I think this would be good. -- Carlosar 11:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and almost good

I think the article is NPOV. The only trouble is the article must be improveed in writting a little. --Carlosar 09:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abandoned?

Is this article abandoned? -- Carlosar 18:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article can be published

Maybe this article is not perfect but I think it can be published anyway. -- Carlosar 04:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Being that this is wiki, the moment it was "saved," by the original writer, it was published - albeit in an unfinished form for weeks on end. Thanks for cleaning it up. -- Davodd | Talk 04:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)