Talk:At the Center of the Storm

YouTube

If we link to a newspaper article that is copyright protected is that against the rules? No it isn't. I think the same would go for VideoSharing websites. It is not for us to decide if an offsite video, image or article is copyvio, it would be up to the owner of the material and the owner of the website. A powerful news organization like CBS or Fox or CNN could simply contact YouTube and ask that they be deleted or face a lawsuit. Videos on YouTube like these are good advertising for them, I believe they want them there. BirdHunters 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Viacom already is pursuing legal remedies and the networks most emphatically do not want their content being reproduced on YouTube. It is acceptable to link directly to videos on the copyright holder's website (CBS, Faux News, etc.), but not to videos that have been uploaded to YouTube without the copyright holder's permission (Hint: when a clip from a television network is uploaded to YouTube, it is done without the copyright holder's permission.) I'm not sure linking to the videos is all that necessary, but if you want to link to them, you must do so from the websites of CBS, NBC, etc., not from YouTube. See the external links policy and Wikipedia:Copyright for more information. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Links to offsite copyright violations are forbidden per policy, requesting user appears to be a sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

POLL

Should we "keep" or "remove" the videos:

Video book interviews

• 60 Minutes interview: (Linked from YouTube)
• NBC Today interview: (Linked from YouTube)
• The O'Reilly Factor interview: (Linked from YouTube)
• The Situation Room interview: (Linked from YouTube)

• Keep - If we link to a newspaper article that is copyright protected is that against the rules? No it isn't. I think the same would go for VideoSharing websites. It is not for us to decide if an offsite video, image or article is copyvio, it would be up to the owner of the material and the owner of the website. A powerful news organization like CBS or Fox or CNN could simply contact YouTube and ask that they be deleted or face a lawsuit. Videos on YouTube like these are good advertising for them, I believe they want them there. BirdHunters 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove – none of these clips have been uploaded by the copyright holder. Wikipedia should not encourage copyright violations by linking to pirate video. --Drappel 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Voting is evil, not least because it discourages discussion, which is frequently instructive. I would be more than willing to discuss with BirdHunters, at whatever length is necessary, why regardless of what xe may think about the copyright laws, WP does not link to copyrighted videos uploaded to YouTube by someone other than the copyright holder. If xe is simply voted down in a poll, xe won't learn anything (and neither will I). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss above, the POLL is below. BirdHunters 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. In a nutshell: polling should be used (if at all) only after substantial discussion has failed to reach agreement. Anyway, a poll cannot validate linking to videos that were uploaded to YouTube in violation of the copyright holders rights. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ObiterDicta a poll is not appropriate. Additionally a poll is pointless as these videos have been uploaded to YouTube without the agreement of the copyright holders. --Drappel 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

NPOV dispute

I've tagged this article as not being neutral since it consists of almost nothing except for a long criticism section. Not that there's anything wrong with listing criticism, of course, but the weight that's being given to it here is undue, and while I don't advocate just removing information for the sake of balance, the rest of the article desperately needs to be expanded. -- Schneelocke 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The overly long criticism section is also of my concern and I completely concur with you that the neutrality of this article should be taken to consideration. It seems that the only aim of this article is to collect all criticism. So could you suggest any solution, which sections should be added and expanded? @pple 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, much of the criticism section seem only to relate to the character of George Tenet. Such criticism is not necessarily irrelevant but should (IMO) point to errors, omissions, etc. in the book.142.179.217.154 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment of this article, and have tagged it as not being neutral, since the tag had since been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.134.225 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Erratum

This section is very problematic, it gives no context of the criticism (who argued it etc etc) and the word "erratum" is problematic because it suggests that it is a correction made by the publishers. 41.6.211.102 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on At the Center of the Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518051331/http://today.reuters.com:80/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topnews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-30T173127Z_01_SCH057785_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-TENET1.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508025916/http://www.dougfeith.com:80/coverage_6.html to http://www.dougfeith.com/coverage_6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)