Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs) at 15:39, 21 March 2006 (→Sebastian Mallaby). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The concluding paragraph

This section seems to me to be indulging in a bit of editorializing, inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If there are criticisms of Perkins that can be attributed to a source, the inclusion of those criticisms would be a more appropriate way to balance the article. If no such criticism can be found, this paragraph should be considered POV and dropped. --HK 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Misplaced Pages policy is that criticism to balance the article is encouraged, but it must be criticism from published sources. The edits that I reverted were from an editor who had read the book and wanted to add a personal book review of sorts, but that is not in accord with Misplaced Pages policy. Please find published critics. --HK 15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What can be done to balance the State Department statement ?

The included document by the state department, although an official source, clearly rises to the level of attempted character defamation. Personal attacks are classic ways of distracting from dissent. I really wonder why the state department found it necessary to write such a big note, and tries to defame Perkins' character here. Yes, its an official source, but what can be done to balance this in the article ? After all, did they give any evidence that he did NOT do the things he writes about ? They get a pretty big section in the article plus the link to their website and I am worried that they are successful here in distracting from the real red flags the book raises.

The person who originally inserted this material attributed it to unidentified "critics," a violation of WP:AWT. I put in the attribution to the State Dept., and I think that the reader will now draw the appropriate conclusions from the source of the criticism. --HK 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another critic: (from the Washington Post, requires registration). -- Eb.hoop 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the State Department's statement very carefully, the main thrust of it is directed at something John Perkins acknowledges: the difficulty of providing concrete evidence (or much of it) for his link to the NSA or any other intelligence agency. There are some problems with this: firstly, the NSA's two missions were outlined by Executive Order 12333, dated December 4th, *1981* . The alleged events (not to mention MAIN's alleged involvement) date from before that time. Secondly, the NSA's 1st mission: "information assurance for information infrastructures critical to U.S. national security interests", could conceivably justify activities like the alleged screening of EHM applicants.

It's 2nd point is that the US supports debt relief, in contrast to supporting policies that create huge debt to enslave other countries. Of course their support of that claim is a program proposed in 2004. The first, most obvious problem with this is that it does not address policies that were possibly implemented from the 60's until now. Secondly, I don't see many (if any) countries listed on the debt relief list that were allegedly victimized by the "EHMs".

It's 3rd point amounts to a ad hominem argument, which some of you have pointed out.

So how to balance it? State the rebuttals clearly and precisely. Make sure none of them are vaguely presented and that conclusions which are not presented without being clearly connected to the supports of those conclusions. If a criticism is clearly a personal attack, be clear that it does not actually address the issue, but is commentary on the person presenting the issue.

Make the criticism stand on it's own legs, not vaguely inflated ones.  :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

I think that what Antelope In Search Of Truth identifies as an ad hominem argument is a perfectly legitimate line to take in questioning Perkins's credibility, in the same way that one might question the credibility of a witness for the other side in a court of law. At issue is whether one finds it probable that Perkins is telling the truth. Surely it is relevant if he has publicly made questionable claims in other areas. Furthermore, what I personally find most implausible about Perkins's story is that the NSA would have tapped him in particular for such a sensitive secret mission, since nothing in his background or resume would seem to justify it.

I would also like to see the section on "criticism" move beyond the State Dept. release (which, incidentally, was issued because Hugo Chávez and others cited the book as evidence of the US's nefarious intentions towards Latin America). Plenty of people have questioned Perkins's credibility. We already have a link to a Washington Post column by Sebastian Mallaby that claims Perkins is peddling a popular but completely inaccurate view of global finance. -- Eb.hoop 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Surely it is relevant if he has publicly made questionable claims in other areas. " I do not consider it sure.  ;) But I do stand corrected; The main 3rd point I refer to in the State Dept release is not precisely ad hominem, but Faulty generalization. You can follow the link, but the basic form of this fallacy is:

• A makes claim B;
• there is something objectionable or invalid about claim C (also made by A),
• therefore claim B is false.

So I think we are actually in agreement that all these claims should be examined. I object only to inferences that shortcuts to truth can be taken based on the record of a person who is raising an issue. Just because you think there is something wrong with "claim C", it seems that you would dismiss "claim B" automatically, without examination.

The issue should be whether the statements are true and/or valid, NOT whether it's probable that they are. To know that, they must be examined. To dismiss most of Perkins' statements or issues without examining them, because other issues statements he has made are inadaquately supported (or we disagree with them), is potentially sloppy and biased. Please, beware Disconfirmation bias.

I urge anyone to take a closer look at the statement issued by the State Dept. They only state that, "his claim that he was acting as an “economic hit man” AT THE BEHEST of the NSA appears to be a total fantasy".

I find it funny that at least a few people take this to mean they are charging the whole thing as "fantasy". There is NO language in the release that does so. Besides which, they come rather close to agreement on Perkin's main points when they state that, "Perkins raises legitimate questions about the impacts of economic growth and modernization on developing countries and indigenous peoples". Just take a close look at it. The US government appears to have examined Perkins' main points.

As long as the Criticism section is clear in what and how it challenges the stances Perkins is taking on issues, great. "Plenty of people" sounds intriguing. I hope their arguments are valid & sound. Furthermore, I hope that contributors clearly understand any criticisms before they try to paraphrase.  ;)

As for "nothing in his background or resume would seem to justify it", the book plainly states that his personal connections led to the job with MAIN. Whether those connections were related to the NSA or not, the role of his personal connections in landing him the job is supported by documentation cited in the book. Are you going to tell me you've never heard of or experienced favoritism?  ;)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

At issue is Perkins's credibility as witness. Perhaps an analogy will help to clarify this: Suppose that the prosecution's main witness claims to have seen the defendant on the night of the murder leaving the victim's house wielding a bloody knife. Suppose that that same witness has previously written a book arguing that JFK was killed by aliens. Then the defense could legitimately bring up that book to argue that the witness's testimony at the murder trial shouldn't carry much weight. Logically there is no reason why being wrong about JFK and the aliens would necessarily mean that the witness is wrong now about the defendant at the murder trial. But if I think that the witness is a crackpot, then I will naturally take his current testimony less seriously.

This is particularly relevant in Perkins's case because all we have is his say-so for what is by far his most serious allegation, without which his book would be of no particular interest: that the NSA hired him to deliberately saddle Third World countries with unpayble debts. I think that anyone who is even slightly acquainted with how global finance works will realize that this is an extraordinary claim. In evaluating how seriously to take that claim, the fact, for example, that Perkins believes in shamanism is a legitimate consideration.

I have revised the "Criticism" section so as to include references to other major sources who have questioned the value and credibility of Perkins's book (all it took was a Lexis-Nexis search). -- Eb.hoop 15:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this example:

• Some guy (let's call him Joe) tells me that googol is a large number. So big that I'd spend years counting to it, perhaps dying before I could finish it.

• Another guy (let's call him Dan) shows me documentation (former report cards, etc.) that Joe got dismal spelling grades, and in fact, that he was prone to misspell words. Furthermore, I am shown that he has a history of misleading people (practical joker) and getting things confused.

• Under previously suggested "logic", I would dismiss what Joe says given "the weight" of all the other things standing against him. I'd be apt to think that he just got it confused with Google, or that he's playing a joke on me. But none of that has any relevance to the fact that investigating shows that googol is a number. It has NOTHING to do with Joe's skill at spelling that he can make this observation and pass it on.

If we are serious about all of this, we HAVE to check each claim, independent of any other claims made. The "weight" of all this other stuff has absolutely NO bearing on the claim that googol is a large number.

Plus, in order for you example to match up with John Perkins, the prosecution's witness you refer to would also be presenting pictures or other solid evidence.

Have you even READ the book? There is documentation supporting all of the most serious claims. NSA or no NSA, he STILL makes a serious case that government and big business have been colluding in an inappropriate manner, and that exploitation has resulted.

So if any criticism is going to be serious, it has to question the validity of EACH claim. Otherwise, we are the villagers from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". They boy in that story lied, but when we fail to examine each claim, the wolf eats our sheep.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Criticism Section Clean-up/POV

All the criticism in the criticism section boils down to:

• Details of Perkins' story are far-fetched or seem like embellishments
• No solid evidence is provided to back up a link to NSA
• Economic studies are provided to support claims that some of Perkins' economic claims are not valid.

EVERYthing that is actually directed at the BOOK, can be boiled down to these things. At least so far.

So we can/should consolidate, while providing references for each criticism issue, or category, if you will. Readers can follow up on each reference, but this is an article about a guy's book, not specifically it's criticism. Besides which, it's ridiculous to have several guys repeating themselves about the same points.

Make each point. Show that "these guys" all make that point. No need to repeat it over and over and over and over.  ;)

As far as POV......

• The way some of the criticism is phrased, it is not always clear what content in the book is being criticized.

• As content is being added, it is submitted in a way that retains bias from the auther of that content. If you cannot find a way to phrase such content that is, "cold, fair, analytical,"] without deflating the argument, it is not submittable.

And can we clean up the "External links" section? The article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hurricane_Katrina#References is a good form.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree with you that this article is about the book, rather than about criticism of the book. On the other hand, it'd be absurd to have an article about, say, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which doesn't discuss criticism of it. (BTW, I'm not comparing Perkins's book to the Protocols, I'm only making a point. The Protocols come to mind because they are in today's featured article.) So I sympathize with the desire to keep the "Criticism" section succint and well organized.

I think that you have not identified one of the strands of criticism of the book: that, regardless of whether what it says is true or not, it offers only a titillating tale of global intrigue and contributes little to the serious debate on Third World debt. This is the point made by the quote from the NYT. It's also the point made by Mark Engler of In These Times, who in his review explicitly says he otherwise agrees with the views Perkins expresses about Third World debt.

The recent edits by Herschelkrustofsky contain several violations of the NPOV policy: certain newspapers are characterized as "establishment press organs" and a sentence from Mallaby's column is described as "typifying" the establishment's "angry response." In fact this book, which was published in 2004, had been almost completely ignored by major newspapers and magazines until it became a bestseller and was picked up by Penguin. With the exception of Mallaby's column, all the other sources of criticism quoted treat the book very politely. In any case such value judgments shouldn't appear in the article.

Finally, I don't think you can downplay the issue of whether Perkins's NSA story is true. If Perkins's had simply written a book saying that when he worked for Chas. T. Main he signed deals with Third World governments which didn't aid development and instead created onerous loads of debt for them, then his book might have been truthful and perhaps even interesting, but it wouldn't be a bestseller. It's pretty clear to me that that was the book Einar Greve thought Perkins had written when he was first asked about it. Then he realized that the book is something else entirely: it claims that these loans were forced upon those countries through the NSA, assassinations, bribes, and all other kinds of skullduggery. -- Eb.hoop 01:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"....regardless of whether what it says is true or not, it offers only a titillating tale of global intrigue and contributes little to the serious debate on Third World debt. This is the point made by the quote from the NYT."

Now maybe I misunderstood the quote you submitted to the article, "the actual content of Perkins' admissions proves distressingly thin", but it comes off quite different from what I just quoted from you. Talking about the content of his admissions is not quite the same as whether or not a serious contribution to debate was rendered.

From what you said and what is in the article, I'm not sure whether the author was claiming Perkins needed to suggest solutions to the problem fo 3rd World debt (or something like that) OR claiming that he wasn't really admitting to much. Objectively speaking, it needs to be clear what the author meant.

"It's pretty clear to me that that was the book Einar Greve thought Perkins had written when he was first asked about it. Then he realized that...."

I can't emphasize this enough. We don't decide what someone meant. They either expressed something, or they did not. We submit what authors and/or sources say, not what we think they meant. He doesn't explain the apparent contradiction? We do not do that for him. We present it as objectively as possible.

(I agree completely. This is why I'm arguing that here rather than in the article. But by the same token I think the part about how Greve "appeared to contradict himself" should be removed. Why not just transcribe the two statements made by him?) -- Eb.hoop 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

p.s. "I don't think you can downplay the issue of whether Perkins's NSA story is true." I'm not.  :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Criticism is issue by issue, not "all or nothing"

"If Perkins's had simply written a book saying that when he worked for Chas. T. Main 
he signed deals with Third World governments which didn't aid development and instead 
created onerous loads of debt for them, then his book might have been truthful and 
perhaps even interesting....."

Now I think we are getting somewhere. I think we are disagreeing about the importance of any possible NSA link, relative to the rest of the book.

I am saying that truth HAS to be evaluated individually for EACH claim brought forth. You seem to be advocating an "all or nothing" approach. The NSA issue is clearly contestable. Also, Perkins' style seems to include colorful language at times, to put it kindly. We agree there. Those two issues are clearly areas that can be contested.

But documentation is cited to support the other points made. Who Perkins worked for (Chas. T. Main), what he did, some of the effects his work (and others doing work like his) had on 3rd World countries, and the blurring line between business and government (e.g., officials and administration members passing between company jobs and government offices), not to mention the use of skullduggery (e.g., assassinations, etc.). He is even citing many things which are public record.

That is why one cannot simply write that "he does not provide support for his most 'serious' claims" when paraphrasing a case made regarding the NSA issue. For one thing, the NSA thing is only ONE claim. For another, arguing the NSA thing does not somehow prove that he did not work for Chas T. Main. Nor does it disprove the nature of his job. Nor does it disprove the effects his job had on 3rd World countries. Nor does it disprove the blurring line between business and government. Nor does it disprove congressional hearings and the like that are cited to support the use of skullduggery (e.g., assassinations, etc.). All of which could be considered "serious" claims.

Criticism regarding the NSA issue does not translate into a case made against his other points. None of the criticism cited so far has been powerful enough to explain away the evidence cited for all the other points being made in the book, so it should not be presented as such.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

It's perhaps unnecessary for me to point out that the statement that none of the criticism cited so far has been powerful enough to explain away the evidence cited for all the other points being made in the book is your POV. And even if that criticism were, in your mind, strong enough to explain away all the claims in Perkins's book, as a Misplaced Pages writer your job would still be simply to accurately summarize that criticism as it has been made by others in major media outlets.

You insist that even if the story about the NSA is not true, Perkins's book is still a valuable contribution to the debate about Third World debt. You are entitled to that opinion, but many of the book's critics think otherwise and we should make that clear in an objective discussion of criticism of the book. The reason why these critics disagree with you is first that a. some, like Mark Engler, don't think Perkins's has any really major insights to contribute on the subject, b. others, like Sebastian Mallaby, disagree with the view of modern foreign corporations in the Third World as essentially predatory, and c. some might not be inclined to take seriously on any subject an author who makes wild and scantily supported allegations.

On this third point perhaps another analogy might be useful: Let's say I'm a retired LAPD officer unhappy about the things I saw and did on the job. Let's say I write a book which raises some legitimate, though controversial questions about police brutality, police corruption, etc. Let's say that I also claim in that book that I know from experience that the LAPD is controlled by the Japanese mafia with the consent of the mayor of LA, the governor of California, and the Prime Minister of Japan. If you read that book and decide that the Japanese mafia stuff is made up, what would you think of the book as whole? Would you say it's a good book, aside from the fact that I think it's main selling point is fiction? (This last bit reminds me of the joke about how someone asked Lincoln's wife, after she returned from Ford's Theater on the night Lincoln was killed, "Yes, but apart from that, how did you enjoy the play?") -- Eb.hoop 01:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian Mallaby

I think that it was a mistake to remove the description of Mallaby's curriculum vitae. I would submit that under the circumstances Mallaby could be considered a spokesperson for the interests that Perkins is attacking, although I do not suggest that this point should be made in the article. I think that the information should be included so that the reader may draw his own conclusions. I am restoring it to the article. Also, calling the man a "frothing conspiracy theorist" is not exactly "questioning the fairness of his economic worldview" -- it is what would be called here at Misplaced Pages a "personal attack." In deference to Ed, I have not used the word "angry" in characterizing Mallaby's response. Instead, I wrote that he "reacted sharply." --HK 15:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)