Talk:The Trap (British TV series)

Third episode

Ok I've added a section on the third epsiode. I may have made a few typos and it would be good to add some links, but I think its important to leave most of it as it is. It is perfectly acceptable to say "Curtis argued that ..." include a contentious statement, and stay with Wikipedia NPOV. -confusedmiked

I added numerous pieces throughout the section on the 3rd episode earlier today, particularly about positive vs negative liberty, Iraq, and a stronger conclusion. They have since been edited and further clarified and expounded by others, which I appreciate, as they're excellent additions and correct some omissions I made. firstfox 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with firstfox. I'm going to blow my own trumpet and say I wrote the bulk of the text on the 3rd episode, but the additons and corrections have all been very good. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trap_%28television_documentary_series%29&diff=117961147&oldid=117952069 -confusedmiked

I'm changing the end of the ep 3 summary. Doesn't reflect the programme properly at all. Garrick92 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

just realised that the above comment looks a bit snotty. Wasn't meant to, apols if I was overblunt. Garrick92 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins

I do think Curtis' film misrepresents Richard Dawkins' views on genes and how this relates to society. Dawkins has always been very careful and clear to distringuish between darwinism as a description of how animals evolve and darwinism as a way of running society. Curtis did not seem to me to make clear this distinction in the second episode. -confusedmiked

I agree - the Dawkins clips didn't really relate to the narrative, and you sense they were put there to make the straw man of Chagnon's arguments a bit stronger. I doubt Dawkins would agree with Chagnon's conclusions at all. EJBH (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Page name

It's clearly incorrect to call it "The Trap (film)" for a number of reasons. Really it should be either "The Trap (documentary)" or "The Trap (TV series)" or "The Trap (TV documentary series)" since it is a three-part TV documentary series. At the very least, like most BBC series, it's a video production, not film. On top of that, it's actually being trailed by the BBC as The Trap - What Happened to Our Dream of Freedeom. Nick Cooper 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nash Recants Earlier ideas"

The film does not show Nash recanting anything. He simply describes his former delusions with a degree of detachment. You can't 'recant' an illness. The film, by the way, is severely discredited by the way it uses Nash - he is deliberately filmed as a creepy wierd bogeyman, and the references to his schizophrenia are not relevant. Nash's mathematics were reviewed by his colleagues and in academic journals. These many reviewers found the mathematics to be compelling and innovative. There is an error of course in applying theories designed to model superpowers to secretaries, but that is not an error in game theory itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.194.149.82 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

You seem to have watched a different programme to me. Nash specify acknowledged that his illness made him unduly suspiscious of those around him, including work colleagues. It seems pretty valid to take this into account when looking at theories - devised by such a person - which are based on the assumption that all people are inherently selfish, self-interested, and.or hostile to each other.

Secondly, you must be unfamiliar with Curtis's work, since otherwise you would recognise the "rough-and-ready" (poorly-framed, unlit, etc.) nature of many interviews which appear in his other programmes, and indeed elsewhere in the first episode of The Trap. Viewed overall, there is little correlation between which "side" the interviewees are on, and how they are presented visually.

Lastly, Curtis did not question the mathematics, merely the assumptions they were based upon. You also seem confused about exactly what game the secretaries were asked to play. Nick Cooper 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You just cross-posted and deleted my much longer reply which said exactly the same thing, for which thanks :¬) -- I will (re-)state one point that's worth addressing: the film does not steroetype Nash as a creepy weird bogeyman, although it characterises his work as (Curtis's phraase) "paranoid". That seems a straightforward and unadorned statement of fact. We would have no difficulty in recognising a paranoid belief system in the work of a Louis Wain for example, or a Richard Dadd, although the quality of the artistry remains praiseworthy and even exceptional. Why would one expect any deterioration in the ability of a paranoid mathematician? The only difference is that we can point, in terms of logic, at Nash's beliefs and state unhesitatingly that it rests on a faulty first premiss. Garrick92 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good reason why it's always a good idea to temporarily save major additions/amendments before hitting "Save" - you never know who might be editing the same page at the same time! Nick Cooper 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case there's any confusion about my intended tone in the above, my thanks were sincere - I waffle on far too much and you made the points far more succinctly. Thanks for the tip about copying; why didn't I think of that? Garrick92 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Game Theory

Please note that Nash did not in anyway recant his Game Theory in the programme. What he did do was to say that one of the underlaying assumptions of Game Theory was incorrect, namely that people are entirely selfish in all their interactions.

Assuming that people ARE entirely selfish in their interactions, Game Theory describes very well the kinds of outcomes one would expect in various interactions between entirely selfish individuals.

The closing statement about psychopaths acting as predicted by the theories is interesting. The personality trait of Psychoticism is a measure of selfishness in a simplistic sense. It differs from individual and is higher in prison populations and extreme right wing politicians (think Hitler). It is also slightly higher than normal in 'normal' right wing politics, think republicans and conservatives. I'll find a correct reference and update the psychoticism article later. Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Nash. Haven't we had this already? The article says film of an older and wiser Nash recanting his earlier ideas about people is also shown. Perhaps the article needs to be clearer on this distinction? I am going to make an edit, near the top of the article, to clear this up, maybe other people can gauge whether it helps. Garrick92 11:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the principle bits about Nash, effectively putting them in the order they appear in the programme, i.e. "revealing" his condition after explaining what his theories were. Also tried to clear up exactly what he said in the more recent footage. Nick Cooper 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Luvverly. Much better. Garrick92 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article, and I would really like to know the names of the actual experiments mentioned in this paragraph:

Curtis' narrations concludes with the observation that the game theory/free market model is now undergoing interrogation by economists who suspect a more irrational model of behaviour is appropriate and useful. In fact, in formal experiments the only people who behaved exactly according to the mathematical models created by game theory are economists themselves, and psychopaths.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.248.164 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 2 April 2007

Intro

Have re-edited the intro because there is no evidence for the claim that Cold Cold Heart was ever cancelled. Claims come from non-official websites. If it was cancelled, Mr Curtis did a miraculous job in getting an entirely new doc to transmission in under six months! Moreover the BBC's 2006 synopsis of CCH read as follows:

"Cold Cold Heart Adam Curtis, producer of the award-winning Power Of Nightmares, returns with a series of three one-hour films about the death of altruism and the collapse of trust – trust in politicians, trust in institutions and trust in ourselves, both in our minds and our bodies." [1].

- Which is precisely the summary, word for word, given to The Trap.

The Trap is in fact a re-edit of CCH. I defy anyone to argue otherwise.

For my money: the delay has been forced by problems with getting copyright release on the song Cold Cold Heart and the subsequent re-edit this problem has caused, but I have no direct evidence for this supposition, only logical inference. Take a look at the lyrics[2]:

"I tried so hard my dear to show that you're my every dream. Yet youre afraid each thing I do is just some evil scheme. A memory from your lonesome past keeps us so far apart. Why cant I free your doubtful mind and melt your cold cold heart."

Garrick92 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for Thatcher statement

Whilst I agree with the statement about Thatcher dismantling as much of the welfare state as possible, I think some sort of citation is required for a statement such as this. Maybe something from here? --Tomhannen 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr ... I dunno abt that. The article is a summary of Curtis's claims. He said that was the case, the article describes his claim. I don't think we need to go double-sourcing everything and re-researching his narration -- that way lies wikimadness. If there are criticisms to be levelled at his research, or quibbles raised, then they surely need to go in a "criticism" section at the end (when they, inevitably, appear). What do others think? Garrick92 11:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's a summary of what Curtis says in the programme, and so we no more need to reference it further than we would have to double-reference any counter-criticism (e.g. not only referencing an article that claims Thatcher didn't do that, but referencing the source of that claim, as well). Nick Cooper 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - sorry! --Tomhannen 14:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But i would love to see a citation for the "psychopaths behave exactly as predicted"-claim at the end of part 2. Anyone ? Might it be in the work of Daniel Kahneman or his co-laureate Vernon L. Smith ? I'm searching...-- ExpImp^talkcon 04:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a message board, but the google term you're scrabbling for is neuroeconomics. The following link might provide a few pointers (PDF) [ http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/bisina/camerer_loewenstein_prelec.pdf]. Garrick92 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i think he wasn't scrabbling for that term. i believe testing of economic behaviour on psychopaths is more behavioral- or experimental-economics than neuroeconomics (buzzword-alarm!) but i may be in error.--217.230.12.207 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A google for <neuroeconomics, psychopaths> produced this [3] and this [4] as lead items... Garrick92 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

URLs for each episode

A previous user has added some URLs to watch the episodes online, which messed up the formatting of some of the section titles. I have corrected this, and placed the URLs in the External Links section. Since Adam Curtis regularly distributes his work online for download, I suspect it would be okay to keep these on this page, but others may have other (more expert) views on this. firstfox 14:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the validity of that. The programmes are BBC copyright, so unless the downloads are from their site, they should be a no-no. Nick Cooper 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several brief excerpts from each of the two eps aired to date, on the BBC site, you could legitimately link to those if you want. Garrick92 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Documentary

From Prospect magazine:

The Trap, the latest television essay by Adam Curtis, misunderstands a range of complex ideas, and is paranoid too

Max Steuer

Adam Curtis has received fulsome praise from some quarters for his three-part BBC2 series, The Trap. But this viewer is unable to follow suit. Broadly put, The Trap suggests that people in Britain and the US have fallen into a trap, one set partly by circumstances, especially the cold war, and partly by a few institutions, particularly those under the influence of the Rand Corporation. But the key instigators are a number of highly influential academics. Among these are the game theorists John Nash and Thomas Schelling and the economist James Buchanan. Curtis argues that figures like these, along with a host of researchers and teachers, bent on a crusade to quantify everything, have taken the heart out of society and left us fatally weakened and individually isolated. One lone dissenter, the psychologist Ronald Laing, figures prominently in the debate. Like much else in The Trap, this complex thinker is both resurrected and reduced to caricature—in this case, as a brave but hopelessly outnumbered defender of basic human values. All is suggestion. Little is spelled out. This is dense and fast-moving television, verging on the chaotic. The game theorists and Buchanan are two examples which illustrate the failings of Curtis’s style of analysis.

In the programme we see clips of James Buchanan maintaining that public figures in government and elsewhere have personal objectives, and do not ceaselessly strive for the public good. In other words, politicians are humans, like everyone else. Buchanan is hardly the first social scientist to suggest that an analysis that takes some account of the motives of politicians is likely to help in understanding their actions. Machiavelli suggested similar ideas centuries ago in the political realm, as did Adam Smith and the classical and neoclassical economic tradition with the concept of "economic man." But Curtis presents these ideas as something new, and adopts an extreme form of what is called reflexivity, the idea that by studying things we affect their behaviour. He argues that Buchanan and his ilk are responsible for the wicked and self-interested actions of politicians and others in public life. Curtis holds that the mere act of suggesting that self-interest plays a role in political life was enough to change politicians from dedicated public servants into control freaks. This goes beyond the bounds of acceptable naivety. It romanticises the past while misrepresenting the ideas it purports to explain.

The Trap argues that there was a time when a more generous spirit prevailed, before the trio of academics, quantifiers and technocrats got control. Trust and compassion are important elements in social life, and they ebb and flow in power over different periods. But it is odd to attribute these changes to the actions of a conspiracy of evil thinkers; academics do not have such power.

Curtis makes much play of game theorists as examples of the architects of the trap. But he misunderstands the concept; game theory does not mean that we should treat life as a competitive game. The heart of game theory is to suggest that in many instances there are strategic interactions between people, and that people, in choosing what to do, try to take account of the likely responses of others. Curtis sees these ideas as encouraging manipulative selfish action (although in fact most of the recent work in game theory has been about co-operation rather than competition). At the international level, he sees these ideas as perpetuating the cold war. Utopia is within our grasp, he suggests, but false prophets have tricked us into accepting a wasteland of alienation. This is plain silly. A better society is within our grasp, but Curtis is turning on just those people who have something to contribute to it. He greatly exaggerates the power of ideas, and at the same time almost wilfully misrepresents them. One way of characterising his basic misunderstanding is the old problem of confusing the message with the messenger.

There are important issues in our society regarding social responsibility, how we relate to each other, income inequality and the nature of the just society. These questions are not raised in our usual television fare. This is precisely why they should be addressed by public service television. Adam Curtis and BBC2 deserve much credit for keeping alive the idea of the ambitious, single-voice television essay. But there is something deeply worrying when the style of debate we are given plays with ideas without understanding them, and exploits our fascination with conspiracies. Difficult ideas take time to understand, and are not helped by fast cutting, the indiscriminate use of grainy documentary footage and suggestive music. Is this the work of a conspiracy, perpetrated by the friends of confusion?

Max Steuer is an economist associated with the Centre for Philosphy of Natural and Social Science at the London School of Economics. He edits the LSE Philosophy Papers.

In which case, it's strange how he seems to have made some fundamental misjudgements about what the first episode - which is clearly all he had seen - was saying! Nick Cooper 00:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a "Criticisms of "The Trap"" section for the sake of balance... A summary of this article and a URL to link to it could be part of it. --Tomhannen 10:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Just found the [URL] But it is subscription only... --Tomhannen 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article really should include some critics. I just couldn't stand watching the first episode. The programme was so full of paranoia and conspiracy theory. The narrator even discredited Nash's outstanding achivements, based only on his unfortunate illness. -M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.22.7 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 July 2007

"In the programme we see clips of James Buchanan maintaining that public figures in government and elsewhere have personal objectives, and do not ceaselessly strive for the public good. In other words, politicians are humans, like everyone else." Great gad, talk about begging the question! Garrick92 11:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to have a criticisms section, but, of course we have to adhere to NOR. The second programme seemed to me to be chock-full of non-sequitors and logic chopping. Most obvious was the leap from the discussion of game theory to the "selfish gene" model. Curtis seemed to think that these were interchangable, but the whole point of the selfish gene theory is to see selfishness at the level of the gene, not of the individual. It's designed to explain why individuals often behave unselfishly. The insertion of the Yanomamo debate was also very clumsy, as the real issues concerning that study and the disputes over it were obscured by his need to shoehorn the findings into his account of how economic man and darwinian man are one and the same. However we need to have someone other than ourselves making the criticism! Paul B 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The "selfish gene" confusion was not made in the programme - Curtis merely talked about reductionist models of human behaviour. There is perhaps a semantic confusion that might have been made by viewers ("selfish gene = selfish people"), but Curtis's narrative did not state that human beings were inherently selfish - the point was only that humans were widely supposed to behave in "robotic" ways. This was the interpretation of behaviour that tied in with the economic "game theory" models. It suggested that human behaviour could in fact map onto the Nash-based models. This seemed clear enough to me, for one. Garrick92 10:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The selfish gene confusion is strongly implied in the programme, and also appears explicitly in this article as it presently stands: "Later, however, the documentary gives evidence that cells are able to selectively replicate parts of DNA dependent on current needs, rather than robotically..." Cells replicate parts of DNA based on current needs in very much a robotic (i.e. environmentally determined) way, rather than on some kind of creative whim. Cells are not genes - here is the familiar confusion of levels. Cells do not replicate themselves without limit. They are, as Dawkins would put it, only survival machines, built by genes, but not identical to them. If it suits the genes to kill off or limit further division of the cell, so be it. This is all entirely consistent with the selfish gene perspective. Then there is this: "Such evidence detracts from the simplified economic models of human beings." How? earwicker 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a big long argument about this, because it's not the place for it. H o w e v e r ... The selfish gene confusion is strongly implied in the programme - No, I honestly think you've *inferred* it. ""Such evidence detracts from the simplified economic models of human beings." How?" - I for one agree that this could be phrased better. Curtis is explaining that the simplified popular "DNA = program, human = computer" model is not as straightforward as all that, which doesn't demolish - but does detract from - the "robot human" argument. It's one thing to argue that human behaviour is essentially pre-determined by a genetic "program", but another to continue to hold that belief in the face of the fact that the "computer" decides which bits of the program to use. I didn't have a problem with Curtis not being too precise about genetics: his programme isn't *about* genetics but about the impact of economic models and theories of human nature on Western culture and society. I think perhaps you'd have liked Curtis to have made another documentary altogether! All that said, why not source some criticisms that echo your complaints and then post them? Garrick92 09:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are bound to be many criticisms of this movie. Curtis gets some overall ideas correct, but really misses some very key points. Neither Hayek nor any Austrian economist really counts on all humans as being selfish in the general since. They only count on "selfishness" as being the individual's own self-interest. But that self-interest can be anything, including charity and generosity to others. Austrian economics is unique in that it does not depend on any model of human behavior, but only human action. If anything, Austrian Economists count on altruism being a part of human nature, because they often call for private charities to replace government welfare. Also, the idea that negative freedom has increased in the US in the past 50 years or so is completely incorrect in terms of the economy (but not civil rights); the opposite has occurred. 65.89.246.2 06:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like just another pseudo-intellectual justification for the "nanny state". If this were a real attempt at an unbiased examination of the facts [a DOCUMENTARY], I would feel it is worth refuting. As it is, it is just politically motivated garbage. I'm not sure why some intellectuals work so hard to denigrate the concept of freedom. Incidentally, I think Curtis should address the theory that intellectuals usually back totalitarian governments, as the state needs them to maintain control, and the intellectuals benefit by favoritism from the state [Catholic church in medieval times anyone?]. Of course, that would be just too ironic wouldn't it? Gregvs3 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DVD Release

So they have all aired in the UK, when will they be available for purchase on amazon? I am in Australia and want this pronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.55.234 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 March 2007

Much of Curtis' work is pretty heavy on the use of archive footage, and he usually can only get clearance for inclusion and broadcast, not resale (eg, via DVD). Very often he puts his work up for download, and I am aware that the first two episodes are already available via indybay.com (or .org?). The URLs are on a previous edit of the page, but due to copyright reasons, it was agreed to remove them from the main page. Either hunt around the edits, or do a search on Indybay... firstfox 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think any sort of official release is very unlikely. Even the abridged version of The Power of Nightmares didn't get one, although the full series did get screened by SBS in Australia, so it's very probable that The Trap will be as well. Nick Cooper 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, think we've encountered before… hope everything bodes well… as for the Trap, if nowhere else, one can explore it at youtube, and bbc, of course... Lovelight 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

I've resited this section and put the figures into the actual context of when the series was shown. "Commercial success" isn't a valid description for a channel that is not funded by advertising, and overall - with the exception of Top Gear - BBC2 programmes rarely exceed 4 million viewers. In fact, a 6% audience shared for a documentary on BBC2 in that timeslot is actually pretty damn good! Nick Cooper 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

minor change - just providing citation

Changed Police in North of England to Lothian and Borders Police. (Lothian and Borders is part of Scotland) http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=675182002 62.25.109.195 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)G62.25.109.195 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films?

Someone has tagged The Trap as part of this project, which it clearly can't be, as it's a television series (i.e. not just a single programme), not a film. Clearly this should be removed and replaced with WikiProject Television, but I'm not up on the protocol of doing that, so can someone who does do so? Nick Cooper 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Style?

Would the article benefit from a section on the style of the film(s)? It's one of the most striking things about it, as with Curtis's previous work. At the moment, the article just reproduces the polemical content. Curtis is at least partly a humourous documentary maker, and someone who enjoys putting together a film that works aesthetically, using fast cutting, between footage and concepts. See the interview snippets in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday/story/0,,2025578,00.html - it's as if he has primarily set himself an artistic challenge: how many strands of thought can he weave together and still give an impression of a coherent argument? It's the impression that matters, rather than actual intellectual consistency. He is not necessarily telling us what he believes: "I love the BBC," Curtis says. "It's so complex that no-one can control it. My job is to swim in the chaos and use it to my advantage." That is, he is a cynical self-interested individual taking advantage of an overgrown bureaucracy! Also he talks about how he is "affectionately spoofing" the conspiracy theorists - there's certainly a flavour of Oliver Stone's JFK in this series. Personally I found the multi-stranded argument very weak for most of the film, and yet still admired the filmmaking style. It's the one thing he gets right, so I think it deserves some coverage. earwicker 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think earwicker makes a good point. Many have critiqued Curtis's arguments as historically unsound or philosophically misleading. Yet his films have always made a big impact because his editing style juggles ideas & images in a way that is always watchable, often humorous. In particular, his use of "stock footage" (eg U.S. suburbia in the 1950s, Arabian genies appearing out of bottles) vividly conveys a subjective dimension to history: our awareness of the issues of economic freedom and jihadist terrorism is bound up with imagery from popular culture and there is an 'unconscious' dimension to many of these arguments. Mick gold 09:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree, FWIW. If there are points to be made about Curtis's montage style, they don't belong in this article but in the Adam Curtis entry itself. I also think a lot of the criticisms of Curtis raised above are meretricious. There are certainly criticisms to be made of some of Curtis's logic (for example, did people refuse to support the Iraq invasion because distrust of politicians had gone mainstream, as Curtis suggested? Or was it simply because the public is not quite as gullible as Blair liked to think?). Dragging Oliver Stone into it and attempting to tar Curtis with the "conspiracy theory" brush is just irrelevant and irrational. Garrick92 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, all of Curtis's work is stylistically similar, at least as far back as Pandora's Box. It would be silly to go into too much detail on that style here - and on all the other individual series/programme pages - rather than keep it to Adam Curtis. Nick Cooper 09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Antony Jay

In episode 1, the graphic for Antony Jay (creator of Yes Minister) spells his name "Anthony". The wikipedia entry uses Antony so I have gone with that. I'll post a query on the relevant talk page. --Tomhannen 10:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The music

music listed is wrong, The Thing is not featured at all (morricone), 2 tracks created by John Carpenter are included however. Overture from Tannhauser isnt included either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.230.23 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Article Title

I think that the title of the article as it currently is (The Trap (television documentary series)), is not very good. In my opinion, it should be renamed to The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom. This is the title of the documentary series and it is only slightly longer (by 7 letters) then the current name. Who agrees? --Hibernian 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• If we go by the Radio Times, it should have a hyphen, not a colon. I'm in two minds on this one, as Curtis's series often have sub or secondary titles. Each episode of Pandora's Box, for example, is A fable from the age of science, while The Living Dead is Three films about the power of the past. These are essentially descriptive of what each programme/series is, rather than a "title" in the normal sense of the word, and the same applies to The Trap. Nick Cooper 07:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether it's a hyphen or a colon is a trivial matter, that can be worked out easily (BTW I did a quick Google search and either version has exactly the same amount of hits, so there seems to be no preference in that area). The main point is, should we name the article after the film(s), or have this convoluted description? I'm not sure what you mean by it having multiple titles, each episode has it's own title (which are already listed in the article) but the series as a whole defiantly only has one name. The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom, was used as the title at the start of every episode and it was also advertised as that, so I don't think there's any confusion about that. --Hibernian 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. "THE TRAP" appears as a single frame caption. There is then a second caption saying WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR DREAM OF FREEDOM. Conversely, "THE LIVING DEAD" appears as a single caption, then below it fades in, "Three Films about the power of the Past". Then we have "THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES" followed by "THE RISE OF THE POLITICS OF FEAR" in a second separate caption. The Trap is unusual in that the secondary title/description has appeared in listings magazines, but based on how they appear on screen, there is ambiguity as to whether it is part of the title proper. Even with The Living Dead, where both elements do appear on screen at the same time, they are still effectively separated by one part being in capitals and the other in sentence case. Going on past examples of Curtis's work - and how it is treated on Wikipedia - we cannot regard "What happened to our dream of freedom" as anything but a secondary or sub-title, and treat it as such. Nick Cooper 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite accept that, but even if you're not willing to put that full title in, then can we at-least get rid of convoluted current title? I mean "The Trap (television documentary series)" has got to be one of the most unnecessarily long article titles on Wikipedia! Can we not just drop that overly descriptive stuff and call it "The Trap (documentary)", or something of that nature? --Hibernian 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, please keep in mind that the article title is hardly the most important part of the article. Unless there is a good reason to change the name, let's just leave it so that we don't end up with a bunch of double redirects. Why should we care what colour the bikeshed is?

That said, if you're trying to find the most fitting name, you might want to consider seeking the official name from the producers before asking for Wikipedians' opinions and speculations. --Swift 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The trap episode1 nash.jpg

Image:The trap episode1 nash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The trap episode2 chagnon.jpg

Image:The trap episode2 chagnon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The trap screenshot.PNG

Image:The trap screenshot.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetrap episode1 laing.jpg

Image:Thetrap episode1 laing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thetrap episode3 isaiah berlin.jpg

Image:Thetrap episode3 isaiah berlin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of first episode - clarification

Understandable confusion has arisen: the Nash game is known as So Long Sucker or Fuck Your Buddy, but for whatever reason the BBC chose Fuck You Buddy as the title of the episode. There have been repeated attempts to harmonise these on Wikipedia, either by changing the name of the game or, more recently, by changing the name of the episode. It might seem more elegant to make such changes, but the historical reality shows this small, but I feel significant, difference. Testbed (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'so called reign of terror'

I'm taking out the 'so called', because its the tantamount to saying - the so called second world war, or the so called Glorious Revolution. It might be best to keep this unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the term "so called" has purely negative connotations, which it does not automatically. It depends on the context. One could say, "This was the work of Theodore Kaczynski, the so called 'Unabomber'..." as a synonym of "(also) known as..." Nick Cooper (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Marc Summers credit?

Marc Summers was shown (along with his name) in a video used in episode two. Should he be among those credited? Orville Eastland (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"POV" in the episode summaries

A couple of weeks ago User:Larklight edited some of the episode summaries citing NPOV issues, but to me it seems that the POV is an accurate reflection of the POV in the documentary itself, ie, the summaries were a neutral description of the contents of the documentary, and any POV should be in the article for the summaries to be correct. As such I reinstated the summaries as they were previously. In the interest of making the article less POV'ed it would be good to add more on the reception of the documentary (as touched upon above, as the article is rather heavy on the summary of the contents itself right now. Siawase (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible issue with Featured Music

This section seems to be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it lists music that, while in the programme, is not the focus of it.Autarch (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning Labels for Episode Summaries

Curtis often greatly misunderstands the ideas he claims to explore. I hate reading the summaries because many sentences merely restate Curtis' claims. I understand it would be awkward to reword it so that every sentence is as skeptical as I'd like it to be. As an alternative, I believe we need section headings which remind the reader that this section is not neutral or fact-checked like other parts of wikipedia. What have other articles summarizing questionable sources done? --RedHouse18 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

I think you're wrong. The purpose of the summaries is to describe what the episodes say, not to confirm or refute them. To do so would clearly be original research. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

First Episode title: F*** You Buddy vs F*** Your Buddy

As I first posted here in 2008, understandable confusion has arisen: the Nash game is known as So Long Sucker or Fuck Your Buddy, but for whatever reason the BBC chose Fuck You Buddy as the title of the episode. There have been repeated attempts to harmonise these on Wikipedia, either by changing the name of the game or, more recently, by changing the name of the episode. It might seem more elegant to make such changes, but the historical reality shows this small, but I feel significant, difference.

The title of the episode is (correctly) F*** You Buddy but when describing the game itself, the correct name is (see So Long Sucker for the reference) F*** Your Buddy. I have therefore changed this back in the body of the article. Testbed (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Contributor/ Featured

The sections labelled 'contributors' are mis-titled in my opinion. For example, using a clip of Richard Dawkins in 1987 does not mean Dawkins has contributed in an active way. I proposed that the sections be retitled 'Featured', as this does not imply active participation. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Trap (television documentary series" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Trap (television documentary series and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#The Trap (television documentary series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)