Talk:The Unknown Known

Commentary vs movie text
From the final scene of the movie:
 * Rumsfeld: February 4, 2004. Subject: What you know. There are knowns knowns. There are known unknowns. There are unknown unknowns. But there are also unknown knowns. That is to say, "things that you think you know that it turns out you did not." If you take those words and try to connect them in each way that is possible...There was at least one more combination that wasn't there: The unknown knowns. Things that you possibly may know that you don't know you know.
 * Morris: But the memo doesn't say that. It says we know less, not more, than we think we do.
 * Rumsfeld: Is that right? I reversed it? Put it up again. Let me see. "There are also unknown knowns. That is to say, things that you think you know that it turns out you did not." Yeah, I think that memo is backwards. I think that it's closer to what I said here than that.

And about snowflakes, from the first scene of the movie:
 * Rumsfeld: I wonder if in the future public figures will write as many memos as I did. I doubt it. I must have gotten in the habit of dictating things that were important. Not a diary. Not a journal. They're almost all working documents. Now, they've become historical documents in retrospect, but at the time, they all had a purpose. In the later years of my using the dictaphone, why, they were called snowflakes, because they were on white paper.
 * Morris: What would you say the total number of memos might be?
 * Rumsfeld: They said I dictated 20,000 just in the last six years at the Pentagon. There have to be millions.

This is direct text from the movie that is reflected in the synopsis, not commentary. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "snowflakes" - that is just meaningless drivel that no one cares about and clutters up the the page with cruft.
 * The film and the director are not reliable sources for analysis about how the film "captured" Rummy in inconsistencies. That needs third party reliable source analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. No. The point of the synopsis is to summarize the film. It is your opinion that the term 'snowflakes' is "cruft", but not the opinion of Donald Rumsfeld, the opinion of whom, as the subject of the documentary, it is the purpose of the synopsis to reflect.
 * 2. Regarding your second point, no, incorrect. The inconsistency of definition was acknowledged by Rumsfeld himself, who is the subject of the documentary. The point of the synopsis is to summarize the documentary, which is an interview of Donald Rumsfeld and his responses. That is what the synopsis contains, nothing more or less. Your deletions there, too, are editorializing in intent, and non-encyclopedic.
 * 3. Regarding your third point about the memo count, no, incorrect a third time. You are introducing your opinion that he is speaking in hyperbole. We need a reliable third party source that endorses your point. Otherwise your revision for this, too, is incorrect.
 * If you cannot provide a reasonable response, I will reintroduce the original version of the article. Also, you need to be better about your grammar when you make edits. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and expanded the article significantly, with references, including the statements under debate. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, We dont care that rummy has a cutesy name for what everyone else calls "memos". We use plain English language. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. In addition to being used by Rumsfeld, snowflakes are a central motif of the film, as referenced. Further, it is not a nickname that originated from Rumsfeld himself - though it is one he uses - but one used throughout references to his memos across multiple sources, some of which I cited. Your not caring about the facts/consensus, or referring to the nomenclature as "cruft" or "meaningless drivel" is neither relevant nor accurate in this situation. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

removing opinion and replacing with direct quotes from the film
I do not think the following is true: "At the beginning of the documentary, Rumsfeld argues that a major purpose of the Department of Defense is to evaluate "unknown knowns," or "the things you think you know, that it turns out you did not," to anticipate hostile actions before they take place." If you think this is what happens at the beginning of the documentary, please state at exactly what time in the film do you see this happening. I do not see it. Rumsfeld never states what he thinks "a major purpose of the Department of Defense" is. What actually happens at the beginning of the film is that Rumsfeld reads out the memo "What You Know". This same memo is again discussed at the end of the film. But I think it is better to group that discussion all together at the same place in the wikipedia entry. I have not added anything that is not directly from the film. Direct quotes are put in quotes. I did not give any opinions of what I think Rumsfeld's argument is. I merely stated what he said, very accurately. This is what I suggest should be written instead of the above: "At the beginning of the documentary, Rumsfeld reads out a memo he wrote on 4 February 2004 on the subject of "What You Know". The memo reads, "There are known knowns, There are known unknowns, There are unknown unknowns. But there are also unknown knowns. That is to say, things that you think you know, that it turns out you did not." In the penultimate scene, Morris questions him again about "unknown knowns," and Rumsfeld gives a different definition, which he then agrees is reversed, but better: "unknown knowns" are "things that you possibly may know, that you don't know you know."[2][4]" Khaydock (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw the film years ago and I don't have it in front of me. I get your point. Please give me a few days (grad school is kinda busy) and I'll try to give you a good response to this. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Though delayed, I would like to address the above discussion. I took time to carefully rewatch the documentary to make sure I understood your comments. Regarding your first point, the point in the documentary at which he describes his approach to intelligence operations, and what the director describes as his obsession with Iraq, is at the 6:36 mark of the film during his senate confirmation hearing as Secretary of Defense (originally given on January 11, 2001). Regarding the second point, the description of the penultimate scene of the film was reflected in the reference provided. As it is a chronological synopsis, I prefer it as was, and certainly do not agree with its removal altogether as you did in your edits. Rumsfeld's intricate use of semantics to justify morally ambiguous decisions is the punchline and point of the entire documentary. This is reflected in numerous critical reviews of the film, some of which I have included. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

New paragraph which is of significant historical importance
I think one of the most important parts of the documentary, which should be mentioned in the wikipage is the following: "The documentary includes several quotes of Rumsfeld in press conferences, notably one from 4 February 2003 in which a reporter asked him to respond directly to what Saddam Hussein said that day (which was, "There is only one truth. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever. ... I would like to say directly that we have no relation with Al Qaeda.") Rumsfeld replied, "How does one respond to that? It’s just a - a continuous pattern. This is a case of - of the local liar coming up again and people are repeating what he said and people forgetting that he never - almost never - rarely - tells the truth." However, it was not clear whether he was referring to Saddam or himself. Also, in a 2002 press conference on the War in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said, “You know, some things are neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so I suppose.”

These direct quotes from the film illustrate the main points made in the documentary very accurately, without stating any opinion about them. Please give reasons as to why this paragraph should not be included.Khaydock (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first point, I would go against its inclusion because as it stands the synopsis addresses Rumsfeld's reasoning for acting in Iraq based on his own imagination. Overquoting in this context gives the point undue weight, especially as I cannot find a reliable third party source that dwells on this specific quote. The second component of your suggestion is not unreasonable, though I am having difficulty finding where it is included in the documentary. If you could give a third party source/time stamp, it would be helpful. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)