Talk:Gareth Porter

message: It is untrue that Porter has never been challenged in his Hue massacre myth assertions, see here:
http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/072/0720213019B.pdf
Who wrote this entry, Porter himself?  Completely POV and glowing.
:I agree. I will add your link and some relevant facts. HPlace 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hue massacre

message: I was working on 2008 US-Iranian naval dispute. and I found the article  
I found out that Gareth Porter made a completely false statement: 
:The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the 5th Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on Jan. 7.
Here is the actual transcript:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4116
Kevin Cosgriff never says this.
I want to email the author of this story, but I can't find an email on the net. If anyone knows this author's email, please message me on my talk page. Trav (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious reporting

message: :The above comment is terribly inappropriate, potentially libelous, and should probably be removed as per WP:BLP. -Darouet (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and done, per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:BLP, which requires solid sources when making such assertions against living people -- even on Talk pages.  The editor is encouraged to provide substantiating references. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  heres the article Porter wrote - , and here's a guardian article on the subject  - why is it 'inappropriate' to comment as the ip did, darouet?   Sayerslle (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? For the very reasons outlined in the WP:BLP policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Regarding the two sources you just linked, they look fine. Neither support the contentious comments made by the IP editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: how is porter writing 'Instead, it points to the distinct possibility that the Israelis planned a carefully limited bomb attack that was not intended to cause serious injury to Israeli diplomatic personnel, but that would advance the larger Israeli narrative on the need to punish Iran.' - how is that not doing, what the ip said he was doing - - putting forward an Israeli  'false flag' theory? - Sayerslle (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where anyone disagrees (or has disagreed) that the text you quoted advances a false-flag theory.  That was never the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: well that was most of what the ip said - that porter says it was an israeli false flag - (bit like he is on ghouta too? - its all false flags?) -and you censored his remarks - the ip made interesting remarks imo and god knows why you censored the comments - porter has Press TV amongst many other outlets to make his opinions heard , but you censor an ip on a wp talk page? bit touchy.  Sayerslle (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Wikipedia can indeed be "a bit touchy". Hard for some editors to get used to, I suppose.  You'll note that there has been no "censoring" of your quotations from Porter's article, nor your characterization of it as a "false-flag theory", for which you have even provided links. There is nothing wrong with valid criticisms, and discussion of same.  But the soap-boxing, name-calling and personal opinions by an anonymous IP are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: and theres IAR. its just a comment on a talk page. and not without merit. he made a point. live and let live, regards to you too. Sayerslle (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "just a comment" when it comes to Biographies of Living Persons on Wikipedia.  In fact, Wikipedia is so hard-nosed about this, you won't find any support for citing WP:IAR as justification for ignoring WP:BLP with regard to unsourced, contentious comments. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The amount of criticism of Porter from his political enemies and marginal sources makes this page biased to a degree well past Wikipedia standards. Porter is an award winning journalist with a book from the University of California Press. This page needs to have serious surgery. Should we start with a call for outside comments?Chip.berlet (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias on this page needs to be discussed

message: Can we describe him with these words without secondary sources for them? He has written books about the recent past, but does that make him a "historian", for example? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Gareth Porter is a historian, investigative journalist, author, and policy analyst specializing in U.S. national security policy. Gareth Porter, an independent investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national-security policy, received the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism for his coverage of the US war in Afghanistan. Gareth Porter is an independent scholar on issues of war and peace and an historian of the Vietnam conflict. Cmon, Porter is unquestionable an historian of the Vietnam War. This push to wipe away all of somebody's record because of a distaste for their stances on current conflict or where they choose to publish is getting ridiculous. nableezy - 18:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Good to add sources then. Which of those are secondary? Or is this legitimate ABOUTSELF territory? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think this is aboutself at all, the blurb from the publisher or from The Nation isnt written by Porter or published by him. nableezy - 15:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  historian, investigative journalist, author and policy analyst