Talk:Jamil Hussein controversy

message: Folks, please remember that this is a tricky issue, with claims and counter-claims buzzing around the ol' tubes. Moreover, the warning on all Wikipedia edit pages that:
:[i]f you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
applies especially strongly to this page. Anything we write, here or in the article, could well be completely out of date a week later. So let's try not to get too het up about the various debates that go on here ... easier said than done, but worth trying anyhow. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to editors

message: Where did the phrase 'Jamilgate' arise? It sounds rather loaded and perhaps the article should be renamed, especially as it is still not clear that the allegations are accurate. --Lollerkeet 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article appeared to have been at Jamil Hussein earlier, and perhaps it still belongs there, as most of the scandal still centers around the existence and veracity of "Jamil Hussein". But moving it would probably start an edit war, so I'm not going to bother. Argyriou (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Jamilgate sounds POV. No citations on it's use - fails WP:OR? Let's move it back for now. Ronnotel 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: looks fine. Ronnotel 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2006

message: In her article she stated she visited only two mosques of the six.  In her article she showed video of a substantially destroyed mosque that she first claimed was still standing and then claimed had been abandoned earlier.  In her article she then repeated the reports of the military saying that the other mosques were still standing, but she never visited those other mosques.
If this "affair" is controversial and discusses whether the AP made a mistake or was deliberately misleading then it is very relevant to point out Malkin's mistakes and misleading statements, esp., since Malkin is one of the proponents of the theory that the AP cannot be trusted.
It is extremely POV for that information to be removed from this article.
I reverted the information back, please do not edit it out.
71.39.78.68 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michelle Malkin wrote an article

message: :If you feel that the article is one sided, then you should feel free to either add information in support of Jamil Hussein or the AP to the article, or at least submit the info for approval on this page.  But having skimmed the articles you linked, they don't seem have any information in them, they're simply virulent attacks on the "right wing blogosphere".  This isn't a debate on whether their accusations are accurate or not, it's mainly about the credibility of the Associated Press on this particular issue.  Even if Jamil Hussein is proven to exist, it was proven that his reported executions by immolation and the destruction of the mosques did not happen.  And it does not answer the question as to why he was used as a witness for so many incidents spread over such a huge area.
:Until the left-wing blogosphere can produce actual evidence in support of Jamil Hussein or the AP's story, they should be left out of the article as irrelevant.McJeff 05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: article is one sided?

message: Blogs are not reliable sources. Please do not use blogs as sources. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but that's asinine.  Is hotair a blog?  hotair's bloggers include Malkin and the other guy that actually went to Iraq.  Is E&P a blog?  It sure looks like a blog.  Why is E&P not a blog, Hotair maybe not a blog, and SadlyNo a blog?  Is Paul Krugman's blog reliable?  Is Brad DeLong's blog reliable?  Are blogs run by tenured professor's reliable?  Is Robert Reich's blog reliable?  What makes one blog reliable and other blogs unreliable?  Is WorldNewsDaily reliable?  Is Pravda reliable?  Is Newsmax reliable?  Is FoxNews reliable?  Is townhall reliable?  Is National Review reliable?  Is national review online reliable?  It is faulty reasoning to say "blogs are unreliable" and to say that "traditional newsreporting outlets" are reliable. 71.39.78.68 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines are pretty clear - see WP:RS#Self-published sources. Blogs can sometimes be used per the guidelines, but they're relatively strict. - RJASE1 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a primary sources about the writer themselves they are ok. Mathmo Talk 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an article about "Jamil Hussein controversy," not "Bob Owens." Please also review WP:STALK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs not reliable 

message: Together, that's a significantly damaged mosque with a substantially destroyed dome.
Would you folks please click on the link to Michelle Malkin's OWN PICTURE of the dome that is included in the article?  Describing this dome as "substantially destroyed" is an accurate, NPOV statement.  Pointing out that Malkin then described the mosque as "still standing" is also a factually accurate NPOV statement that goes to the heart of this controversy: Malkin saying the AP cannot be trusted. 71.39.78.68 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Video shows the dome was substantially destroyed, the Article says rooms were firebombed 

message: This is the section that I inserted the self published tag due to. Please reinsert the tag. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self published 

message: Everyone outside the wikipedia agrees that this controversy came about due to three bloggers, Malkin, Flopping Aces, and the Confederate Yankee.  To remove their names from this article is POV, the POV being that bloggers are somehow unreliable, and somehow should not be credited for their contributions.  Claiming at the article then does that there were certain allegations without saying who started those allegations is misleading and bogus.  It is also contra wiki policy.  Including Curt's threats to "out" hussein is using Curt, a primary source, as a primary source.
This article thus becomes yet another wikipedia whitewash.  wikiliality, and truthiness abound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia rules assume that bloggers are less reliable than the MSM (the irony, the irony!), so this debate is not, strictly speaking, a POV issue. Nevertheless, you have a very good point about the ..erm... strangeness of trying not to quote/cite bloggers in an article which is about an event confined largely to the blogosphere. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My view is this is an article about a subject to do with bloggers, and thus naturally bloggers are sources for this article. This does not mean bloggers are to be generally accepted as sources across all of wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Go ahead and revert User:KazakhPol's edits whenever they're stupid, like his claim that you can't cite AP. KP is a known tendentitious POV-warrior, and has an RfC discussing his lack of comprehension of Wikipedia sourcing policies and other policies. Αργυριου (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:KazakhPol]]'s edits 

message: This article is totally confusing. It sets up a straw man and then gets around to saying, oh and by the way, the assumption of this article, that the AP erred is mostly wrong, and that the most famous blogger, Malkin, who made the claim that the AP was wrong, apologized for her errors. This is the worst example of a non-encyclopedic article I have seen on Wikipedia. Can anyone explain the bare bones of why this article exists?
I believe it is a candidate for extinction. Skywriter 22:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 'event' this article covers has some historical significance. It shows the power of bloggers (Estate 4.1?) to monitor media accuracy, how the blogosphere can be manipulated, and thereofre how that power can be misused. (It is also an interesting example of some conservatives trusting military spokespeople above journalists.) This situation will no doubt be played out a thousand times, but this is one of the earliest cases and will no doubt be used as an example for some time to come. For this reason I argue that it be kept. --Lollerkeet 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably exist, but it seems to be presented in a confusing order, and somewhat repetitively -- Malkin's visit to Iraq is mentioned several separate times on the page, etc.  AnonMoos 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this article exist?

message: I really hope that I didn't make too much of a mess of it. I tried to re-focus the entry on the fact that the initial AP reports didn't correlate with the actual damage on the ground, and make the article more "readable". I think that this article should include a few references to "fauxtography" and the use of local stringers to report on events in Iraq. Wasn't that part of the controversy?Nightmote (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Edits 

message: There is still hope for this article. It is more readable after Nightmote's revision.
There are several "dead" links because they go to a subscription only site. I have alternate links to the same articles, and I will substitute them in tomorrow. 
I have additional information to add, and I believe I can do a revision that will tell both sides of this controversy.
(W E Hill (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links Updated

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jamil Hussein controversy. 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/20070217113609/http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006641.htm to http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006641.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified