Talk:Nayirah testimony

message: Check out the cited external link- http://www.visualstatistics.net/East-West/Nurse%20Nayirah/Nurse%20Nayirah.htm much of that is word for word what is on the Wikipedia article.  So which came first?
The extlink seems to have shown up in early 2006  while the Wikipedia article is much older. 67.117.130.181 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from Reference? 

message: I thought the figure H&K was paid to convince the American public that the Kuwaiti emir was worth dying for was $11 million, not $14 million. --csloat 22:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  $14 million? 

message: The new material added in the last few days is just a repeat of what was already in the article- along with some choice POV additions such as: The United State’s real purpose for going to war was to protect our oil supply in Kuwait. The new links added are non-working. The photo is probably copyrighted. I'm therefore reverting to Gamaliel's version. --JJay 04:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Did anyone get prosecuted for these lies?  Last time I looked, there were laws against lying to Congress.
Yes, if she has diplomatic immunity, I can see her getting away with it, but what about Lauri Fitz-Pegado, or Hill & Knowlton?
Septegram 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, fixed that.  We should also include at some point the info that the CHRC was a front organization of Hill + Knowlton, getting free rent in $3k/month offices owned by H+K. csloat (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

message: SF Chronicle Jul 8, 1992. pg. A.1, "Ex-Envoy Faces Charges Over Helping Kuwait / 3 indicted for secret roles in propaganda campaign":
:A former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain in the Reagan administration and two former executives of a conservative journal have been charged with taking $7.7 million from Kuwait in secret payments to push for U.S. intervention in the Persian Gulf war.
Apparently these guys took $7.7 million from the Kuwaiti government but spent only $2 million of it on the Nayirah hoax and pocketed the other $5.7 million.  They were charged with acting as secret agents for Kuwait and with evading taxes. 
It looks like there's also a book about the incident, John R. MacArthur, "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War".  Might be worth looking at.
67.117.130.181 12:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great book; there's a chapter on the incident, but the book is about much more than that. csloat 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecuted but not for lying to Congress

message: The article states:
Home Box Office (HBO) presented Nayirah's story as truth in their 2002 Live From Baghdad. HBO eventually added, after the final credits, that the incubator "allegations were never substantiated."
However, in the movie, the incubator story is presented as an allegation that could potentially be a story.  At the end of the movie along with several other historical notes, they also add that the incubator story is unfounded.  I believe that the above characterization paints the HBO movie unfairly and could be changed to:
The 2002 HBO movie, Live From Baghdad, included several scenes dealing with the incubator allegations, but not presenting that story as truth.  In that movie, several characters try to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the story, not able to draw any conclusions.  After the final credits, a note stated that that the incubator "allegations were never substantiated." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveFS (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've effected this change...  The misleading text was up there for 8 months, however, since this advice was offered here!  DBaba (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HBO reference 

message: I've added mention of Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder to this article, and modified the shredder article to better link here. However, the article here seems misnamed - shouldn't it be 1990 Kuwait incubator story or something similar? Make it a lot easier to find! PRtalk 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pulitzer prize winning journalist John MacArthur interviewed doctors who worked at the hospital.  None of them witnessed any incubator atrocities.  They also told him that she worked there for a couple days at most, as a kind of intern.  The story is not unreliable because she's the daughter of a diplomat; it's unreliable because she's the daughter of a diplomat who spent 11 million dollars on a PR firm to concoct such stories.  But the main evidence contrary to her story is the testimony of witnesses as explained above.  This really should be more clear in the article. csloat (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I added the info; MacArthur promoted the story but he wasn't the one who interviewed the doctors. csloat (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: If you didn't hear about the incubators till after the war, you're either too young or you weren't paying attention.  The story was mentioned by Bush in several speeches -- even alluded to in his speech on the eve of the war -- and it was brought up by at least seven senators in the prewar debate.  MacArthur was the editor of Harper's and if you can't find anything about him on the web, try his Wikipedia page for a start.  And, sure, the fact that the story won a pulitzer bolsters its credibility but that's not the source of it; if you read what I added to the article it's not MacArthur who dug up this info in the first place anyway.  In any case, if you don't have reliable sources backing up your "alternative explanation," it's really not that helpful. csloat (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You're so confused I don't even know where to start.  "Live From Baghdad" is a movie on HBO, not a "state run media," and it's not even being used as a source!  (Beyond that, BBC is a state run media, are you saying that's not a credible source??)  The Pulitzer is irrelevant; actually I don't see that on his page at all so I may have been wrong about that, but if he did win a Pulitzer for this story I would think that would increase rather than decrease his credibility (which seems to be your argument).  I'm not sure why him contributing to a charity would hurt his credibility either?  The reason doctors are "eyewitnesses" is because they actually worked at the hospital in question and they were interviewed and all that could be confirmed is that she worked there one day (or a couple?) and that there never were any babies yanked out of incubators.  There is no "unsubstantiated innuendo" that she wasn't in Kuwait; I am going to have to re-read MacArthur's book to be sure but my understanding is that his claim is that she wasn't at that hospital more than a couple of days and the doctors at that hospital confirmed this never happened.  Finally, MacArthur is not the main source of the story; it is the Independent, which interviewed doctors and even found alternative explanations for where the myth came from -- read the actual article in the Independent and you will have the evidence you are asking for (or just read the part I quoted in this article!).  The fact that she was in Kuwait is irrelevant to whether she witnessed something at a particular hospital. csloat (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's a good article summarizing everything wrong with "Nayirah's" story.  It turns out that the source of the info that she was only at the hospital one day is ... wait for it... Nayirah herself.  Kroll Associates undertook a "voluminous" study of the Hill & Knowlton story after the war and interviewed her and learned that "contrary to her testimony, which she said had been prepared with the help of Hill and Knowlton, she had not been a volunteer at the hospital, but had only stopped by for a few minutes."  Other evidence from the incubator story came from Dr. Ibrahim Bahbahani, a "Kuwaiti surgeon" who turned out to be a dentist, not a surgeon, and who also had no direct knowledge of such incidents.  Another so-called witness cited by Hill and Knowlton outright said they lied about what he had said and that he had said no such thing.  And don't tell me Kroll is Iraqi run media or some such nonsense; they were hired by the Kuwaitis in hopes that they would vindicate Hill & Knowlton.  I'll add this additional evidence to the article eventually, but it's pretty conclusive, as far as I can see. csloat (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm not going to respond to incoherent rambling.  You really lost me after "Baghdad Broadcasting Company." Cheers, csloat (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The verification is in the article.  It doesn't say that "she lied" (although she obviously did, and admitted herself that she did); it accurately states that her statements have come to be regarded as wartime propaganda, and the sources back that up.  I'll add the additional source now. csloat (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You need to back off.  If you have a specific change you'd like to see in the article, let us know what it is, and link to a reliable source backing it up.  Making stuff up about Michael Jackson or about Nayirah's allegedly having been at the hospital longer than a few minutes or about HBO being a "state-run" media is just not helpful to anyone. csloat (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You are criticizing Nurse Nayirah. No, reliable sources are (plenty of them). A distinguishing difference. Dynablaster (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And, to go further, nobody's really criticizing her per se or calling her a liar.  She told the truth when Kroll interviewed her.  She was clearly bullied by Hill & Knowlton, as were other "witnesses," several of whom recanted their testimony.  And even that's not a criticism; for heaven's sake, she was a 15 year old girl being pressured and coached by a PR firm hired by her father; what would you expect her to do?  Anyway our opinions about this can differ, it doesn't matter, as long as we stick to what reliable sources have written on the matter, which is what we are trying to do. csloat (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and adjusted the article to deal with the one point you made that has any legitimacy.  If you knew anything about this situation you would already know that this is a textbook case of propaganda, but I've now cited the textbook in the lede (even though the point is well established throughout the article).  I think we're done now; thank you for your input. csloat (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: You know, we've already addressed your concerns in spades.  It would be best if you quit filling the talk page with incoherent rambling.  It also doesn't look good when you solicit help from banned trolls on this page.  If you have a specific change you think would improve this page, explain it clearly.  But I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. csloat (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not Wikipedia's policies I have trouble understanding; it's your incoherent rambling about them. csloat (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It's a little weird to have someone stalking me for several years and then bringing up material from years ago to try to insult me.  Don't you have anything better to do? csloat (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:DE. csloat (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Do me a favor - stop personally attacking me, and stop deleting well sourced content on the article.  Even your minor changes are bad for readability; e.g. you put the word "testified" in a sentence that already uses the word "testimony" to describe the act.  Just cut it out.  Get a user id and learn the rules around here if you want to edit regularly, but do not try to bully your way through things.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Please leave the page alone; continual behavior like this is likely to get you banned from Wikipedia. Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need name change 

message: Please note that Hill & Knowlton was found to manipulate wikipedia articles as reported here:    . As this edit reveals, the IP 194.242.55.7 is used by Niallcook, according to his page "worldwide director of marketing technology for communications firm Hill & Knowlton".  On top of obscene vandalism, 194.242.55.7 edited an article about Maldivian politics as well as the one about Ahmed Shafeeq Ibrahim Moosa, a Maldivian politician. There may be more accounts that are used to influence articles related to Hill & Knowlton or its customers. Using the wiki-tool of a whois search, one can find that all IPs in the range of 194.242.55.0 - 194.242.55.255 belong to Hill & Knowlton. Knopffabrik (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of wikipedia spin by PR firm [[Hill & Knowlton]] 

message: We've got Nayirah (testimony) and Citizens for a Free Kuwait, both of which are duplicates of each other in terms of scope and content.  It doesn't make much sense to have two articles when a centralized topic would treat both.  I'm open to suggestions that propose solutions to make the lives of our readers easier. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nayirah's testimony is notable enough to warrant its own article. The Citizens for a Free Kuwait was a separate campaign which received its own criticism and should be further expanded. While the Citizens for a Free Kuwait article is currently heavily overlapping this one, they should not be merged, but the CFK article should be expanded. Also, when I originally expanded this article, I planned to move several sections of the article into a separate article regarding the incubator allegations as a whole, but never did.Smallman12q (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's better to keep them separate for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't better for our readers. They are both duplicates of the same topic and same content.  Why do we need two articles and more importantly, which topic is the primary?  This article,  Nayirah (testimony),  appears to be the child article of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, yet it is Nayirah that is treated as the primary.  That doesn't make any sense.  A recommendation is made above to "expand" Citizens for a Free Kuwait, but that would mean duplicating Nayirah (testimony).  Sorry, I'm not following either of you.  If the testimony was generated by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, then we would have only one article.  If Citizens for a Free Kuwait is ancillary to the testimony, then it would be part of this article.  There's no need for two articles on the same subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Keep separate. I think that this article has a great deal of information specific to Nayirah's testimony that would not be relevant to the broader article on the Citizens for a Free Kuwait campaign. To keep that article flowing properly I think that you would want to have a section on the testimony for sure, but with a link over to the main article. There was so much coverage of this specific topic that I think it does warrant its own article. As to which is primary, sometimes a particular event like this is what is most widely recognized rather than the larger concept that it was a part of. I'd also like to commend the obviously thorough work that went into the expansion of this article. —Zujine|talk 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no evidence the article on Citizens for a Free Kuwait can ever be expanded so what is your objection to redirecting it to this article?  That group produced this testimony, and there is nothing more to say about them other than duplicating this content.  Aside from the poorly named title, it is clear that there is consensus that this aricle should be the primary topic.  However, that doesn't address the fundamental problem.  Is there any objection to redirecting the campaign aricle here? If so, what is the basis of this objection? Smallman claims that Citizens for a Free Kuwait was a separate campaign, but the sources don't say that.  The sources say that this testimony was produced by the front group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait.  If Smallman's point is to be considered, then he would have to describe other campaigns produced by that group.  Are there any? Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: If it means centralizing the topic and simplifying access for our readers, I support the merge and redirect.  Your own footnote 38 says the group produced the testimony.  If that's wrong, perhaps the sources in use need to be reevaluated.  I don't find it helpful to further fragment this centralized topic with additional new articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Nayirah (testimony) and Citizens for a Free Kuwait 

message: :Nayirah's testimony is notable enough to warrant its own article. The Citizens for a Free Kuwait was a separate campaign which received its own criticism and should be further expanded. While the Citizens for a Free Kuwait article is currently heavily overlapping this one, they should not be merged, but the CFK article should be expanded. Also, when I originally expanded this article, I planned to move several sections of the article into a separate article regarding the incubator allegations as a whole, but never did.Smallman12q (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's better to keep them separate for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't better for our readers. They are both duplicates of the same topic and same content.  Why do we need two articles and more importantly, which topic is the primary?  This article,  Nayirah (testimony),  appears to be the child article of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, yet it is Nayirah that is treated as the primary.  That doesn't make any sense.  A recommendation is made above to "expand" Citizens for a Free Kuwait, but that would mean duplicating Nayirah (testimony).  Sorry, I'm not following either of you.  If the testimony was generated by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, then we would have only one article.  If Citizens for a Free Kuwait is ancillary to the testimony, then it would be part of this article.  There's no need for two articles on the same subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep separate. I think that this article has a great deal of information specific to Nayirah's testimony that would not be relevant to the broader article on the Citizens for a Free Kuwait campaign. To keep that article flowing properly I think that you would want to have a section on the testimony for sure, but with a link over to the main article. There was so much coverage of this specific topic that I think it does warrant its own article. As to which is primary, sometimes a particular event like this is what is most widely recognized rather than the larger concept that it was a part of. I'd also like to commend the obviously thorough work that went into the expansion of this article. —Zujine|talk 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no evidence the article on Citizens for a Free Kuwait can ever be expanded so what is your objection to redirecting it to this article?  That group produced this testimony, and there is nothing more to say about them other than duplicating this content.  Aside from the poorly named title, it is clear that there is consensus that this aricle should be the primary topic.  However, that doesn't address the fundamental problem.  Is there any objection to redirecting the campaign aricle here? If so, what is the basis of this objection? Smallman claims that Citizens for a Free Kuwait was a separate campaign, but the sources don't say that.  The sources say that this testimony was produced by the front group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait.  If Smallman's point is to be considered, then he would have to describe other campaigns produced by that group.  Are there any? Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: If it means centralizing the topic and simplifying access for our readers, I support the merge and redirect.  Your own footnote 38 says the group produced the testimony.  If that's wrong, perhaps the sources in use need to be reevaluated.  I don't find it helpful to further fragment this centralized topic with additional new articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Rumor has it that the nurse Nayirah was actually played by Arden Wohl. Anything to prove or dismiss this? --197.229.159.18 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arden Wohl 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Nayirah (testimony). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/5/pr.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/5/war.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nayirah testimony. 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/20110429012920/http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429012920/http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html
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) 15:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:
* First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js . 
* On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
*  Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */. 
When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  source review tips