Talk:Jeremy Scahill

message: also, when democracy now was reporting on the time castro basically put dozens of reporters in jail... scahill was completely un-challenging when he and goodman called cuban officials on the telephone for an interview. 
he completely ignored questions of freedom of speech and human rights, and did not challenge the cuban officials on these questions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.207.73.128 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anybody know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.9.98 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: " ... His sources are always 'anonymous' and it has been suggested that many are linked to terrorist organizations. ... "  76.9.83.190, it has been suggested by whom?  Are you channeling Glenn "I'm just askin' questions" Beck or just trying to slander Scahill here or both?  Do you have any contributions to offer... at all? Cowicide (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth and college education? 

message: Would be a bit helpful if there was a section relating to Mr. Scahill's educational background.  Just a thought!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.97.37 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational Background 

message: Is there anyway to merge together th book and film sections because one of them has almost no detail in it and they are more or less about the same thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicb (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  consolidate?? 

message: I'm not getting this revert to my contribs; aside from the rude suggestion that it wasn't an improvement can the user care to elaborate on why it isn't an improvement? And while he/she is at it, perhaps the user could list what Wikipedia rules the contributions contravened.Gobbleygook (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  Your edits did not improve this article.  Your edits injected partisan, off-topic sources into this topic.  Further, your account appears to have been created solely for this purpose. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits aren't "partisan" as it isn't making a claim about the Jeremy Scahill  (it is only highlighting the political affiliation of the places Scahill works for) nor is it off-topic, as the information cited bears directly on the topic. And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. Moreover, even if you think this is a case of tendentious editing, that in itself is not sufficient grounds for removal. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future.Gobbleygook (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your entire editing approach is partisan.  Further, the problem with your edits was explained on your talk page, which you then deleted and reverted, claiming that there was no explanation.  That's dishonest.  Please don't do this again.  Your edits are not an improvement to this article.  Your changes to the lead worsened the BLP and we don't label people and things as "left-wing" and "progressive" unless we have good reason.  Please justify your edits. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

text: It improves the article because leaving out the political affiliation of the companies Scahill works for violates NPOV and probably UNDUE by implying that they are non-partisan/independent when they aren't. And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but no.  The political affiliations are only relevant to our topic when they are the subject of discussion.  We don't color the perception of our sources for the reader. I'm sorry, but your edits were not an improvement. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a rule that says we're not allowed to do that?Gobbleygook (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find me a reliable source that talks about Schaill's politics in a significant, encyclopedic manner.  Passing mention in AlterNet isn't going to work. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are kidding right? Alternet is a reliable source and discusses Scahill's politics in a significant manner. Gobbleygook (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: AlterNet is not a reputable source for making claims about BLP's and the source you cited does not support the material.  This seems to be a common pattern with your edits.  You Google mine for keywords based on your opinion rather than writing articles and forming an opinion based on the sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: About your claim that Alternet is not a reputable source for making claims about BLP's, are you sure? Or is this something you made up? "the source you cited does not support the material." My edit writes that his politics is progressive while the source itself says that he is a "progressive author" so where is the discrepancy?Gobbleygook (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be unable to understand the discussion, as you have not responded to any of the points raised.  To receap, we don't create sections composed of nine words to highlight a BLP's "politics" based on material found in a subheading of a title of a less than reliable source.  Please stop Google mining for keywords to support your POV and try to do some research on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You first asked me to find a reliable source that talks about Schaill's politics in a significant, encyclopedic manner and I did that by citing you Alternet which would easily pass Wikipedia's reliability test, esp. as it has editorial oversight for its publications. What are you even arguing about?Gobbleygook (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of that source is not reliable and don't misuse titles don't you understand?  That's not an acceptable source for a BLP.  Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how Alternet is an unreliable source and how the way it was cited misuses it; as you are making that accusation you need to prove why that is the case. Gobbleygook (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have the burden backwards.  You need to show how Alternet is a reliable source and how the source was cited accurately.  It's not acceptable for a BLP article and you didn't cite the source, you cited the headline.  That's not how we use sources.  You can keep playing the "I'm confused" and "I don't understand" game as long as you want, but I'm not buying it. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOURCE is always a good guide to refer to when trying to make discretion between reliable and unreliable sources. Gobbleygook, I highly recommend that you read WP:SOURCE, and own up to your edits, as all good Wikipedia editors should, and please respond to the points raised in this discussion. Lastly, please keep Wikipedia neutral as per WP:POV.smileguy91talk 23:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jeremy Scahill. 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/20130511032510/http://www.sundance.org/festival/release/2013-sundance-film-festival-announces-films-in-u.s.-and-world-competitions-/ to http://www.sundance.org/festival/release/2013-sundance-film-festival-announces-films-in-u.s.-and-world-competitions-/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927104541/http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t9708.html to http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t9708.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) 12:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The date given for the book is April 23, 2013, but the date given for the film, which is stated to have been made later, is January 18, 2013.  ZFT (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the doco and book were produced around the same time. The doc premiered in Jan 2013 and released in cinemas in June 2013. The book was released between these two dates in January 2013. So I have amended the text to remove the implication that the doco depended on the book. Burrobert (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: "Dirty Wars" publication and (film) premiere dates