Talk:Peter Arnett

message: It seems to me that Operation Tailwind is underemphasized in this article, considering the pivotal effect it had on his career. -Joseph 17:07, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
:Indeed it is.  It also minimizes the fact that the report was completely false, and seems to spin it to April Oliver's POV. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Tailwind 

message: The article as it stands is very strong POV, The "The Baby Milk Factory Controversy" and other criticisms constitutes 80 to 90% of the article. That is certainly not WP:NPOV. I'll try to find a good tag that describes the situation. -- Egil 19:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: many articles are overboard on the criticism section. I did the best that I could to sumarize, what was at the time, a pretty big deal. TDC 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong POV 

message: This is about tag cleanup.  As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed.  This is not a judgement of content.  If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made.  This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag Cleanup 

message: Does anyone have a source for the exact phrasing of this quote? In Vietnam War (as well as Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War) it's written "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it", and in this article it's written "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Not by itself a very important point, but it highlight the lack of good references and looks rather unprofessional if one (as I did) read the articles one after the other. MMad 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it” " - that's original phrase, and it's not Arnett fabrication. See here about the story behind it. 195.248.189.182 07:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Destroy the village in order to save it" quote 

message: Article incorrectly states that "In March 1997, Arnett was able to interview Osama bin Laden, as the first Western journalist to do so." The British Journalist Robert Fisk interviewed him in 1993, so clearly Arnett was not the first. He might have been the first do so on TV (Fisk is a newspaperman). I will delete "as the first Western journalist to do so." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk#9.2F11.2C_Osama_bin_Laden.2C_and_the_war_in_Afghanistan 
Jalipa84.153.71.250 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama Bin Ladin Interview 

message: I can't believe Peter's girlfriend's name is in his infobox!  First, is this notable?  Second is it referenced? ThreeE 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girlfriend 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Arnett. 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/20091207161036/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/12/05/gen.arnett.cnna/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/12/05/gen.arnett.cnna/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413051748/http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/sully-455-ambassador-ellsworth-bunker-arrival-in-saigon-top-u-s-officials-barry-zorthian-jack-steward-porter-c to http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/sully-455-ambassador-ellsworth-bunker-arrival-in-saigon-top-u-s-officials-barry-zorthian-jack-steward-porter-c
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) 04:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed that category. His career has had its share of controversy, especially Operation Tailwind, for which he was reprimanded but not fired. This category is for people whose entire lives have been defined  and overshadowed by major scandal, who are synonymous with scandal, like Stephen Glass and Sabrina Erdely. Note that the lead to this article, correctly, makes no reference to any scandals.  Please don't revert this further, as per WP:BLP that category is contentious and there should be a clear consensus if it is to be in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Coretheapple Where does it say that the "category is for people whose entire lives have been defined and overshadowed by major scandal, who are synonymous with scandal"? Tailwind was a big scandal and Arnett resigned as result of it, while others were fired. Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What tells us is our eyes by looking at the pages in the category. WP:BLPCAT requires us to exercise caution when using categories for living people when the category imputes a poor reputation.  It's a requirement. It's not a suggestion.Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The category issue is a symptom of an even greater disease afflicting this article, which is material not consistent with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, which is particularly problematic in the Tailwind section. World Socialist Website as a source for an inaccurate statement that he was fired? Uh, no. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "our eyes looking at the pages in the category" is a poor justification as anyone can decide to add the category or arbitrarily remove it as you have done. I am asking you where is the policy that the category only applies to "people whose entire lives have been defined and overshadowed by major scandal, who are synonymous with scandal"? I am well aware of WP:BLPCAT, but no-one would deny that Tailwind was a journalistic scandal.Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Tailwood was a journalism scandal but this is the article on Arnett, not Tailwood. You may feel that Arnett's name is synonymous with scandal and that he was generally stinko just as, say Glass is due to serial plagiarism, but there's no basis for that whatsoever in the reliable sources. Indeed, he was not even fired because of Taiwind. It was a factor in his resignation, and that is in the article, reliably sourced to Variety. Until I removed it, this article falsely stated, footnoted ridiculously to the "World Socialist" website, that he was fired from CNN when that was not so. To me the category is clear, and there doesn't have to be a category description, one just has to look at the pages in the category to make it quite obvious that this category is for far worse persons than Arnett. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you. Tailwind was a journalistic scandal in which Arnett was intimately involved and therefore the category applies, it didn't define his career but it certainly affected it, just like the Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations affected Lauer's. You have asserted without any basis in policy that the "category is for people whose entire lives have been defined and overshadowed by major scandal, who are synonymous with scandal." I don't believe that the category is intended to be anywhere near so restrictive; based on the category there have only been 26 journalistic scandals in world history, which is clearly ridiculous. I have not commented on the "World Socialist" website because it is completely irrelevant to the issue that we are discussing here.Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "Journalism Scandals" category

message: * No per WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATV.  Peter Arnett is not a scandal, nor was his long and generally distinguished career defined or dominated by scandal such as to put him in that category. In the preceding section discussing this category there are references to Operation Tailwind. To even call his involvement in the CNN coverage of that as a "journalism scandal" on the par of a Jayson Blair is absurd.  Arnett narrated a CNN report written by others. The way this is being bandied about you'd think that he made up the whole thing. Come on. This is a BLP, and WP:BLPCAT requires us to exercise caution when using categories for living people when the category imputes a poor reputation.  Please note also   WP:CATV: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article." Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: IMDb is not an RS per Wiki MOS - use only as External link.Parkwells (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing