Talk:Jeremy Scahill

Untitled

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)

The discussion page on wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is used to discuss the formation of the article. I think Scahill is a fucking good journalist who helped lift the lid on the state of the private military industry in the united states. But that is not relevant to this page. Racooon (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth and college education?

Anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.9.98 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No one even knows if Scahill is a pseudonym or not. Nothing about this person can be verified beyond what he and his associates provide. No background. No education. Nothing. His sources are always 'anonymous' and it has been suggested that many are linked to terrorist organizations. Much more research needs to be done on 'Jeremy Scahill.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.83.190 (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Investigative reporters often rely heavily on anonymous sources, as it is often the only way to get sources to divulge certain information. To suggest terrorism connections is a logical absurdity, as being an iconoclastic investigative reporter who does, because of his job, interview terrorists, in no way makes him associated with a terrorist organization. I'm fairly certain Scahill isn't a pseudonym, mainly because that's what his former professor refers to him by. This MATC (Madison Area Technical College, Madison College for short) professor has been held by Scahill as the most influential in his educational career pushing him in his critical thinking and analytical skills. I've had multiple classes with this professor, who has spoken of her former student (Jeremy Scahill) on occasion when it relates to the class lecture or discussion. The only information linking Scahill to MATC is the link provided below, which shows him giving a lecture at his former college (which should be noted isn't a big or noteworthy school and isn't often to land guest lecturers of much stature, and wouldn't likely be selected by a guest lecturer to speak at unless they had some prior ties to the school).

http://lists.madpeace.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/2003-October/006235.html

I can say with confidence he was my MATC professor's student as my professor and Jeremy Scahill are listed as friends on Facebook (I verified the authenticity of both Facebook accounts) and keep in touch. However, I won't link to this professor's (Facebook) profile, nor mention their name out of respect for the wishes of the professor to remain unsearchable online out of privacy concerns (and been remarkably successful at it). That said, with the information I've already provided it would not be difficult for a competent individual to discover the professor's name and confirm what I've said.

I'm also fairly sure I remember my professor saying after graduating MATC he went on to graduate from the University of Wisconsin - Madison (but I'm not 100% positive, though it would make sense being both colleges are in the same city and that most MATC alumni go on to UW-Madison).

--Curtissthompson (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

" ... 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)

Sjrandall (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy graduated from Wauwatosa East High School, class of 1992. He subsequently attended UW-Madison for at least 1 semester. I'm not sure where else he went to school after that. He was in my brother's high school class, and I also knew his younger brother, Tim. His name is definitely not a pseudonym. See this link for an interview with his Dad that confirms this info: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84768. Also see http://www.blackwaterblogger.com/2007/09/katrina4.html and http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/seenontmj4/45604632.html to confirm these facts. Where on the page do we want to put this information?

Educational Background

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)

I want to preface by saying i knew nothing about scahill before today-i heard him as a guest on NPRs ...Talk of the Nation i think(coulda been another program) just this morning and his insight into foreign relations and global politics impressed me. I was happy to find this page about him and the things a previous poster states about his education seem to fit with what Scahill himself said on the air today..I believe he said originally from milwaukee so wauwautosa HS and MATC/UW-Madison make sense. Dwalterh (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Dwalterh

PS-although UW-Madison and even to an extent MATC are considered very liberal schools, the instructors are amazing (especially at MATC, where the profs really love to teach) and the curriculum is no joke. i took some gen eds for ADN there and my sister is a UW-Madison alum-i guess i just wanted to say this guy probably has a pretty solid educational base, not to mention the knowledge he's acquired in field research.Dwalterh (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Dwalterh

consolidate??

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)

Confusing edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's a rule that says we're not allowed to do that?Gobbleygook (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.smileguy91^talk 23:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction: "Dirty Wars" publication and (film) premiere dates

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)

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)