Talk:Lara Logan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Appearance

"Ms. Logan said that she never could have reached the upper echelons of American broadcast journalism if she didn't have tenacity, fearlessness and compassion." Yes, yes, I agree. However, Ms. Logan is also extremely attractive and numerous scientific studies have concluded that physically attractive people do better in the working world; higher pay, faster advancement, the entire gamut of positives comes quicker and to a greater extent to those more attractive than average. Add in her sultry sensuous voice that, to Americans, has a "sexy lilt" due to the South African accent, and Ms Logan will likely do quite well in the broadcast industry.Ms Logan also has the rare ability to make every man feel that she is eager to spend time with them. She has the even rarer ability to transmit this through the television screen.

She's hot. --Gbleem 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Whilst a lot of it is true it deliberately denigrates the heroic work she's doing and continues to do. And oh - you forgot the fact she's a fantastically convincing speaker. Were Lara Logan be able to run for high political office - I think many people would welcome it. Hopefully we shall see something along those lines. She's one of the great people of the world. That she's sexy and her voice sounds attractive to uncouth yanks makes it better but it should not and cannot overshadow the work she is doing and who she is.

Speaking of which: Lara won a 'woman of the year award' in 2007 and it was given to her by a senior correspondent at CBS who literally could not stop showering accolades on her. Check the following link. Thank you. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.102.102 (talk • contribs) 12:49, June 20, 2008

Please keep the tone civil. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Logan? POV

One or more anons keep adding an edit that serves to make Logan appear vain or self-centered. The edit in question involves an incident where Logan was embedded with troops and they came under attack. She apparently held a video camera and filmed herself talking during the attack/battle. The anons wish to present this as a selfish/vain act and keep trying to say that she "made herself the center of the story." I think this is a strong POV and doesn't belong in the article. One can imagine that Logan, like any television personality, probably suffers from some degree of vanity, but as we cannot know her thoughts and motives while filming herself during that attack, a loaded accusation that she wanted to make herself "the center of the story" is inappropriate and has no place in this article. Thoughts? --AStanhope 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After watching the recently broadcasted interview with Colbert, I can say that she appears to have a particularly bad case of vanity. I actually think it is owed to the article, but no one in the professional fields has made a big deal out of it. Probably because she might be dispositioned to do very off the wall things in order to fight back. Her insistence on fighting Colbert's jokes, who is obviously a good spirited fake caricature, shows that she has major issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.32 (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To anon: Note that this isn't a forum for discussing your personal impressions about Logan. Please restrict discussion to how we can improve the article. Thanks! 19:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is POV and it should be removed from the article. --Thorwald (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the article. And getting protective/defensive at Colbert's jokes isn't "POV"... it actually happened. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.145 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Twas removed years ago. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fansite

Someone keeps removing the external link to the fan site LaraLoganFansite.com which is dedicated to Ms. Logan, who has become a highly respected journalist for her bravery and commitment to getting and telling the whole story even under difficult circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraLoganFansite.com (talk • contribs) 10:54, September 5, 2006

Commercial laden fan sites, particularly those purporting to be "official", are discouraged. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Entered Afghanistan through Russia?

How? The two countries do not share a common border.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.68.69 (talk • contribs) 10:09, June 19, 2007

Right! Explanation anyone?? Travelling over land from southern Russia to Afghanistan would require going through several other countries, whatever the route might be. --86.52.89.246 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that unsourced and nonsensical statement. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Swimsuit Model

Apparently Lara Logan, in addition to being a journalist, was a swimsuit model.

http://tabloidbaby.blogspot.com/2008/01/found-34d-lara-logan-swimsuit-photos_07.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702337.html

The article should be editted to reflect the fact that Logan was also a swimsuit model.

72.82.216.83 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The first reference isn't a reliable source by any definition. The second states that she was a part-time swimsuit model as a student. Why do you think that student jobs are notable? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Google "34D Lara". Her swimsuit past is notable because the mainstream media reports on her *always* mention it. A pervert can even find the photos online, I hear. What's notable here is not so much that she was a model, but that she is known for being a journalist who is also a former model.Verklempt (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. My concern is that this article's biographical detail is very sketchy. No mention of her producing work with Reuters, journalism jobs in South Africa, her work in covering the Saddam trial, anti-apartheid, etc. that to add in such a minor detail (she also worked as an au pair and a hostess) just because the tabloid-style press has made such a sensational matter of it doesn't seem to be a sufficient requirement for inclusion here. I guess if the bio was more fleshed out then it would be a good idea to detail some of her early jobs as background. As a sentence out of so few, though, I believe it gives undue weight to a piece of trivia. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 06:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I am here is because of those nice DDs. Its a contributing factor to her fame, and needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.88.132 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture added

Last night, I added a picture that appeared in the New York Post, but that was clearly marked as an Army work (this was cropped out, but is visible in the source link). This doesn't violate the Living Persons photo restriction, as it is an Army work, and thus public domain. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is she trying to give the shocker? Ha! I love this woman. Ichormosquito (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice: BLPN link

General notice that this biography is being discussed at the BLPN noticeboard. Please refer to the discussion there before adding poorly sourced negative information. Make sure that all edits to this article are in line with current policies as spelled out in Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. Re-adding negative material removed under BLP (without consensus to do so) may result in a block being placed on your account. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, better not to discuss poorly sourced negative information. :)

When we get well sourced negative information, then we'll discuss that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. At the current time all 3 sources for the contentious material that I've seen either aren't RS or are barely RS. We need far better sources before it's even worth discussing Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some better sources are coming in now although per my comment at BLP/N as it stands it seems any mention should be brief Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

One better so far, The Times of South Africa. WP:WELLKNOWN requires multiple WP:RSs. National Enquirer is not a RS nor is the New York Post sufficiently reliable for such a controversial topic. Mention of the steamy details of a relationship sourced primarily from notoriously unreliable divorce proceedings and tabloid newspapers even if "true" are irrelevant in the biography of a war correspondent/news reporter. Joe Burkett, the man in question, lacks notability to mention by name. So, while it may be helpful to add "Logan has been involved with a State Department contractor", to add the other sketchy lurid details serve only to disparage Logan which has no business in a BLP. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of future husband

I recommend that we exclude the name of her non-notable future husband's name. From WP:BLP:

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals... adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His name has already been widely published in the news media. Thus there really is no privacy to preserve here. Furthermore, marriages are in the public record already anyway, and few people are ashamed of being married to their spouse. I don't see any reason to leave his name out.Verklempt (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it is widely published, the issue is a) he is not notable, b) his name adds no value to the article and, most importantly, c) the policy of biographies of living persons, as quoted above, maintains that we err on the side of privacy when deciding whether to include the name of a private (vs. publicly known) individual. How does this policy not apply here? Again, the issue isn't whether an interested party (who exactly is interested?) could go to the courthouse and dig this up; court records are not useful as a reliable source, regardless. Privacy and relevancy is the issue here, not shame. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 05:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If his name and his marriage are widely reported in the media, then it seems obvious that he is publicly known, and that he and the marriage are both notable. If not, they wouldn't be the subject of so much media attention. Further, I would argue that his identity does add value to the article, in that clearly many people want to know about him and his relationship with 34D Lara, otherwise they would not be reported on so often. Finally, I would reiterate that who you are married to is never a private matter. Marriage is always a public act, by definition. Thus privacy is not even an issue here.Verklempt (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I rely on WP:BLP policy, section "Privacy of Names", which governs this article:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated ..., it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

I disagree that mention in a couple of current event articles, many of a tabloid nature, satisfies the definition of "widely disseminated". Secondly, they are not yet married and therefore it is a private act by definition and therefore is an issue here, by your own argument. Certainly I agree that who he is is relevant and notable (Fed contractor from Iraq) but, again, tell me how his name itself adds relevancy when he is not in any fashion a public figure? Finally, just because a piece of information is public (such as birth date, telephone number, email address), that doesn't mean it has encyclopedic value; in fact, in most cases, it is prohibited. ∴ Therefore | talk 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, not only should it be in there but I think there should be some mention of the fact that it was a secret relationship. Many including myself see at least the makings of a conflict of interest when a reporter is secretly dating someone she is supposed to be reporting on. If she had disclosed the relationship to cbs right away there would be no problem but with cbs not knowing it creates a conflict-Guy From STLouis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.185.56 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But that is a proscribed personal point-of-view. If you can find a reliable source (not a blog, for instance) that claims a conflict-of-interest, then it may be a candidate for inclusion (though not necessarily a justification for the name). Otherwise, your personal belief (among others) is best expressed elsewhere (blogs, for instance).∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

-You are correct that it is my opinion that it is a conflict. But it is not an opinion that she kept the relationship private. That is a fact, and should not be excluded. There's no need to state the opinion that its a conflict, but including true information especially when it has made mainstream news is the whole purpose of an encyclopedia. -Guy From STLouis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.185.56 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(To sign your posts, type in four tildes -- the curly character at the top left corner of the keyboard -- like so: ~~~~). Could you provide a reliable source (from a published news source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) that states that she kept this relationship private, or more precisely, secret as you characterize it? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its in the Howard Kurtz article. The contractor was having an extramarital affair with Logan, which ended in the breakup of his marriage. That's why the tabloids care about it. I care about it because of the ethics involved for a journalist not a wife but IMO both are appropriate for inclusion in a biography page-Guy From STLouis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.185.56 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(To sign your posts, type in four tildes -- the curly character at the top left corner of the keyboard -- like so: ~~~~. Also, you indent your posts by using colons.) Tabloids are irrelevant here (this is an encyclopedia, not your supermarket checkout line). The section already states the facts in neutral language. The source does not state that her relationship caused the breakup in the marriage; in fact, it says the separation occurred long ago. Where exactly in the Kurtz article does it state, as you claim, that she kept her relationship a secret from CBS? What are you suggesting should be changed in the paragraph? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not private, not a single event

When the subject of the article, Laura Logan, herself, tells the Washington Post, "she and [Joseph] Burkett plan to marry eventually" how can that be considered private? When you tell an interviewer you plan to marry someone, it is not a single event. patsw (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing a legal standard of privacy, italicized or otherwise. I'm talking about the presumption of privacy that is Wikipedia policy. Please address how the omission of this non-notable name results in a "significant loss of content"? Again, from above quoted policy,

The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

Please include reliable sources independent of his association with Lara Logan that provide him some notability that would rise to a Wikipedia standard of inclusion. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We're editors and making a judgment about the application of a policy. I am not about to play parsing games with you. When the subject herself of an biographical article makes a public statement to a reliable source that she plans to marry a person she identifies, the name of the person she plans to marry is added to the article. There's no need to make any notability judgments about Joseph Burkett. He is now part of the biography of Lara Logan by that fact.

Are you seriously suggesting that when a subject of Wikipedia biographical article makes known to a reliable source he or she intends to marry someone, that would not properly become part of the "Personal Life" section in the article? The use of italics is appropriate since we are disputing if there is any privacy attached Lara Logan's July 8 article to the Washington Post, or all the other 6,600 Google hits on this topic. patsw (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that this is important to you but please refrain from a less than collegial statement that I'm "playing parsing games". Where is the significant loss of content? Which part of "The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects" doesn't, by your judgment, apply here? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no privacy issue raised here. Lara Logan herself has named Joseph Burkett as the person she plans to marry to the Washington Post and other sources. Perhaps you have forgotten the July 9, 2008 quote

“ Logan — a South Africa native who began dating Burkett following her November breakup with CNN correspondent Michael Ware — said she and Burkett plan to marry eventually. ”

"Report: CBS News' Logan talks about her baby drama". Associated Press. 2008-07-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

2. Since there is no privacy issue raised here, the significant loss of content test does not apply. patsw (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Thanks, I had read the source; that she mentioned his name has not been in contention. You argue that because his name is mentioned in a reliable source that, therefore, there is no privacy issue. How so? A mention in a reliable source doesn't eviscerate privacy concerns at Wikipedia. WP:BLP policy states that even when the name is used in the new media, care should be given. At "Privacy of Names" at BLP:

When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. [emphasis added]

You keep saying that there is "no privacy issue" [your emphasis]. But repetition (and bolding) doesn't make it so. Policy is explicit:

The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.

Wikipedia considers family members' names a privacy issue even if you personally don't agree. I would recommend that you go to the WP:BLP talk page and argue for a change to policy there to something like: If a name is mentioned in the news media, there is then no privacy issue.

I don't understand your argument that the "significant loss of content test does not apply". That test applies to every statement in an encyclopedia, cf. Occam's razor whether there is a privacy concern or not. Policy states that because of the privacy issues involved with the use of an individual's name loosely related to the article's subject the test is an important consideration.

Can I infer that because you argue against the test that you acknowledge that redacting his non-notable name doesn't cause any significant loss? ∴ Therefore | talk 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make no inference other than that you and I are in a dispute. I hold that after Lara Logan's interview in the Washington Post, the question of privacy with respect her plan to marry Joseph Burkett became moot. You hold to the contrary. patsw (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My position is that Wikipedia policy holds to the contrary. Could you please then explain what would be the significant loss? ∴ Therefore | talk 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

I changed the sentence related to her relationship with Joseph Burkett. None of the articles I've read, said they are engaged. It says they plan to marry, which could mean anything (i.e. they discussed marriage but aren't officially engaged). kc12286 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)kc12286

Iraq Looting Controversy

InaMaker has, in good faith has put back this section for the third time. I have reverted due to the lack of reliable sources -- a surfeit of unreliable sources doesn't compensate. Please review what a reliable source is:

[R]eliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Blogs are not allowed. Let us survey the sources used:

• The primary source that all the other sources echo is the Page 6 gossip page of the New York Post. Not usable.

• AOL News is not a published source.

• Listed as "Broadcast & Cable" but the link is incorrect -- it links to [2] "Breitbart TV" which is not a reliable source. The correct link is: [3] B & C is a reliable source. Note that the article only states that there exists materials in her office and doesn't in any way imply that they are illegal.

• Gawker. A gossip site. Note a reliable source.

• Huffington Post. A liberal blog. Not a reliable source.

• NewsBusters. A conservative blog. Not a reliable source.

• The First Post. Not a published reliable source.

Please wait until the mainstream press reports on this. At this point it is only a rumor distributed by a gossip columnist. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New York Post is a reliable source. I have pointed that out in the comments section several times. There are exceptions the blog rules. Wikipedia accepts certain blogs and Huffington Post is one of them. But at any rate, New York Post has reported that Customs is looking into the legality of the articles in Logan's office. The Post is a reliable source. It is a notable story and as such it meets the requirements to be in the article. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review what Wikipedia states factually about the New York Post: The New York Post is the 13th-oldest newspaper published in the United States and generally acknowledged as the oldest to have been published continually as a daily, although -- like most other papers -- its publication has been interrupted by labor actions. Since 1993, it has been owned by Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which previously had owned it from 1976 to 1988, and is one of the 10 largest newspapers in the United States.--InaMaka (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you have pointed out that the Post is a reliable source several times. I understand that the it is a reliable source; that isn't at issue here. If this item came from the news division, then it would be an acceptable source. It didn't. It came from a gossip column and that is never an acceptable source. Please read up on Wikipedia rules concerning biographies of living persons (BLP) -- it is taken very seriously here. Please note:

blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person

There are no exceptions for BLPs unless the blog is written by the subject. Please also note:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. [emphasis in original]

I have reversed this piece of gossip accordingly. I will also call your attention to WP:BRD which says that you need to discuss and justify your edits before putting them back in. Also please review 3RR. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go over this again. The New York Post is a reliable source. The topic is notable. It qualifies for the article. Nothing that you have cited supports your contention that the New York Post is an unreliable source other than you insist that it is not reliable. It is the 10th largest newspaper in the U.S. and Richard Johnson is a reporter for the Post. All of your comments about blogs do not apply. Once again, the New York Post is a reliable source. I might remind you that 3RR applies to you just as much as it applies to me.--InaMaka (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a reliable source, i.e., its news division. This is not from its news division -- it's from the gossip page. Richard Johnson is not a report -- he is a gossip columnist. 3RR applies accept in the case of BLP violations as I pointed to you above. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR applies to your actions. The New York Post is a reliable source. Please stop reverting the information because 3RR does apply to you.--InaMaka (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert. It will violate 3RR and you will be blocked. I won't be the one doing the final reversal. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While the editor in question is violating WP:3RR, InaMaka also is making what I think is a reasoned argument that the NY Post is a reliable source. I think it is a scandal rag, but that's just my opinion. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please quote me where InaMaka is making a "reasoned argument" that this source is reliable? He is making a set of declarative statements, yes, but he doesn't counter how the gossip column of a newspaper is a reliable source. If you read the talk page, I'm not arguing that the New York Post isn't a reliable source -- it is without any doubt. This item is from the *gossip page* of the New York Post. That isn't a reliable source for a BLP. Do you have any idea the kind of stuff Page 6 prints? Do you think this is from the news division? It isn't. Do you think gossip is a useful source for Wikipedia? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The New York Post is a reliable source. Richard Johnson is a reporter for the New York Post. Richard Johnson is reporting that Lara Logan is being investigated by the U.S. Customs service for violating the U.S. law that bans the looting of Iraqi government and cultural items. These are ALL facts. They are not declarative statements. They are facts. This is NOT gossip but facts. Richard Johnson is NOT stating that he heard a rumor that Lara Logan is being investigated, but Richard Johnson is flat out stating that he has called the U.S. Customs service and asked them whether Logan is being investigated and he is reporting that the U.S. Customs service is telling him definitively that she is being investigated. This report has been repeated by the Huffington Post and NewsBusters. Wikipedia discussions have indicated that both New York Post and Huffington Post are reliable sources.--InaMaka (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I counter your repetition with mine: Johnson is not a reporter, he is a gossip columnist. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I counter your sarcasm and lack of good faith discussion with facts: (1) I have indicated that Richard Johnson has reported fact, not rumour and (2) you have not responded to the fact that Richard Johnson was acting as a reporter by calling the U.S. Customs service and inquiring about Logan's artifacts with the U.S. Customs service. I have heard from you on this topic is sarcasm and poor attempts at ridicule.--InaMaka (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my sarcasm. Please note from the horses mouth:

Richard Johnson, Paula Froelich, Cindy Adams and Liz Smith bring you celebrity gossip from Hollywood to the Hamptons. [emphasis added] from (note the url's use of the word gossip to boot) www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip

Page 6 has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking -- should I post some of the hundreds of garbage articles they have done in the past ten years? This isn't a slam of the Post but of its gossip page which is not a reliable source particularly for the bio of a living person. This is prima facia. Also, note from this ABC News report that Richard Johnson, a "Gossip Columnist", acknolwedges Page 6 payola.[4] All gossip columnists "report facts" -- that doesn't make them truthful. Take note of this article: [5] which states, "Former 'Page Six' Gossip Admits to Making Stuff Up! (For His Novel)". Possibly you are not well versed with what gossip pages do -- they spread gossip, not facts. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article. Please do not add it again until a reliable source has published the story. The most reliable source that was cited was a gossip column. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons is very clear that any potentially defamatory or controversial material must be cited to a reliable source - this is over and above the normal requirements of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is anyone who still disagrees that a gossip column is not a reliable secondary source for a BLP, I suggest they check out gossip column: "The columns mix factual material on marriages, divorces, and arrests, obtained from official records with more speculative gossip stories, rumors, and innuendo about romantic relationships, affairs, and purported personal problems." Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hastings incident

Somehow the quote from Logan that everyone is criticizing her for: "Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has." Has been omitted from the article. It needs both quotes, not just the "Unspoken Agreement" one. I tried to add it before but someone apparently removed it. It seems to be reasonable to include what she said that got everyone so upset at her. Since the main editor of the page didn't like how I did it I request that they add it themselves in their own wording. I tried adding it within the context that the host of the show himself Howard Kurtz criticized her for saying it. Apparently that wasn't acceptable for some reason 24.207.131.20 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is included:

[Jamie McIntyre] thought it irrelevant that Hastings had never served.

Many (not everyone) criticized her for the statement. Nor would I think it is a major element of the criticism. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, while some have defended her on her claim that there should be ground rules for interviews with military leaders, nearly everyone criticized her remarks about Hasting not serving his country like McChrystal. Including quite notably IMO the host of the show where she made the comments on. It was better the way it was 24.207.135.48 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote should clearly be included. The way it reads now is silly. It just says" He thought it irrelevant that Hastings had never served, as highlighted by Logan," without ever first describing what Logan said. Why leave out the quote? 68.188.25.170 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

please fix vandalism

The the paragraph about Logan's attack in Egypt, there is a quotation that purports to be from Logan to her supporters. The page linked to in the citation contains no such statement. Someone should delete the falsely attributed quotation or provide a real citation. I'd delete it myself if the page weren't protected. 96.21.225.28 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.184.238.170, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The information provided under 'Egypt protests' is neither appropriate nor accurate. Please revise.

67.184.238.170 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -Atmoz (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia - STILL a Laughing Stock

I came here to learn more about the woman who was savagely raped in Egypt while liberals in the USA congratulated Barack Obama for bringing freedom to Egypt. That's sad enough. But then I find you guys WHITEWASHED her entire love triangle story. I read the Personal Life section and it didn't make sense until I was vaguely reminded of this drama of a few years ago. It dawned on me that since Lara is a liberal, you guys contorted and twisted this story to leave her looking nearly blameless.

Now, undoubtedly THOUSANDS of people will come to Wikipedia looking for more info about Lara and they'll remember the love triangle, see how you accounted for it, and realize what a JOKE Wikipedia CONTINUES to be. After reading that, why should anyone believe ANYTHING else your article says about Lara? Because you continue to be BLINDED by your ENTRENCHED very far left wing viewpoint, you guys BLEW a perfectly good chance to be a go-to source for information about a person very much in the news.

Prayers for Lara. Wikipedia too, I guess... 65.48.16.58 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit was removed because it was irrelevant.Beancrisp (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it always the right-wing fundamentalists that are so aggressive? -- megA (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets not turn this into something it is not. IF you have information, and sources, contrary to what is currently in the artical you can make the required edits to immprove WP. Things that are not going to immprove WP are the examples above ie, calling WP a joke (it's the internet, and open for free editing nothing's going to be 100% accurate, but some/most editors strive for it.) And turning a non political issue into a political debate.

Please stay on point people, if you have something constructive to bring to the table, present it, if not, go away. (That's both of you: 65.48.16.58 & MegA.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes it's hard not to join the fun... -- megA (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal

I remember reading about Ms Logan's in the personal section, about her love life, and now it is gone. The story was a love triangle, and I think deserves to be put back in, as it is relevant and truthful. The section now is a whitewash. Just be truthful and stick to the facts. It was covered by many leading newspapers and posts;not only gossip magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.72.253 (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of arrest in Egypt...

Right now the article reads "In early February 2011...". The reference, Time Magazine, is dated February 3, and most other sources I have read so far have said she was arrested "8 days prior" to her sexual assault, which we know took place on February 11. Would it be acceptable to add February 3 as the date of the arrest? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say if Time reported it on Feb 3, then the arrest must've been earlier, since they were kept in custody for a longer time and Logan couldn't have reported it during the arrest... -- megA (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We know for a fact that she was reporting on the protests on February 2, so she was either arrested that evening or on the 3rd. I just think "early February" is too vague. How about "It was reported on February 3 2011 that, while covering the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, Logan and her crew were arrested by the Egyptian army in Cairo on suspicion of being Israeli spies."? ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done †TE†Talk 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was going to suggest, too. -- megA (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Assault & BLP

A few principles:

• Anonymous sources aren't acceptable in biographies of living people. "A network source...." and "a person familiar with the matter" are essentially anonymous, as is phraising like "reportedly" XYZ happpened.
• They are doubly unacceptable in highly charged cases, such as one involving allegations of both rape and anti-Semitism
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current events Twitter feed. Facts that will be superfluous in a month don't belong in the article. Mindbunny (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Whose BLP is being violated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a pretty staunch defender of BLPs, but given that this was reliably reported by the article subject's family and employer (CBS News), I'm not seeing the validity of a BLP-vio claim. Kelly ^hi! 19:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is reliably reported, then provide a reliable source. I'm referring to two anonymous sources, and a statement of fact introduced as "reportedly" with no elaboration. And, I'm wondering why some of this information is encyclopedic. Mindbunny (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer why you think it's a "BLP violation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it more or less of a BLP violation to suggest that someone was brutally raped when she may not have been and we have a Wall Street Journal source that says so? Personally, I find the entire discussion and the fact that any of this is on her Wiki to be disgusting and another victimization. Let's try to have some tact and compassion as we discuss these things, shall we? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read anything in the article that suggests she was "brutally raped". In fact, quite the opposite. She was sexually assaulted, we know that is a fact, and that doesn't always mean rape. A recent report, albeit from an anonymous source, claims that her sexual assault was serious but "not rape". I think it's all a very important part of her wiki page because it's about her life and career, both of which are touched by this recent story. It may not be a pleasant development, and I'm sure everyone involved in the article is sorry to have to add this information at all, but this is real life, not a fairytale. We can't just erase the bad stuff and keep all the good stuff. Anything that is unsourced or obviously wrong must be removed, but so far I think most of the additions are fair as they have been reported in the media, reliable sources including CBS, the station with whom she works. I'm aware that the story can develop and change over time, and assuming any of that information turns out to be false it will be removed and altered to suit. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth -- I wrote nothing about fairytales, I didn't say the information shouldn't be there, or that it should be removed. I said that the inclusion of this information and the discussion behind it is disgusting. Logan has been active in the public eye since 2000 and her attack in Egypt lasted for 20-30 minutes, and yet approximately 1/3 of the entire article is dedicated to her sexual assault in Egypt. That is completely shameful. Fairytales? No kidding. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it's a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said that you did write anything about "fairytales", that was me. Where do you get the idea that I was referring to you personally? The fact is, none of what has been added so far and that is currently in the article is a BLP violation, that I am aware of, and I'm guessing that several other editors agree with me. Trust me, I am all for balance and fairness, and I don't want to see anything in this article that is overly negative or overly positive. Probably the reason that this story far outweighs any other parts of the article is because we have the information about this story to hand, as it develops, and it's up to date. I haven't looked into any other part of her career, perhaps that isn't as well documented online or in the media? That is for another editor who has worked on this article before me to discuss. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, there is no prohibition on using "anonymous" sources, there is guidance to be "wary" of anonymous sources. The question then becomes how reliable are the sources that are using the anonymous sources. In this case, we have some pretty reliable sources repeating similar stories. In this case, our responsibility is met because we can point to WSJ/CBS as the sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman is correct. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Given what has happend to this woman, I thing we need to be very careful here. Tentontunic (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The sexual assault section should also mention that this assault was carried by Muslim Egyptians of Arabic descent so as to not whitewash the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.240.139 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be fucking ridiculous. We don't use anonymous sources when analyzing whether somebody was raped. As for the rest, it would help if people got their facts straight. The claim that the mob was screaming "JEW" as it assaulted her is not part of any CBS report, nor is it sourced to her family or even the WSJ. It is anonymously reported in a tabloid (NY Post). Ditto for the negative comments about Egyptian police and hospitals (although perfectly plausible). The fact of the sexual assault is relevant. The rest is exploitation, and reckless given how little is really known. When half the text of this paragraph is from anonymous sources, and it concerns the possible of rape of a living person, there is a problem. When accusations of anti-Semitism are combined with sexual assault, you don't stick it in an encylopedia with nothing but an anonymous source quoted in a tabloid. Mindbunny (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the New York Post:

The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Logan once complained to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post that her personal life had been, "tabloid fodder."[26] [26][30] Mindbunny (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is sourced information being removed from the article? Here and here. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You again busstop ... the BBC and the Guardian neither are reporting a mob chanting jew jew jew as they sexually attacked her. Off2riorob (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if they cite the NY Post then it's all good?

Are you saying that they personally need to get at the unnamed source or find their own?

Your comment needs a little clarity. We presented the content properly and everybody knows to be cautious with unnamed sources. †TE†Talk 04:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalist claims weakly reported to unnamed sources the type of which other quality news outlets have not reported - and we should not repeat them either - we have the ability and the request through policy to use our editorial control to keep such content out of our articles until such controversial claims are confirmed by other reputable outlets. Off2riorob (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Editorial control is what causes people in the media to sit on valid stories they just wish would just go away and to jump on garbage when they justreally want it to be true, IMO. I don't want to be part of that. †TE†Talk 04:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, me neither. I see editorial control at wikipedia as completely different to that, closer to using your care and intelligence as to how and what you report and not rushing report dubious news stories when you are not a news outlet. Off2riorob (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I get that, too. A while back I recall seeing a WP: that said it's cool if a MSM-type is vouching for the source, and of course, cautions on how to word it and so forth. Patience is a good thing, but I still think it's an acceptable addition. Much of this wouldn't be out right now if AP didn't start sniffing around and CBS could've kept all involved in a bubble, right? †TE†Talk 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. We can wait and let things settle down and allow for more sources to either bolster or debunk what has previously been reported.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

At home recovering

I actually come here with good news. It appears Lara is back home with her husband and two kids. Guess we can add another child to the article. A friend (oh noes... another "anonymous source") of Logan's was cited by ABC News. They reiterated much that we already have in this section. I did notice that they have Logan being detained on February 4th, not the 3rd. Might be a problem.

Also, confirmed by CBS in the always suspicious, undated update. Probably after that unnamed source spilled the beans. They included a phone call from Obama, always notable.

And, we have USA Today citing the WSJ on Logan not being raped. †TE†Talk 04:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone want to add this? I was going to before wasting time here. †TE†Talk 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Add what? This is not a news report. It is an encyclopedia article. It is not encyclopedic that she is now at home resting with her family. Until she decides to reveal the nitty gritty details of how she was assaulted, we should not be publishing anonymous sources commenting on it. That's just disgusting. We should not be using anonynmous sources reported in an unreliable tabloid for anything, particularly not a sexual assault that happened 48 hours ago. The portions of the section sourced to anonymous soources in the New York Post, and the anonymous commenting about whether she was raped should be removed. There is also, obviously, no consensus for their insertion. Mindbunny (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've left a question to Mindbunny (talk · contribs) at his talk page. See User talk:Mindbunny#Alternate accounts.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer of which was sarcasm but not a true indicator of sockpuppetry. You should consider striking your note as it has no place here. Had it really been affirmative that might be different but this is premature. Better to show good faith.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not have left the note if there wouldn't be clear indications that his behaviour is in violation of the relevant guidelines and policies. The question at his talk page gives Mindbunny (talk · contribs) an opportunity to take remedial action.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reference cited as #25. The source of the information is quoted as 'A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape."[25]'

The entire world is now familiar with the incident. However there were scores, if not hundreds of eye-witnesses. So why is the standard being lowered to present an anonymous witness in this case. And by the way the anonymous witness is the only one saying she "was not raped". 124.157.178.205 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal may have judged the person's information to be reliable, for example, because the person may have spoken with medical personnel involved in the treatment of Logan. The specific reason, however, is irrelevant. Because the Wall Street Journal is a reliable source, the default assumption is that it has published the information because it reached the conclusion that it is accurate. We may disregard information from a reliable source if there are indications, based on other reliable sources, that the respective information in incorrect, but we don't second-guess reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a news report. It is an encyclopedia article. -- No kidding. An "encyclopedia" would wait until the story was together and finished before updating itself repeatedly like a fucking Twitter feed. (Joy, we get to use the F-word in civil discussions now, neato!) So while were at it, how encyclopedia-like is it to have 30% of the article dedicated to events that lasted 20-30 minutes? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, how encyclopedia-like is it to have 30% of the article dedicated to events that lasted 20-30 minutes? Um... there are full articles on incidents that lasted much less than 20-30 minutes, that has to be one of the weaker arguments I've seen. Coverage is not based upon how long it took, but rather the significance of the event.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen some news commentators saying the attack was one of a pattern by the Mubarak regime specifically aimed at intimidating journalists to keep them from covering the protests. It would be good to include a quote in the article. By the way, something weird is going on with this talk page--I don't have an edit button, but I can edit by clicking "view source". There is nothing in the protection log. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP summary

The accusations about “Jew Jew” and speculation about wherther she was raped violate these principles of biographies of living people:

• Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity
• Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material
• Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
• Be wary of sources that ... that attribute material to anonymous sources.
• Presumption in favor of privacy
• Avoid victimization. ...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources

Take particular note of where the burden of proof lies. This is not a matter that should be seeing any edit warring. Get consensus in Talk first, then add material. No consensus, no addition. Be conservative, be sensitive. Mindbunny (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what kind of source we're talking about here:

Murdoch imported (to the New York Post) the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of many of his Australian and British newspapers, such as The Sun (the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK). This style was typified by Post's famous headlines such as “Headless body in topless bar” (shown on the right). In its 35th-anniversary edition, New York Magazine listed this as one of the greatest headlines ever. It also has five other Post headlines in its "Greatest Tabloid Headlines" list.[25] If you think a) anonymous sourcing about a sexual assault case from b) the New York Post meets the requirements above, you should be ignored. Mindbunny (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitic dimension

We have a source being used in our article at present—this source—which says in its first sentence:

"'60 Minutes' correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday."

Further down in that same article we find:

"A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told Esquire.com that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of "being Israeli spies." Logan is not Jewish."

Why is our article at present failing to convey the accompaniment of the language "Jew! Jew!" to this incident? It is antisemitic and therefore very noteworthy and yet missing from our article. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Several reasons:

• NewsOrgs are not the most reliable of sources, especially early in a story's lifecycle.
• Within the realm of newsorgs,The Post does not have a strong reputation for accuracy, but does have one for sensationalism.
• The post then is further reporting from anonymous sources, thus lowering the credibility factor a little more.
• This is an article about Lara, based on the nature of the subject, WP:UNDUE would seem to been applicable. Keep the section short and to the point, we don't need conjecture.

In short, we don't have a strong source reporting the ethnic slurs, such reporting is not necessary in Lara's article, and due to the nature of this subject, we need to be mindful of the Living Person behind this biography.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• - I totally agree with Balloonman's comments, if there is a discrepancy in that new york post article then remove the new youk post external. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman—you say, "…we need to be mindful of the Living Person behind this biography." Which "living person" are you referring to? The shouts of "Jew! Jew!" are reported by sources as emanating from people variously referred to as "thugs" or "attackers". Though the "attackers" or "thugs" may be "living" people, they are not identified by name in any sources that I've seen.

We are relying on this and two other sources: this one and this one, as support for the following sentence in our article:

"She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."

The sources are not saying that Lara Logan shouted "Jew! Jew!". Therefore the "living person" you are referring to could not be Lara Logan. And the source is being used to support the language in our article which conveys that Lara Logan sustained "a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating". While it could be understandable that the implication of "brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating" could be highly sensitive material in relation to Lara Logan, the shouting of "Jew! Jew!" by person's other than Lara Logan is far more tenuously related to Lara Logan herself. This is an antisemitic dimension to this incident and it deserves mention.

I think we have support in sources for conveying that shouts of "Jew! Jew!" were present at the time of the incident. You refer to a "Living Person". I think you are invoking the policy language found at WP:BLP. This would not necessarily be applicable concerning the reported shouts of "Jew! Jew!" The report of this particular antisemitic element of this incident is not attributable to Lara Logan so I don't know that WP:BLP has particular applicability to the question we are tackling. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply merely to what the person does. The fact that yelling "Jew" isn't something Logan did is irrelevant. Likewise, being assaulted isn't something the victim does. It is still subject to BLP rules. This article is a BLP. Everything in it is subject to BLP guidelines. Any part of a sexual assault is particuarly sensitive. Don't base any part of a sexual assault story on an anonymous source in a sensationalistic tabloid. Common sense, please.

The Wall Street Journal item, anonymously reporting that she wasn't raped, is equally gross. THe information the victim has authorized is that she was sexually assaulted. At this time, she has chosen not to give details, which is her right. And why would the details be encyclopedic anyway? That information is the sort that apppeals to the baser instincts of the public's desire to know. She was sexaully assaulted. Oooooh, was she raped? If so, was it a gang rape? We shouldn't cater to such gross instincts, and neither should the WSJ. I wouldn't include that even if the source were identified. Using an anonymous source for something like that is a BLP violation At least, it is very bad article writing. Mindbunny (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's one or the other from where I am sitting. If those rules apply to BLP as you state, then the only thing that should be in the article or any BLP is information that was confirmed by the person that the BLP is discussing. So all of this information (the assault, the quote by her ex-husband, the quote by the jilted ex-wife--all of it) is out because it's not originating from the subject of the BLP. (If that is your stance, I might be able to get behind it--but everything about her personal life is out.) As for the anonymous WSJ quote, IMHO actually it helps balance her BLP and may actually help protect her, as without that quote the article's repeated use of the term "sexual assault" suggests rape when that might not be the case. Clearly the WSJ felt that the source was valid or they would not have published it. The fact that the source is anonymous is pretty much irrelevant. Until recently nobody knew who Deep Throat was; should any mention of Deep Throat have been eliminated from the biographies of living participants in the Watergate scandal? No, of course not. So again, while I can appreciate where you're coming from, I believe your argument is false unless you're prepared to remove all non-firsthand information from this and every other BLP. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)So far Mindbunny, you've had very little support for your interpretation. The WSJ is one of the most respected sources out there and our BLP policy does not forbid the use of reliable sources that quote anonymous sources, it merely suggest be "wary." In this case, I think Erikeltic is 100% correct, the details are not available, but the fact that the WSJ is reporting that it wasn't rape is a key piece of information. The way the initial report was read, people had assumed she had been raped if not gang raped. Thus, with attribution, I think it is a key piece of ensuring people don't walk away with the wrong impression. The WSJ is one of the most respected news sources out there. +

As for Bus Stop---I am not sure of what you are trying to say? Whether or not somebody yelled something anti-semetic is not relevant in this article, if it were an article about the incident maybe, but on Lara? no. Furthermore, the only source we have to support that is a single source that has a reputation for sensationalizing information. So even if an argument could be made to support the inclusion, the source itself is not the most reliable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It might deserve mention if this was an article about the event. But this is an article about Logan, and thus the mention appears to be undue, based on what reliable sources are currently reporting.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the first part of Erikeltic's comment, where he seems to be summarizing my position. I think I said the opposite of his summary: significant incidents in a person's life are part of the BLP. It doesn't matter whether they are things she did; Busstop argued that since Logan wasn't yelling "Jew", there are no BLP concerns. That's plainly wrong. As for comparisons to Watergate etc., the answer simply is that sexual assault is different. A woman being sexually assaulted is inherently more private than government corruption. Duh. Mindbunny (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny—in your above response you are going on at length about the sexual assault aspect of this incident. Notice that the concern I raise is not about anything of a lascivious nature. In fact I allowed for the quite reasonable association being drawn between an assault on a woman's body and sensitivities that would quite reasonably fall under our WP:BLP concerns.

But a different set of concerns come into play when considering the reliably sourced reporting that antisemitic utterances accompanied the already-included in our article assault on Lara Logan:

1. ) There is nothing shameful reflected upon Lara Logan by her being referred to as a Jew.

2. ) There is an important element of this incident missing from the language in our article.

We are documenting an incident that has as its focal point Lara Logan. It included vocal calls referencing Jews. An assault was made on a woman in which she was derogatorily called a Jew. We are documenting that she was "sexually assaulted and beaten". The element of shouts of "Jew! Jew!" would logically be included in the documenting of that incident.

Though the incident has Lara Logan as its central element, we find many more elements included. This is its present form:

"On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement revealing that some four days earlier, Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of then President Hosni Mubarak. CBS News indicated that she was overwhelmed along with her camera crew and security staff: "It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy. In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and sexually assaulted and beaten before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. Logan returned to her hotel after the assault and was flown out of the country within hours on a chartered network jet. She reportedly wasn't taken to a local hospital because the "network didn't trust local security there" and didn't report the assault to Egyptian authorities because they "couldn't trust them, either." Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery. Logan was discharged from the hospital after forty eight hours and is recuperating at home with her family. She vows to return to work within weeks."

As can be seen from the above, a variety of other elements besides the sexual abuse and beating are included. Surely something of as much importance as an accompanying antisemitic dimension to this assault deserves inclusion in our article. I don't think any reason has been articulated yet as to why the element of antisemitism should be excluded while so many other elements are being included. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The New York Post is a marginally reliable source and like all news sources, what is reported has to be weighed. The NYP is known for sensationalism, by including the allegation that "Jew Jew Jew" was being shouted by the specific people who assaulted her, it creates sensationalism. This immediately raises the question of how reliable the NYP's report is there. The fact that their source is not mentioned further raises questions about the applicability of coverage. And finally, yes this allegation is a BLP issue, but not for the victim, but in this case for those who assaulted her. Perpetrators of crimes/violent acts are covered by our BLP policies just as much as the victem. Here we have a single source, that does not have a stellar reputation in fact checking, citing an anonymous source, about something alleged to have been said. It is explicitly because of the significance of the accusation that it needs a strong source. Sorry, NYP's reputation doesn't rise to the same level---which has to be considered in context.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, beaten and sexually assaulted are confirmed from multiple sources - the claim that as they did it they chanted jew jew jew is as yet not so confirmed , actually imo a 200 strong mob chanting jew jew jew while they sexually assault someone is so hard to believe that it really needs multiple reports. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman—yes, this is an article on Lara Logan. An incident involving Lara Logan is covered in this article. A paragraph is devoted to that incident. In that paragraph we learn much about that incident, including that it was "…a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy." Why aren't we learning that they shouted "'Jew! Jew!' during the assault" as reported by reliable sources? Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, let's not be ridiculous. It's akin to yelling slut, whore, and whatever else here in the West. It's typically a form of justification for savage acts against perceived "impure" women. †TE†Talk 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—there is no claim that, "…as they did it they chanted jew jew jew…" Please adhere to accurate wording as found in sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As Bus stop shares, these are WP:reliable sources unless officially deemed otherwise. We are not claiming this as "fact." We are saying that a network source stated... Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous source as reported by a news organization without a stellar reputation for fact checking and a reputation for sensationalism. Reliable Sources, especially news organizations, are not taken as gospel. What they report has to be weighed and analyzed based upon what is being claimed. Our policy is that when evaluating news orgs reporting, that it has to be "assessed on a case by case basis". Here an anonymous source is making an incendiary comment about a group of living people. Because of the incendiary/controversial nature of the claim, the bar has to be higher, not lower. Right now, with this being but a single report from the NYP, it has to be treated as a rumor related to BLPs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it reads like that - I don't know that it is normal to do that, we are simply waiting for a verification thats all, the claim is weak and extremely controversial and the claim has not even been reported by reliable media outlets and I like to count us in that section as well. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We have no must report dubious and doubtful claims that reliable media outlets have chosen not to repeat when the claim is in a low grade source without the source being named. Heres the BBC report - they would never even publish such low grade unnamed claims http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12476771 and neither should we. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—the BBC report does not conflict with, contradict, or even cast doubt on the reliable source which we have, and which states that:

"'60 Minutes' correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday."

and:

"A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told Esquire.com that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of "being Israeli spies." Logan is not Jewish."

We are permitted to include verifiable material. Sourced assertions of the vocalization of "Jew! Jew!" at the time of the attack should be included in our paragraph on the attack

• - the bbc report has not reported any jew jew jew chanting during the assault, they are one of the most quality sources for not repeating unconfirmed claims such as this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman—you say, "Here an anonymous source is making an incendiary comment about a group of living people." Therefore our WP:BLP policy is not applicable. A "comment about a group of living people" is not a "biography of a living person". Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP is just a bit of a side issue here, its editorial judgment and this claim is without verification and has not even been picked up on by more reliable sources, neither is there any update of additional details of the jew chanting - no one new has confirmed it have they? Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. Right now, we do not know if the people who sexually assaulted her were 2 guys who got her off on her own, 20 people, or at the heart of the crowd. And as Rob points out, BLP is not the core here, but it supports the exclusion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The BBC report need not include mention of the antisemitic ingredient in the attack on Lara Logan. We are not editing Wikipedia in conformance with what the BBC does not include in their reports. We have another reliable source indicating that there were vocalizations consistent with antisemitic sentiment being expressed at the time of the incident. This is certainly a reportable fact. We are very concerned if antisemitism played a role in what transpired. This is the case whether Lara Logan were actually Jewish or not. We know from reporting in reliable sources that Lara logan is in fact not Jewish. But the antisemitic sloganeering goes hand in hand with what she endured—whether it is true or not.

This is not a WP:BLP concern. A very large crowd of grossly indeterminate size is not what our policy language on BLP is referring to. I think groups that are smaller and defined could surely fall under the heading of BLP concerns. But indications here are of a group of people that have no definition or cohesively unifying qualities. Some might have been caught, arrested, or detained. But even those would have to be thought of as only part of a crowd with loosely unifying characteristics, and therefore not falling under the more stringent guidelines of "biographies of living people". Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you got any confirmations of this weakly claimed report, are there any updates that support verification , has the story endured and been picked up by quality mainstream sources - the answer to all these questions as I see it is no. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You keep claiming to have sources (plural). Yet the only source provided making the anti-semetic remarks is from the New York Post citing a single anonymous source. If there are other reliable sources, please present them. The main objection that both Rob and I have is that we are dealing with a very weak source on a highly polarizing/incendiary allegation. The NY Post's citing an unnamed source is not a strong enough for us to include in the article. If there are independent reliable sourceS, then I'd be happy to discuss the merits of whether or not the statement belongs; but as is, if the Post's anonymous source is the only thing we have, then sorry, it is not good enough.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman—the source is reliable. Therefore the Lara Logan article at present should be including language referring to the vocalizations of "Jew! Jew!" reported in that reliable source, and repeated in other reliable sources, though admittedly not all. The problem is the omitting of that information. No source has come along suggesting that "Jew! Jew!" was not heard.

You refer to that which is "highly polarizing/incendiary". How is sexual assault any less "highly polarizing/incendiary" than shouts of "Jew! Jew!"? Is sexual assault less highly polarizing or less incendiary than shouts of "Jew! Jew!"? Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Er, I never said it was... but one has multiple reliable sources including an official release from her employer. The other has the New York Post. As we've mentioned numerous times, being in a news article, does not mean that it does or should be included in the article. First, does it belong? If it does belong, do we have a strong enough source to include it? Not all reliable sources are created equal, which is why (especially when dealing with news stories) you have to evaluate them on a case by case basis. While independent collaboration would be best, but so far, the only source provided is the NYP. So far you haven't supported the claim that other sources are even repeating what the NY Post says with attribution.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I support adding material about the anti-Semitic dimension to the article. I consider the New York Post to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not that is it reliable so yes I support, it has been discussed here, the publication has a poor reputation for such unnamed controversial claims like this . Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—is it more "controversial" to claim that shouts of "Jew! Jew!" were heard than to claim that someone was "sexually assaulted"? A negative incident transpired. Is it inconceivable that accompanying sexual assault were shouts of "Jew! Jew!" in this particular negative incident? A source is saying that is what transpired. Are we so pollyannaish that we can accept that there was sexual assault but we cannot accept that there were shouts of "Jew! Jew!" in this particular negative incident? Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is reporting the sexual assault, but that is not the case at all regarding the claim that the people that sexually assaulted her were all chanting jew jew jew, respected media outlets are not reporting that, if and when they do or it is confirmed we should also.. for me, if there was one more report or verification of this then I would lean toward support, but as yet as I am seeing the reports and updates, there isn't. Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Our BLP policy should be taken with utmost seriousness. We should be very careful not to even imply that someone is Jewish when they are not Jewish. We should also be very careful not to accuse anyone of yelling "Jew, Jew" whilst sexually assaulting a woman, when they were really not yelling "Jew, Jew" during the sexual assault.

In this instance, the wording makes it quite clear that Logan is not Jewish. We also don't know anyone specific behind the sexual assault. Thus, we are conforming to out BLP policy with the inclusion of the content regarding "Jew, Jew".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I added it back per my comment here.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, its probably time to "fully" retire when you accuse people of whitewashing an article, especially considering your own agenda. Anyways, just a suggestion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. It shows that some editors don't trust the NY Post and would like their preferred news outlets to pick-up the story first. I don't think that's how this should be done. Especially, considering that nobody is denying the claims by the anonymous source or is actively trying to refute them. †TE†Talk 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Nice assumption of bad faith. Er, Mbz made the edit on the main page BEFORE mentioning it here. Which means, that when he made the edit, it indicated no knowledge of the previous discussions--_which is why I reverted his edit. Nothing new here and nothing new in the parrallel discussion on ANI. It wasn't until Mbz mentioned his comment on the edit warring page that there was any indication that he wasn't just adding the material itself.

As for trusting the Post---well duh! Haven't you read any of the posts that Rob and I and other have made. As long as it is just the NYP, then the source has to be questioned. We've asked repeatedly for other sources that are making the same claim or that are even giving coverage to the Posts article---and NOBODY provided anything despite repeated requests. All I've been looking for are other sources giving credence to the Post article. So far, as evidence provided on this page, we have the Post which has a poor reputation for anonymous sources and for sensationalism making a claim that no other sources have picked up. The reason why it is important for other sources to at least cite the Post article is because the hope is that these additional sources will do some fact checking with their collegues at the Post---it may remain "anonymous" but the other sources might know who the CBS leak was or how confident the Post editor is in the anonymous source. Yet nobody could provided the other sources which was requested numerous times.

Then Mbiz makes an edit, which appears completely unfamiliar with the discussions at hand, so naturally I revert based upon the clear consensus developing here and at ANI against the material. Seeing the edit, I check both sites AGAIN before reverting---nothing from Mbz. So I revert. AFTER the last time I load this page, he makes a short edit citing Sean Hannity. Well, Sean Hannity is a worse source than the Post. But I read the whole thread there, and find that somebody has provided some sources citing the Post article and giving it credence. Those sources are: FOX News[6] Yahoo News[7] Boston Herald[8] Daily Mail[9] So, yes, now that other sources have referenced the Post in a favorable manner, I'm more less inclined to debate this issue. Frankly, I don't care one way or another now that we have others sources giving credence to the Post. But again, nice assumption of bad faith.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just said I disagree with:

1) The NY Post being unreliable

2) this talk page conversation proving point #1.

I've been here the entire time, read the ANI, BLPN, and didn't mind waiting a bit last night and earlier today. Later -- noticing the links posted at 3RR and also remembering WaPo citing it (with a grain of salt) -- I figured it was time to become more vocal. Didn't mean to appear in any way questioning your intentions. There is only one editor here that I would based on an edit summary. We good? †TE†Talk 05:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'm still not sold on the inclusion of the material and if it goes back it should probably be attributed to the New York Post, as the other sources are doing right now. But like I said, I don't really care if the Jew Jew statement goes in or not. My concern was using the Post as authoritative when it has a history of sensationalism/poor vetting of anonymous sources. Is it a reliable source? Yes, but just like Fox News or MSNBC, that does not mean that it is fully reliable---especially when make senationalistic claims. If other reliable sources give credence to the Post, then I'm less firm in my stance (but not sold on it.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear: My position is that the NYP, in and of itself, has a history of sensationalism that can't be ignored. If other sources stand behind the NYP, then I am more inclined to accept the NYP story. That does not mean that I think every detail of the event should be included here. This is an article on Lara and we need to keep that in mind. While I disagree with a lot of what Mindbunny says, I do agree with Mindbunny in that it would be better to err on the side of caution. In the end, this is an article about a specific person, not about the attack or the riots or anti-semitism---about a person.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if now you realized that I did have a prior knowledge on the issue, and that other RS reported on NY post article, may I please ask you to add sourced info back to the article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No I won't, but others have. I'm not sold on the inclusion of the material, but my opposition is lessened. Personally, I am starting to think that this page needs to be fully protected (in the less detailed/BLP safer version) until a consensus can be made on the talk pages. (On a side note: generally when making an like you did, it is best to post to the articles talk page rather than assume people are familiar with an off page discussion. Your post looked like you were unfamiliar with the general consensus growin here and at ANI---and the material provided at 3RR hadn't been provided here.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC) NOTE: As I was writing the above, the page was protected in the proper version that it should be (with the less potential BLP info). I was literally going to go from here to request protection for hte page.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I added the thing to the article at 4:19, and posted to the talk page at 4:22, you reverted me at 4:24, which means that you did not pay attention to my post at th talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Stuff is missing now, her being hospitalized is an example. †TE†Talk 06:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes stuff is missing, but this is a BLP and the edit war was over what to include in a BLP. When dealing with a BLP, better to be cautious and rebuild from there. What I would suggest would be to get each piece of information and see what we can reach general consensus on and build from there.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Have a good night! †TE†Talk 06:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

Anyone interested in figuring it out? From recent sources we know that she is married to Joseph Burkett, they live in D.C. with her young son and a step-daughter. How important is the other stuff? †TE†Talk 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's publicallly known, it's ok... although we generally leave the names of minors off unless they are themselves notable.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There was something about Burkett's ex-wife blaming Logan for being a homewrecker and apparently another man, fistfights and... I removed it for now, at least. †TE†Talk 20:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Vomiting

Her detention overnight by the Egyptian Army should mention her apparently being denied medical attention at first, her "frequent vomiting" and her ultimately being given intravenous fluids before her and film crew's release.[10]Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hodgson, I don't think you provided the link you meant to. I couldn't find anything to support any of the statements you made above in the attached link. Could you double check it?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"We were detained by the Egyptian army. Arrested, detained and interrogated. Blindfolded, handcuffed, taken at gunpoint, our driver beaten. It's the regime that arrested us. They arrested (our producer) just outside of his hotel, and they took him off the road at gunpoint, threw him against the wall, handcuffed him, blindfolded him. Took him into custody like that."

On Feb. 10 she told the magazine that her interrogators accused her and her crew of being "Israeli agents," held them in "stress positions" throughout the night and only reluctantly gave her medical treatment for an illness.

"I was violently, violently ill," she said. "I'd been ill for a few days -- I hadn't mentioned it to anyone at CBS."

They initially ignored her condition "until I vomited so much that they did have a medic see me at this secret facility -- they wouldn't tell us where we were. Then I was begging for an IV, and at first they wouldn't. I vomited up everything that the medic gave me. I vomited all over the interrogation cell. I vomited all over this office they put me in after that, and so eventually they put me on an IV."---Hollywood Reporter quotes Esquire's Politics blog

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So, according to the subject, she was given a doctor who then gave her something to help her and then she vomited that up and then she was given more medical help and put on an IV? Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Post, all in one place

I think some facts have gotten lost in the speed of the editing:

• Murdoch imported the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of many of his Australian and British newspapers, such as The Sun (the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK). This style was typified by Post's famous headlines such as “Headless body in topless bar” (shown on the right). In its 35th-anniversary edition, New York Magazine listed this as one of the greatest headlines ever. It also has five other Post headlines in its "Greatest Tabloid Headlines" list.[25]
• The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias....Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage.
• According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[34]

It is known to falsify (“doctor “) reports:

• In 1997 a national news story concerning Rebecca Sealfon's victory in the Scripps National Spelling Bee circulated. Sealfon was sponsored by the Daily News. The Post published a picture of her but altered the photograph to remove the name of the Daily News as printed on a placard she was wearing.[35]
• On December 7, 2006, the Post doctored a front-page photograph to depict the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, in primate fur, under the headline "SURRENDER MONKEYS", inspired by a once-used line from The Simpsons.

BLP summary (above): [11] Mindbunny (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously now, while I not doubtful that there are better examples out there, calling the 2 examples you stated "doctored" reports is a bit too much of an overkill, don't you think? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? The second one is called "doctored" by Wikipedia. The first involves Photoshopping the name of a competitor out of a picture. Whatever you call it, it is not the behavior of a high-quality source. Mindbunny (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For the second, I think you are giving the readers too little credit if you think that they would take those pictures seriously and believe those guys were actually dressed up in monkey suits for real in that picture. Its so ridiculous that its meant to NOT be believed. That example are more correctly classified under parody or creative presentation. No offense if you actually thought that was meant to be an actual report ;). For the first, that is relevant only if it had anything to seriously contradict the subject the article in the first place. Not unless they replaced it with their own name instead, or claimed that they were the sponsors instead. To call these two "doctored" reports imply elements of fraud to the common man on the street, or in this case the average reader here. Lets just say I would not be very wrong if I believe that such a claim citing those 2 instances as examples of ""doctored" reports" would not have lasted if it appeared in an actual article page here. And this practice of doctoring images happens all the time, i.e. see CNN [12] and the Economist [13], and note that the edited pictures did not compromise the actual reported story. And like I said before, there are better examples out there if you want to question the reliability of NYP. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• - this Salon article seems to me to be what the completely unverified and unnamed jew jew jew claims are all about. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Joan Walsh saying "because someone in the crowd supposedly yelled "Jew, Jew" before Logan's attack," when the story was a "network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault," is quite consistent with my assessment of her integrity over the years. That being said, it's clear that the coverage of this additional detail has been trumpeted by the right and ignored by the left. Not really surprising to anyone that pays attention to the media. †TE†Talk 16:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and while really quality outlets {such as wikipedia and the BBC) have not mentioned the unverified claim at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your opinion of "quality outlets." The biggest problem I'm seeing is that nobody is denying the Post's reporting. Is there any indication that quality outlets have tried to verify or debunk the "Jew, Jew!" thing? †TE†Talk 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

They don't need to discredit it, they do that by not repeating it. Quality outlets have not repeated the claim because it is quite an extreme claim from a single unnamed source for which there is no verification for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are the quality sources denying that aliens stole Elvis's baby? I say, we should report that as fact in Elvis, not to mention baby. If nobody denies it, we should report it. Mindbunny (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, there can't be verification if nobody tries to verify it. Many RS's have repeated and attributed it to the Post. We can take that for what it is. The quality outlets you are waiting for haven't said anything about it. We can't assume why that is. How can this be disputed here when no media outlets are disputing it? †TE†Talk 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

People will have been attempting to verify this since the new york post report claimed it happened, but there has been nothing to support this single unnamed claim. If someone else, named and reliable verifies it I will add it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a mention from these outlets that they have tried and were unable to verify? When WaPo mentioned it, the liberal commentator said that it's to be "taken with a grain of salt." That's about the closest thing to doubt that I've seen, and that didn't stop him from acknowledging it. Silence doesn't mean "unverifiable," it just means silence. †TE†Talk 17:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

They are news outlets, if a story is reported and newsworthy they want it and attempt to verify, that is normal working practice. In this case the silence can be interpreted as, unverified, unnamed and from a low quality publication and as such unworthy of repeating or reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We can't assume whether they want it or not, or if they want to disprove it or not. They are not obligated to do either. What some outlets find newsworthy is not the same as others, as we've seen over and over again. All we have is the Post, other RS's that have repeated and attributed their statements and silence. Silence isn't good for wikipedia. †TE†Talk 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

All news outlets want news that is what they do - two hundred muslims chanting jew jew jew while they sexually assault a reporter that is not a jew is news that they want to report if it is verifiable. . There is no silence, we are not required to add an extreme claim to a BLP - such claims require the highest quality of sourcing and that is just not available - wiki is not a mouthpiece for such jew arab propaganda - personally I wish they would hurry up and get on with the inevitable.... actually I want to trim the content from what it is now, its tabloid and exaggerated as it is. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wag of the Finger, LOL. *see below* †TE†Talk 18:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to avoid it but it just slipped out - I will attempt not to say the word again - As I see it, the fact that she did not need hospital treatment immediately and the limited amount of time spent in hospital in america and then when I read the description of the terrible and prolonged beating and sexual assault in our article it just doesn't add up. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We will figure that stuff out. CBS is the one that said it was "brutal," "sustained" and so forth. I wondered about her not being immediately hospitalized and the Post made sense of it. I already knew about her distrust of the Egyptian government, it just makes sense that they would stay away from travel to a hospital that may be overrun. Danger getting there and danger in what can happen at the hospital. The network jet also clarified just how and when she got out. I'm the one that added that info from the Post. Still have my questions. †TE†Talk 18:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the severe sustained brutal attack is kept it needs clearer attribution as to who said that. As I have experienced it, if someone is badly injured and needs a hospital then going there seems unavoidable to me, anyway, attribution will resolve that. Also that whipped into a frenzy comment - who whipped them into a frenzy? Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could use flag: Person involved in a current event

This article could possibly use the flag {{Current person}} which states: This article is about a person involved in a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. 5Q5 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that could require such an addition. Its not a current event, she is at home with her family. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The story of her attack is still in the news. The Egyptian government is investigating. Logan might be interviewed by the FBI with Egyptian investigators present. She might release a new statement. Other witnesses might release statements. New information, facts, can come out. But okay, I'm not going to press the issue. 5Q5 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The basic story will not change, there are no fast flowing updates on the horizon that would require the constant changing and updating of the article imo - others may disagree, if consensus is to add it then I don't object but as I understand the templates correct usage, this situation is not one that would warrant benefiting from a current event template Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. As I write this, though, the weekly news magazines have yet to report the story and their investigation of her attack and Google News has 122 global English-language stories posted measured in "hours ago." Anyway, I just wanted to mention that the {{Current person}} template is available if needed. I'll be moving on from this article. 5Q5 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Details of the attack have been released by Daily Mail. She was not raped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9chambers (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Two words

• tabloid - used 15 times
• sensational - used 20 times with various suffixes

These terms are hereby banned on this talk page, effective immediately!!!

While it's true that I have absolutely no authority to enforce these sanctions, this post shouldn't be taken in jest.

A stern wag of my finger will come to any and all violators! ;-)†TE†Talk 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the shoe fits.... The problem is that you are trying to use a sensationalist tabloid as a source regarding a sexual assault in a BLP. Mindbunny (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny—we have a source saying:

"60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.

And additionally:

A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told Esquire.com that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of "being Israeli spies." Logan is not Jewish.

Material based on the above information should be in our article. Our article can and should be saying something to the effect of the following:

A network source told the New York Post that she was "attacked for 20 to 30 minutes" in which her assailants were screaming "Jew! Jew!" during the assault; Logan is not Jewish.

The reader should be apprised of the presence of a source saying that shouts of "Jew! Jew!" were heard. Omitting that is a problem. A source that is at least adequate for our purposes, New York Post, is reporting that. By the way there are no WP:BLP concerns pertaining to reporting that shouts of "Jew! Jew!" were heard coming from the crowd. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no verification of this at all, there is also no consensus to include this extraordinary claim, the claims have basically died a death and actually don't even warrant repeating on this talkpage they have such little reflection in facts. Its basic and simple anti arab propaganda.Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Being a tabloid isn't necessarily a bad thing---the Rocky Mountain News, once one of the most respected news papers in the country, was a tabloid paper. Tabloid CAN means simply the page layout OR it can mean that the paper is a "tabloid" in the pejorative sense. I don't get the sense that the NYPost is the later, but I do get the sense that it is prone to the use of sensationalistic embellishments to sell the papers. It is this reputation that is at stake.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, Bus stop is being tendentious. Mindbunny (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say "Its basic and simple anti arab propaganda." No source supports that the New York Post report found here, to which you are referring, is "anti arab propaganda." That is merely your personal point of view.

Omitting material from sources such as this is something we should all be concerned about. The referred-to source adds an important perspective to this incident. By leaving out the reported reference to her as a "Jew" by her attackers, we are effectively transforming the incident into one that is solely sexual in nature. The problem is that the sources do not portray the incident as being solely sexual in nature. In fact some sources are not even mentioning the incident as being sexual at all.

We find for instance here an assertion that "Shouts of "Israeli" enraged the crowd even more." ("Jew" and "Israeli" are terms not primarily sexual in nature.) The Australian is of course a reliable source as is the New York Post.

WP:NPOV involves including all significant views. We should not exclude a dimension of the attack that reliable sources seem to be supporting. Reliable sources are telling us that her attackers referred to her variously as a "Jew" and/or an "Israeli". I believe that is language that we should be including in our description of the assault that Lara Logan sustained in Tahrir Square.

The article reads at present as if the incident were solely a sexual assault. In this source the supposed sexual dimension of the assault is not even mentioned: "It has also been revealed that she was stripped, punched and slapped by the crowd, which was labelling her a spy and chanting 'Israeli' and 'Jew' as they beat her." Notice also the complete absence of references to a sexual assault. The Mail Online is I believe also a reliable source.

This entire article in the Mail Online fails to make any reference to sex as a component of the assault. I think this places our article in violation of WP:NPOV. The Mail Online article does not mention sexual assault in a paragraph such as this: "CBS News was not revealing any more information about the incident, except to say that she was the victim of a 'brutal and sustained assault' at the hands of around 200 men who had been 'whipped into a frenzy' on the night Hosni Mubarak resigned from power." Notice the terminology: "'brutal and sustained assault'". That article is completely leaving out the sexual dimension of this incident.

I think our article is deficient when it says:

"…Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square…"

It is deficient because that is not the whole story. A "significant point of view" is being left out. Sources are showing that in addition to a sexual dimension to the assault is the labeling of her as a "Jew" and/or an "Israeli". This is a dimension to the attack that warrants brief mention in our article. Conversely, leaving that dimension out misconstrues what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I support only reporting the statement from the womans company, whatever that was, have you got a link to that statement, there are so many links being posted I can't see that one. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about Lara Logan, not about Incidents on Tahrir Square during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Therefore, the attack should be mentioned, and the information that it was not a rape needs to be included, in my opinion, due to the vagueness of the wording "brutal and sustained sexual assault". The other circumstances are not relevant in the context of this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

100% agree with Cs32en. We should strike this "CBS News indicated that she was overwhelmed along with her camera crew and security staff: "It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy. In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers" it adds little to the encyclopedic value of the Lara Logan article & readers have the source should they require further detail. Perhaps this debate is burning calories that could be better spent elsewhere. Just my $.02. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)\

The discussion should begin with sources, not with the information people want to include or exclude. The topic is 1) a BLP, and 2) a sexual assault that is one week old. The only acceptable sources are the highest quality ones. That means nothing anonymous, and nothing originating from a publisher with a reputation for sensationalism. At the moment, the only reliable source I've seen is CBS News--Logan's employer. The WSJ is not reporting that she wasn't raped. It is reporting that an anonymous source--not a representative of the WSJ--says that. Anonymous reporting is unacceptable regarding the details of someone's sexual assault--in a BLP. Mindbunny (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the NY Daily News considered reliable considering they are referencing a London Sunday Times article. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_lara_logan_cbs_reporter_covering_egypt_revolt_suffered_30_minutes_of_hell_in_cai.html. Also the Australian Herald Sun references the same: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/cbs-reporter-lara-logan-beaten-with-flag-poles-during-attack-in-egypt/story-e6frf7lf-1226009897452 and The Austrailian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/lara-logan-beaten-with-flag-poles-during-attack-in-egypt/story-fn3dxity-1226009808417 Additionally why would not the Independent online (the largest paper group in South Africa and the owner of the Sunday Tribune where Logan used to work) be considered reliable. http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/logan-tells-of-tahrir-square-assault-1.1029312 Patapsco913 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This[14] should put an end to the debate. The fact that the attack was accompanied by anti-semitic vitriol is now being reported by AOL News.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm..., the AOL article says: "according to the Times of London (via the Daily Mail.)"  Cs32en Talk to me  01:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's time for a content RfC on the anti-Semitic slurs/NYPost content issue. Once the RfC runs its course, anyone who brings the issue up again can be referred to the RfC until any additional sources come out which either confirm or deny the Posts reporting on the incident. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that Sunday Times has confirmed the Posts reporting. So now, the only issue is whether to include the newer details, including the anti-Semitic slurs, in the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The question of whether the details would be encyclopedic, if properly sourced, does remain. So does the question of whether we have any reliable sources. At the moment, all the sources seem to be owned by New Corp. (Rubert Murdoch), which often repeat each other's stories. And, none of them actually are taking responsibility for the report--it all comes down to an anonymous source. Not adequate for describing a sexual assault. Assuming it can properly sourced, it's better suited to an article on anti-Semitism. Mindbunny (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The New York Post and Sunday Times are considered to be reliable, verifiable sources under Wikipedia's policies. I guess we probably will need to use a content RfC to resolve this disagreement. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Check out Mindbunny's talk page. He is a very contentious editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.13.2 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, there are reliable sources for inclusion:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1317384 http://nation.foxnews.com/lara-logan/2011/02/16/egyptians-yelled-jew-jew-while-sexually-assaulting-cbs-reporter-lara-logan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358944/Lara-Logan-attack-Stripped-punched-whipped-flag-poles.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://nation.foxnews.com/lara-logan/2011/02/21/stripped-punched-and-whipped-flag-poles-full-horror-lara-logans-attack-emerges http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/flagpole_flog_E61HRINd1PS48FsgQKaHuO http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110216/pl_dailycaller/egyptianattackersshoutedjewjewwhilesexuallyassaultingcbsreporterlaralogan_1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357485/Lara-Logan-assault-Former-GMTV-reporter-suffers-sex-attack-covering-Egypt-uprising.html

And I think it ought to be included. V7-sport (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change and I think there are more editors now on this page calling for inclusion of some of the material from the sourced reports that shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" accompanied the assault. I think the article is in violation of WP:NPOV by leaving mention of that out. I base that on my feeling that those accompanying terms represent a "view". The accompanying shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" provide an additional "view" that our article has failed to present to the reader. At present the wording in the article only represents sexuality and unexplained violence for the assault. I don't find that sources are using terms such as "antisemitism" in relation to the assault so I think we should leave that out too. I've made what I think is the edit called for here. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that lasted for 15 minutes. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the multitude of sources discussing this happenstance cannot be ignored.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - note - hi, fifteen minutes is good they say five minutes of fame. I am neutral of this content as the reporting seems to have continued but the issue here is as User:Cs32en says is is it actually relevant here, I can easily support, no. not really, as this persons life story in concerned, she was attacked and is at home recovering.. I am neutral, leaning towards to not include the titillating details on the BLP. Anyways, User:Brewcrewer has replaced the content claiming a consensus but anyways, me and User:Cs32en at the least currently object to the inclusion, so I am not seeing this clear consensus for user brewcrewer's addition . Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

None of the details of the assault are relevant in this article. The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about Lara Logan, not about Egypt or about the mindset of some of that country's inhabitants.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny has removed again now, clearly there is sill a depth of good faith policy concerned opposition to this desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny reverted with this edit summary: "…undo contentious edit violating BLP guidelines…"

User:cs32en says, "None of the details of the assault are relevant in this article. The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about Lara Logan, not about Egypt or about the mindset of some of that country's inhabitants."

It is a contrivance to exclude material that has been reported elsewhere. That is what Wikipedia is about—the compiling of reliably sourced material. Was Lara Logan called a Jew? Then obviously we report it. Is she a Jew? No? Then obviously we report that. Sources point out that Lara Logan was incorrectly labeled a Jew by the people assaulting her, or at least those in the vicinity. This is in fact relevant to any biography of Lara logan.

It actually would be a WP:BLP concern not to include that material. The article at present conveys that an attractive woman was sexually assaulted. Omitted is that she was labeled a Jew and an Israeli—neither of which she is. Other sources are pointing out this unusual set of circumstances. Our article alone is mis-conveying that the assault was solely sexual in nature. WP:BLP would suggest that the mitigating factor of Logan being mislabeled a "Jew" and an "Israeli" be included to offset the simplistic and entirely understandable notion that she was sexually assaulted because she is a swimsuit model in addition to being a news reporter. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Our BLP policy means that we should include everything people say about a living person, as long as it is reliably sourced. And especially if it's not true. Following your logic, we definitely must include the reliably sourced information that Logan is a "former swimsuit model nicknamed ›34D Lara‹ by the British press".  Cs32en Talk to me  02:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea but yea but I am only interested in my personal content focus, all the other stuff I am not interested in. But my content focus is very very important and must be included, it is very very important, more so that anything else at all. Off2riorob (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cs32en—Mindbunny said that the inclusion of reference to "Jew" and "Israeli" is a violation of WP:BLP. It is not. It is peripheral to anything that has anything to do with her. It is a circumstantial fact in an event. It does not reflect on her. WP:BLP concerns itself especially with overly positive or overly negative information that is not impeccably sourced. But the reported information that Logan was called a "Jew" and/or an "Israeli" is neither flattery nor is it derogatory. It is irrelevant. Its relevance is to describing the surrounding circumstances that Logan found herself in. We should not be omitting reliably sourced material that is merely circumstantial to describing what transpired. To do so is to contrive to present a calculated version of events at variance with that presented by a variety of reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor coming from a neutral point of view, the content that is in the article now is very good, all worthwhile major points are included, if users want to read the details they can click on the externals, the current content was written by a neutral and is reflective of that. Off2riorob (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• - On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement revealing that some four days earlier, Logan had had been beaten and assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square while attempting to cover the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of then President Hosni Mubarak. CBS News indicated that she was overwhelmed along with her camera crew and security staff before being saved by a group of women and Egyptian soldiers. Logan returned to her hotel after the assault and was flown out of the country within hours on a chartered network jet.

The encyclopedic write - Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

the right version

Protected again. At least the titillating content is out of the BLP and the report is all there. All the important detail is included, the simple reportable detail is in the article now. The reporter was assaulted by the crowd and rescued by some women and soldiers and flown out of the country. Off2riorob (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Being mistaken for a Jew a BLP problem?

I see lots of "BLP" being thrown around when arguing for the removal of the fact that the mob was yelling "Jew, Jew" during its sexual assault of Logan. Can someone please explain clearly how being mistaken for a Jew is in any way denigrating that it would trigger any sort of BLP issue? Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Those claims are unworthy of reporting here, if there is an article about the attacks on the foreign reporters then perhaps there but not here, this is a BLP not a jew arab soapbox, its enough weight here to say she was an assaulted reporter and many were assaulted. Off2riorob (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—the reporting that Lara Logan was called a "Jew" and an "Israeli" is merely descriptive of what transpired. Why should that be omitted? Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Being mistaken for a Jew by a group of unknown people, or a subset of such a group, is not relevant for Logan's biography. See WP:COATRACK.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cs32en—that is a contrivance. As an encyclopedia we report what transpired. Is it reliably sourced? Then it is certainly material that can be reported. WP:COATRACK is not relevant. WP:COATRACK in fact involves contrivance. (We read: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.") That Logan was called a "Jew" is appropriate to any normal description of what transpired in the assault. We know this to be the case because an abundance of sources are relating this information to us. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Either it is relevant to a BLP, in which case the BLP standards apply, or it is not relevant to a BLP, in which case it doesn't belong in the article. WP:COATRACK seems suddenly quite applicable, after looking at the contribs of Bus stop and brewcrewer and finding them dominated by Jewish politics. It's hard to fathom the single-minded focus on getting this one bit of text into an article based on what is ultimately an unnamed source being published by what is ultimately one publisher (News Corp) known for sensationalism. Note that News Corp publications are known to freely reprint each other's stories, e.g. "The Australian integrates content from overseas newspapers owned by News Limited's parent, News Corporation, including the Wall Street Journal and The Times" [15] Regardless of all other considerations, the bottom line is that absolutely nothing about a recent sexual assault should be described based on anonymous sources. Mindbunny (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

the question assumed that if BLP was relevant BLP standards would apply so your response does not really add anything in terms of substance, unless it was an implicit recognition that you are backtracking from your previous edit summary: "undo contentious edit violating BLP guidelines." However now that you have shifted into COATRACK mode (a tangential essay) I am worried that we are dealing with WP:IREALLYJUSTDONTLIKEIT dressed up as policy concerns.

I guess the good part about this thread is that we are on the record that there is not legitimate rationale for deleting this sourced content on BLP grounds, and if Logan would not be alive we would theoretically be having this same discussion.

And correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but the entire justification for removing the content sourced to ..what 20 sources... is an essay?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone really just wrote "Jewish politics" huh... Bottom line is that the sources are reliable for tens of thousands of articles in this encyclopedia, many of which are BLP. The idea that this should be censored when the attack was a major portion of her career is ludicrous. The comments speak to the motivation and mindset of her attackers, that's why it should be included. V7-sport (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The attack is not a major part of her career, and it is included. This is her bio not a jew arab soapbox, the content as is now is not censored, its all there, itsd just been written in a encyclopedic manner, why don't you go add the jew baiting arab story to some relevant article, its some kind of coatrack here. Just because its important to you doesn't make it important to her life story. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this properly, this page cannot mention that the attack on Logan and other reporters were perpetrated by crowds shouting that she was a "Jew"? It certainly seems to me that it merits coverage. Here's a round up of this and other anti-Semitic attacks (apparently all on non-Jewish reporters who the crowd took for Jews) http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/media_watch_lara_logan_cover_up — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be a contrivance to report that she was sexually assaulted and subjected to violence and to at the same time leave out that the crowd chanted "Jew" and "Israeli" in accompaniment to this. The shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" are an integral part of what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not understand it correctly. There is no rule about what can be mentioned. There are rules about sourcing in a BLP, which strongly discourage this: "You could only have read (about the "Jew" allegations) in the New York Post (Feb. 16), which cited an unnamed person at CBS as its source." You can upgrade "strongly discourage" to "prohibit" when the topic is sexual assault. Again, this is not a news outlet. This is an encyclopedia. They are different. In the future, it's best not to rely on "The Jewish Week" for unbiased information on a a topic overlapping with Jewish politics.Mindbunny (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny—you are invoking WP:BLP. How would WP:BLP provide us with the guidance that results in your conclusion that mention of accompanying chants of "Jew" and "Israeli" are something we should be avoiding in this article? I am not asking about the "sexual assault" to which you are repeatedly making reference. What objection, based on WP:BLP grounds, do you have to the mention in our article that chants of "Jew" and "Israeli" accompanied the sexual assault? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've told you about 10 times, including my very last comment. If you don't see the answer to your question there, you're not going to see it here. I'm not going to repeat it an 11th time. Mindbunny (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny—Note the topic heading of this section of the Talk page. The topic heading is: "Being mistaken for a Jew a BLP problem?" You have suggested that WP:BLP might be a policy that would block inclusion of the mention of the shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" in accompaniment to the sexual assault. But when I ask you how WP:BLP applies to the shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" you respond that WP:BLP applies to the sexual assault. You say, for instance, in your post at 17:01, 24 February 2011 that "You can upgrade "strongly discourage" to "prohibit" when the topic is sexual assault". The problem is that you are not addressing the issue that this section of the Talk page is ostensibly about. The question is not how does WP:BLP apply to sexual assault, but rather how does WP:BLP apply to the shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" which accompanied the sexual assault of Logan? Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

RE,Off2riorob "The attack is not a major part of her career, and it is included". Of course the attack is a major part of her career.

"why don't you go add the jew baiting arab story to some relevant article" Thanks for assuming good faith. It's not my objective to be "Jew baiting". Is it your objective to cleanse the encyclopedia of any information that reflects poorly on anyone associated with islam? Regardless, anyone reading this article is going to wonder why the attackers did what they did. The chants clarify the motivation.V7-sport (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not create a separate entry linked to Lara Logan's biography entitled "2011 Tahir Square Assault on Lara Logan"? The event is definitely being discussed all over the blogosphere. That way it is not under the rules of BLP? If sourced properly (e.g. The Wall Street Journal reported...etc) Patapsco913 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The NY Daily News (which is not owned by Murdoch) is reporting the same story. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_lara_logan_cbs_reporter_covering_egypt_revolt_suffered_30_minutes_of_hell_in_cai.html Patapsco913 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the exact same rumor. It is a report of a report in the Sunday Times (which is a News Corp property). It is the same anonymous source. Same News Corp story. The Daily News, a competitor of the Post, is a gossip tabloid. Mindbunny (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny—how would you know it is a "rumor"? Isn't it merely an opinion of yours that it is a rumor? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny - the Daily News has won 10 pulitzer prizes. So what does it take to be "credible"? And where do you get the idea that the Daily News is all about gossip? Have you ever read it? And why not cite the #1 newspaper in South Africa where Lara Logan worked? (which is not a News Corp entity) Newspapers investigate sources they cite. And you seem to speculate a lot (discounting a jewish source) but then do not speculate that the club of American newspapers may be censoring themseves as well. Why not let the viewers of the website determine what is credible? The source is clearly "verifable" and there are many newspapers citing it. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's that the top 3 stories today are gossip (Charlie Sheen's addiction problem, Glenn Beck apology for being offensive, and "Move Over Kim (Kardashain)...LaLa Vasquez is in town"), and that the have an entire section which they name "Gossip." The bottom line is that the sourcing is anonymous, and I'm not going to repeat that again. No anonymous sources for descriptions of sexual assault in a BLP. It wouldn't actually matter if it were the New York Times (but gossip-mongering publications are doubly out). Mindbunny (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey no problem, then we should create another entry regarding the "2011 Tahir Square Assault on Lara Logan" so as to avoid the BLP restrictions. Also...why are you against the largest newspaper in South Africs where Lara Logan used to work? Or are you saying that it is a "gossip tabloid" as well? And who is talking about a description of "sexual assault"? Did you watch the video of her stating that she was repeatedly accused of working for the Israelis prior to her arrest? An entry should reflect the quality of the source but also the alleged details.

Wiki "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The London Times is not a light weight paper (as you seem to assert) and has an excellent reputaion. If we discount anonymous sources that are quoted by legitimate newspapers then we discount a lot, nay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

" bottom line is that the sourcing is anonymous, and I'm not going to repeat that again." No it isn't, it's sourced to the several newspapers and news organizations. Their name is on the story, they are the source. And we are not as bus stop tried to explain to you, arguing whether or not she was assaulted. We are arguing over whether or not to include what they were chanting while she was assaulted. The report of assault is already in the article. V7-sport (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement revealing that some four days earlier prior, Logan had had been beaten and assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square while attempting to cover the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of then-President Hosni Mubarak.[20] CBS News indicated that she was overwhelmed along with her camera crew and security staff before being saved by a group of women and Egyptian soldiers. Other news sources reported that her assailants "stripped," "punched" and "slapped" her while shouting "Israeli" and "Jew." [Source, e.g. AOL News] Logan returned to her hotel after the assault and was flown out of the country within hours on a chartered network jet.

1. Replace "earlier" with "prior": "earlier" makes it sound as though this incident happened before she was taken into military custody the first time.
2. "had": sloppy editing.
3. "while attempting to cover...": sloppy editing.
4. "then-President," not "then President."
5. "Other news sources reported...": if there is reason to doubt the reliability of the news sources, make it explicit in the text (WP:INTEXT). Not mentioning this invites suspicion.—Biosketch (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)—Biosketch (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

— Biosketch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please note that this article is protected due to lack of consensus among editors regarding the content that the editor above would like to add to the article (the bold text above, not the stylistic improvements that the editor is suggesting).  Cs32en Talk to me  12:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." Hello? Anybody home? Mindbunny (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced "had had" by "had", an evident slip. The other changes are either pointless, clearly by no stretch of the imagination uncontroversial, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The question here is why material not specifically related to the sexual assault needs to be omitted from the article. The particular material in question is the shouting from the crowd of "Jew" and "Israeli" that accompanied the sexual assault. The argument has been made that the more stringent guidelines found at WP:BLP would prohibit inclusion in our article of reports of shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" in accompaniment to the sexual assault. But many of us do not find that argument convincing. I, for one, see no reason for omitting the chanting of "Jew" and "Israeli" in accompaniment to the sexual assault for several reasons. First reason is that the chanting, or shouting, is not the sexual assault itself. Logan would not have been hospitalized for several days as a result of shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" in the absence of a violent and degrading sexual assault. The shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" do not reflect on Logan herself but rather on the crowd that made those comments. WP:BLP has as its primary concern the affect that our writing can have on the lives of living people. It does not reflect on Logan that a crowd called her "Jew" and "Israeli". It reflects on the crowd that made those comments. The subject of this article is not the crowd. The subject is Logan. It is a misuse of WP:BLP to try to assert that the crowd falls under the more stringent requirements spelled out by WP:BLP. Furthermore the chants of "Jew" and "Israeli" are adequately sourced for the purposes of general writing. Logan is not "damaged" by being called a "Jew" and an "Israeli". In all instances reliable sources set the record straight immediately after reporting the chants of "Jew" and "Israeli" by the crowd. They say that Logan is not Jewish. Our article would of course do the same. Immediately after reporting that the crowd called her "Jew" and "Israeli" our article would note that she is in fact not a Jew. The reader would at that point be apprised of her status as a non-Jew. WP:BLP does not hold up under scrutiny as a reason why we have to exclude the well-sourced information that shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" accompanied the very serious sexual assault on Logan. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Logan would not have been hospitalized for several days as a result of shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" in the absence of a violent and degrading sexual assault." — That's absolutely correct, and thus the chants have nothing to do with Logan, and are therefore undue in an article about Logan. Again, you may want to create an article about Incidents on Tahrir Square during the 2011 Egyptian revolution, although I'm not sure how such an article would be discussed at AfD.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

First you tried to exclude the content based on BLP but now, when the allegations prove to be true and widely reported by outlets other than the Post and your BLP argument goes into an uncontrollable tailspin, you move on to the some other reason to exclude it. The anti-Semitic vitriol that accompanied the brutal sexual assault is very much germaine and must be included in the article and you have no valid reason to exclude it. so knock it off.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As a casual reader/editor of wikipedia, it seems to me that an unverified, unnamed source should not be included in something that calls itself an encyclopedia. Can you imagine Encyclopedia Britannica citing a single unconfirmed report? Yes the report was referred to in other papers, but that is not confirmation, they are just saying "some one else told us, so we're telling you".

On a more general point, some of the editors of this article have a history of warring and "propaganda". Seems to me that in a situation where there is no consensus amongst these usual suspects, they should step out of the conversation and let less invested contributors have a say.

Even the title of this discussion was chosen to give express a point of view.

I have absolutely no interest in getting into an argument with anyone about this or any other issue on wikipedia because of the way discussions tend to go. Good day to you all. Overandout2011 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}If there's a lesson to be learned from this discussion, it's that Wikipedia should make English proficiency a precondition for bestowing administrator privileges.... The mistakes I pointed out eight hours ago should not be taking this long to amend.

1. User:JamesBWatson, the convention in English for using the word then in its adjectival form is to hyphenate it to the word it's modifying, e.g. "then-President," "then-Prime Minister," "then-chairman," etc. You don't have to hyphenate it, but why be stubborn about it? Why not follow the conventions that most speakers of the language use?
2. User:JamesBWatson, this is clearly someone's sloppy editing: "Logan had been beaten and assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square while attempting to cover the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of then President Hosni Mubarak." Do you not see that there's repetition there and that it's the result of someone's sloppy writing? Delete the part that's in bold so it says, "Logan had been beaten and assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of then-President Hosni Mubarak."—Biosketch (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It's not a universal convention. It is a matter of stylistic judgement.
2. Yes, I saw that one when you posted it earlier, but by the time I had read the other comments, checked the history that those comments related to, checked the other, more controversial edits you asked for, I managed to forget it. My apologies: I will correct it. Incidentally, although this time I am going to make the edit you ask for, in general being civil to other editors is more likely to get cooperation than remarks like "Wikipedia should make English proficiency a precondition for bestowing administrator privileges". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes, and my apologies for the snide and inappropriate remark. It felt as though you deliberately ignored my requests because of your personal opinion on the matter of the Egyptian mob's shouts at Logan. I ought not to have been hasty in concluding that you were abusing your authority, and it would have been nobler to have exercised greater restraint and repeated the request under assumption of good faith on your part.—Biosketch (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So this is what we have now;

• • On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement revealing that some four days earlier, Logan had been beaten and assaulted while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of then President Hosni Mubarak. CBS News indicated that she was overwhelmed along with her camera crew and security staff before being saved by a group of women and Egyptian soldiers. Logan returned to her hotel after the assault and was flown out of the country within hours on a chartered network jet.

CBS releasing a statement, chartering a jet and that she went back to her hotel are all acceptable yet what the crowd was chanting and the word "sexual" and "Jew" are evidentially not. As it's presented now, the article is sanitized to the point of censorship. V7-sport (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone coming to this page looking for details of what happened will be sadly disappointed. One of the major shortfalls of Wikipedia is that people tend to take certain pages and try to impose their will upon it. "I don't like it" or "I don't think it should be that way" tend to be their motivation. That, of course, leads to edit wars and the kind of soap opera we've got going here. Even if an impartial editor comes along and fixes the article, it will be reverted/edited/flamed/neutered right back to square one.99.0.37.134 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That Logan was called a Jew and an Israeli at the time of assault is hardly insignificant. Many reliable sources have not overlooked the significance of the chanting accompanying the assault. This article being a biography of Logan should not delve into the significance of that chanting but the chanting itself deserves mention. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The parties involved here have been fairly evenly split on whether or not to edit the article in the spirit you're proposing. The primary objection raised centered on the degree of reliability of the accounts of what Logan's assailants did to her, which is to say what forms of physical and verbal abuse she was the victim of exactly. There's consensus among the reports that she was sexually abused. Can it be said with the same confidence that there's consensus that her tormentors also called her "Israeli" and "Jew"? If reliable sources can be found, then I would personally endorse adding as the third sentence of the paragraph a passage giving some indication of what names the Egyptian mob called her, with in-text attribution to make it clear who reported it. In its fully protected form, the article had already established that she was attacked. When it became semi-protected, I added the physical circumstances of the attack, which seems not to have generated any controversy. Presumably, then, adding the verbal circumstances of the attack – provided of course that the sources are sound – would meet the standards of WP:BLP.—Biosketch (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch—WP:BLP reporting requirements are by-and-large not applicable to reports that there was shouting of "Jew", "Jew", from the crowd. The shouts of "Jew", "Jew" are not, strictly speaking, related to Logan. That is because sources do not make the connection between the ordeal that Logan endured and the shouting. Sources say that Logan was "sexually" assaulted, and sources say Logan was "physically" assaulted. But no source says Logan was "verbally" assaulted. Similarly no source says Logan was "verbally" abused. Nevertheless reporting of the shouts of "Jew", "Jew" should be included in our biography because of their pertinence. Sources widely report on the accompaniment of shouting from the crowd of "Jew", "Jew" as Logan's ordeal transpired. Much commentary is found in the media of the shouting from the crowd of the epithets "Jew" and "Israeli". The reader deserves to be apprised of the dimension of the assault involving calling her a Jew. As in all the news sources reporting this event, the record can be set straight immediately after mentioning that these epithets were used. This is accomplished by saying that Logan is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RE.—Biosketch"If reliable sources can be found, then I would personally endorse adding as the third sentence of the paragraph a passage giving some indication of what names the Egyptian mob called her, with in-text attribution to make it clear who reported it. " Here are some sources.

1234567V7-sport (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)