This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've added the word "sexual" to the article for the following reasons:
Parking this in the Discussion as it's rather poorly sourced. Perhaps it's time to split this incident off into its own article, though, to avoid the BLP constraints. Lara Logan awareness rally met with anger (5 March 2011)— Biosketch ( talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been going round and round for quite some time.
Here's a suggestion - count the votes of editors who have not engaged in spurious arguments, been banned, warred, called each other names, made arguments unrelated to the issue at hand.
If that's not enough, then stop the circular arguments of "You said...I said", etc and let less angry editors get a word in.
The tone of the discussion is often childish, one editor included "boxers or briefs...pistachio ice cream" in his argument when asked a question. Hardy the standard of discourse of an individual whose primary interest is the article.
p.s. If all you have is a childish response, just pretend you said rather than contributing it here. Clearwaterbehind ( talk) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested here. Someone might want to get the undisputed content back in before it happens. I'm not going to edit war and tried to explain to Mindbunny that he/she should be careful to only remove the disputed "Jew! Jew!" stuff. †TE† Talk 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the other content and sources that were deleted. The disputed material isn't all that Mindbunny removed. †TE† Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take each major point and break it down. Let's see where we stand and if we can reach some consensus here, I'll put the topic. And then ask 2 questions: 1) Are the sources reliable and 2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sentence involved: 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." [1]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
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
Sentence involved: Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery. [2] [3] [4] [1]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: 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. [5]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape." [6] WSJ Source
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Guidelines for BLP's
Note, these aren't principles of describing a sexual assault. You'd have to ratchet up the strictness even more... Mindbunny ( talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not just my opinion. No consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan. When Logan chooses to reveal details, we can discuss whether the details are appropriate and encycloepdic. In the meantime, it should not even be on the table. Mindbunny ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the article, and am rather surprised that there is no mention of immediate treatment at the hotel following the attack (which included sedation), or hospitalisation in the US following repatriation. [7]
This ommision seems to give the impression that the assault was trivial. Is there agreement that the treatment can be included in the article? Slowjoe17 ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the article, and am rather surprised that there is no mention of immediate treatment at the hotel following the attack (which included sedation), or hospitalisation in the US following repatriation. [8]
This ommision seems to give the impression that the assault was trivial. Is there agreement that the treatment can be included in the article? Slowjoe17 ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny has made this edit with this edit summary: "undo BLP violation without consensus". What is the "BLP violation"? Can Mindbunny or anyone else present the case that there is a WP:BLP violation in including the material involved in the edit referred to? Bus stop ( talk) 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added back a properly sourced contrib from another user. That makes two of us so far that thinks it belongs. Mindbunny reverted saying it lacked consensus and to see talk. What exactly was that user supposed to look at?
There is only one source, and it is anonymous. It is a "network source", which seems to mean a CBS source, even though CBS hasn't reported anything about anti-Semitism. There is one report based on that anonymous source, which has been repeated by a number of News Corp publications such as the New York Post and The Times. These newspapers are just reprinting the same story, which is based on an anonymous source. An anonymous source for details of a sexual assault in a BLP is not unacceptable. It is doubly unacceptable for making accusations of racism.
The first link in V7's list is an op-ed/blog and not a reliable source for anything. The 2nd is a Fox News (owned by News Corp) spot directly linking to the New York Post article. The third is a report in Daily Mail (a tabloid) directly citing the The Times. The 4th link in V7's list is virtually identical to the 2nd. The 5th is just the New York Post again, citing the The Times. It is one report, based on an anonymous source, and being reported mainly by one company-- News Corp.
Nobody who has spent 60 seconds looking at this Talk page could think there is a consensus to add the material about anti-Semitism. To answer Berean's question, "where exactly was that user supposed to look"...you are supposed look at the sections of this page called "The Anti-Semitic dimension" [1] which is very long and heated and plainly shows no consensus. Or, you could look at the section called "Being mistaken for a Jew a BLP problem?" which is also very long and heated and shows nonconsensus, and is obviously about the material in question. [2]. Or, you ould look at the ANI discussion which also showed no consensus [3]. Or you could look at the BLP Noticeboard discussion, which also showed no consensus [4]. Or, you could also notice that the page has been fully protected twice in the last two weeks, strongly suggesting a lack of consensus. Mindbunny ( talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The proper way to get a consensus is use consensus format. Bunny's tactics are to distract & mire everyone in discussions that will go nowhere. Bunny has already stated the intention to hijack this page ("My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.") in the current ANI thread and revealed true intentions to control this article ("We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts."). If several editors use the consensus format (i.e. Keep or Delete) then editors may get somewhere in making something clear in terms of consensus. Then when Bunny reverts that it will clearly be in violation.
I would appreciate it if those who are requesting that further information be added to the article propose specific wordings, so the rest of us can tell what you actually want "kept". NW ( Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"Both the Post and the Times are News Corporation subsidiaries. Those are almost certainly the same story, which has been repeated in a variety of News Corporation outlets." Thanks again fr the "I didn't hear that". V7-sport ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact-set speaks for itself:
Getting the process moving doesn't entail getting us to talk amongst ourselves. The archive and this page contains many extremely long threads of these editors talking amongst themselves. The problem is listening and, frankly, honesty. There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV. Brewcrewer, V7-Sport, Bus Stop, Biosketch, and Jujistuguy have similar histories, and overlappping articles. It's a rather remarkable coincidence that they are all here on this one article, seemingly only caring about this one point. Mindbunny ( talk) 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In the grand scheme of this womans life, what was being shouted (or not) as she was assaulted is hardly going to be remembered or remarked upon. The important thing is to say that she was attacked, beaten, while working in Cairo during the rebellion/uprising/revolt of 2011. If this was an article about the uprising, it might be worth mentioning the views of some Egyptians towards Israel, or maybe not. If this was an article about the attack on her, its inclusion would be debatable, but it's not.
Striving, fighting and re-framing to get it included in a biography smacks of point scoring, particularly when, after four weeks, there is but one poor source.
There is no consensus, how much more lack of consensus is needed to bring this to a close? Overandout2011 ( talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Really, why bother discussing when NW is going to do whatever he wants anyway? V7-sport ( talk) 01:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We should not confuse discussions related to user conduct with discussions related to the article's content. However, this seems to be what is happening in the section ("Break for consensus") above. Cs32en Talk to me 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Her title in the lead should be lower-cased, as Lara Logan, chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News. See Wikipedia:MOS#Titles_of_people. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for material of this nature, added 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC). AOLnews saying "According to The Daily Mail" is not a reliable source. Nature saying "According to The Daily Mail" is not a reliable source. NW ( Talk) 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Gee whiz. Just report that The Daily Mail said it and let the reader make up his or her mind if that's a reliable source or not. Last I heard, Fleet Street journalists were all journalists and Fleet Street newspaper editors were all newspaper editors.
Yours,
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Another frigging noticeboard. Like I wrote, why bother? If you are willing declare that the Times of London isn't a reliable source, to play the impartial administrator while reverting consensus and stopping the editing and post whatever end-product you decide on, why bother chasing our tails? You have already decided for us. V7-sport ( talk) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm done here. WP:BLPN or WP:ANI are there for your posting. NW ( Talk) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You might try following your own advice about relevance. A relevant comment would have been a contribution to the consensus effort earlier instead of having one of your first contributions to Wikipedia be finger wagging about the process. Then again, since nothing here other then NW's opinion is relevant, you might as well post whatever you want. V7-sport ( talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Has Lara Logan given any interviews since her attack? If she does corroborate the details, will the editors who have taken ownership of this article allow them to be added? 99.0.37.134 ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you claim she was given a bouquet of flowers for her trouble instead of brutally assaulted if you are going to censor sourced information? In terms of weight, it has already been censored to the point of being a footnote, despite earlier consensus. Seriously, if you are just going to purge what happened you might as well go all the way and take out the whole section. V7-sport ( talk) 01:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)And again, as a result of subjecting people to thinly veiled antisemitism, a cowboy admin, disruptive editing
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49] Edit warring, Forum shopping, whiny allegations of being anti-islam 2 ANI's and interpretation of consensus that is elastic enough to be meaningless we now have the polished turd that has been whitewashed of pertinent information. Heck of a job, Like I wrote, why bother saying anything happened to her at all?
V7-sport (
talk) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
"seems to be an argument you lost with someone else. " So when you said you had read the talk page that was just for show... "but it in no way informs us about the character and career of the subject of this article. It informs you about the event which happened to the subject."All I have to say further is that you were given a big clue stick by an admin over 12 days ago," And that has what to do with this? Funny how you looked through my history instead of the history of the argument you are commenting on. Going to bed V7-sport ( talk) 07:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The vote was a gauge of consensus, which was over ridden at the time. So your specific objection to the tag is that "Currently, only one person appears to be disputing it,"... Even if that were the case that would be enough. Do you think I couldn't get more by soliciting opinions from the above editors? V7-sport ( talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Even if you leave out the "salacious details" of her assault, I see no reason to exclude the anti-semitic aspects of the attack. It gives context to the event. Articles about the civil rights movement would definitely be neutered if you purge them of the racial overtones that led up to those events. 152.133.13.2 ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Lara Logan will give her first in-depth interview since the attack on 60 Minutes on 1 May, 2012. I'm sure that will qualify as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes. 99.0.37.134 ( talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why her birthdate (March 29, 1971) isn't included in the article? All the other wikipedias (ar, de, tr, cn) are showing it. 109.192.71.32 ( talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Requested here. Someone might want to get the undisputed content back in before it happens. I'm not going to edit war and tried to explain to Mindbunny that he/she should be careful to only remove the disputed "Jew! Jew!" stuff. †TE† Talk 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the other content and sources that were deleted. The disputed material isn't all that Mindbunny removed. †TE† Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take each major point and break it down. Let's see where we stand and if we can reach some consensus here, I'll put the topic. And then ask 2 questions: 1) Are the sources reliable and 2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sentence involved: 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." [1]
NYPost
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
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
Sentence involved: Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery. [1] [2] [3] [4]
NYPost
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: 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. [1]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape." [1] WSJ Source
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Guidelines for BLP's
Note, these aren't principles of describing a sexual assault. You'd have to ratchet up the strictness even more... Mindbunny ( talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not just my opinion. No consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan. When Logan chooses to reveal details, we can discuss whether the details are appropriate and encycloepdic. In the meantime, it should not even be on the table. Mindbunny ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it was "rape," the perpetrators were Muslims. That fact, and the deafening silence about that fact coupled with active efforts to suppress that information, is relevant and well sourced, while presented in a neutral and balanced manner. Jwbaumann ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be surprised to see reports on the Duke lacrosse rape case noting that the accused were ethnically Christians. But there is a conservative agenda to make prominent the presumed religion of Logan's attackers. [50]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the paragraph on the sexual assault, with details from the 60 Minutes interview. For the record, let's note the the tabloid claims that the entire mob was chanting "Jew! Jew" has been reduced, by Logan herself, to a single individual. The interesting portions, from a biographical perspective (which is what this is), are her interpretations and applications to her own life. The role her children played in her mental/emotional survival, and the value of being "out" about it to the careers of women journalists. The prurient detials and Middle-Eastern politics/baiting are less important. Mindbunny ( talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose the following. I prefer it to the other version because it provides insight into Lara Logan--her thoughts, motivations, etc.--which is what this article is supposed to provide. The other version is mostly gory details.
women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do
I certainly don't object to summarizing rather than quoting--that's a style question rather than a content one. Mindbunny ( talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
SV | MB |
---|---|
On 15 February, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following
Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. She was flown out of the country the day after the assault.
[1]
On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons. [2] She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs. [2]
|
In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in
Tahrir Square following the resignation of
Hosni Mubarak. She said the attack involved 200–300 men, that they tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, and "[f]or an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands." The more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. The attack continued for about 25 minutes. She said she believed she was going to die, but that she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "...when I thought I am going to die here, my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Eventually, an Egyptian woman, wearing a
chador, put her arms around Logan, and other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers, alerted by her crew, arrived and beat back the crowd with batons. Logan has said she does not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs.
[1]
[2]
|
I think I prefer the SV version. Although I think the "tearing at her scalp" sentence has an inappropriate tone and should probably be deleted. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
On 11 February 2011 Logan was attacked and beaten and sexually assaulted whilst reporting from Tahir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation. She was flown out of the country the next day.[7]. In an interview with CBS sixty minutes on May 1 Logan reported that the attack had involved 200-300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. Logan said one of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. The crowd tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her and "raped her with their hands." and took photographs of her with their cellphones. She was rescued by a group of women who closed ranks around her and some men with the women threw water at the crowd. At this point a group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[8] Logan said she planned to return to reporting from trouble spots and did not want the assault to define her.[8] Off2riorob ( talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. After an hour of reporting Logan was attacked and sexually assaulted by a crowd of men, some of whom erroneously shouted that she was Jewish. The attack continued for 25 minutes until a group of Egyptian women, and eventually soldiers came to Logan's aid. | ” |
How about this (as a starting point):
In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. In an interview with 60 Minutes (for whom she worked), Logan estimated the attack involved 200–300 men. She said the mob beat her, and "raped me with their hands." Logan said she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "... my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Logan said she was willing to do just one interview on the attack mainly because female reporters are often reluctant to report sexual assault, out of fear of being prevented from reporting in dangerous areas. [8][9] Mindbunny ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
An outsiders perspective - This is my first post ever to anything on Wikipedia: I have watched the debate on this discussion page for weeks, and its content has been essentially between, A. people who said that reliable sources reported that the mob assualting Lara Logan were chanting: "Jew! Jew!", versus B. people who insisted that the reports were from "unreliable sources" and thus this insight into the motivation of the assaulters should not be included. On Sunday May 1, 2011 CBS News 60 minutes journalist Scott Pelley confirmed explicitely and unambiguously that the groping mob became a savage frenzy of brutal sexual assault after the "spark" "igniting the gasoline" of chants of "she is a Jew" occured. Now the content of this discussion has shifted. The sources disparaged here were actually accurate, and, perhaps most amazingly (to the discredit of Wikipedia) we viewers are now witnessing a parade of people openly admitting that whatever "we do", we can't "let" this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters. At least you people admit that agendas drive your "encyclopedia". The agenda in this case being, agruing ad-infinitum to purge the truth (that the mob was motivated by antiJewish hatred of Jews) from the encyclopedia. God forbid anyone should be able to use wikipedia to find out the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.221.93 ( talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the truth here specifically. I do admire Wikipedia's excellence on non-controversial subjects. Back to this specific truth, I refer you to the editor above who wrote: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters".
There should be no removal of pertinent information that she herself volunteered. That the trigger appeared to be someone shouting that she was a Jew is clearly relevant, as is that they were tearing at her scalp, apparently trying to tear chunks of it off. She gained the impression that she was being killed by being torn apart. There should be no censorship of this. Just as we gave the details of Iman Obeidi's sexual assault (the details she offered), we have to tell this one too. I can't even imagine why any Wikipedian would want to censor this. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
On 15 February, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. She was flown out of the country the day after the assault. [1]
On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons. [2]
She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs. [2]
Why are you talking about censorship? As far as I can see the debate is about journalistic style v. encyclopedic style. What's that got to do with censorship? DeCausa ( talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
But it is censorship to edit with the rationale: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters", as was accurately quoted from this comment page, by the unsigned user above. Whoever had put that in their argument has obviously now realized they exposed their own violation of Wikipedia rules in their motivation for censoring out mention of the antiJew "fuel on the fire", and removed it, so that their case for hiding the hatred of Jews among the assaulters is hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.50.200 ( talk) 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(grumble) I feel like we're getting away from the point here. There are really two issues developing - 1) The gratuitous narrative nature of the wording, 2) the Jewish thing. The latter seems to be squelching discussion of the former. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in the 2 issue. Can I re-propose my wording, which I feel attempts to put things in a more scholarly tone, and ask whether anyone feels it's worse than the current wording?
“ | On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan detailing her recollection of the February assualt. Logan recounted that after an hour of reporting she was attacked and sexually assaulted by a crowd of men, who were reportedly spurred on by someone erroneously shouting that Logan was Jewish. The attack continued for 25 minutes until a group of Egyptian women, and eventually soldiers came to Logan's aid. | ” |
If not, can I add it? NickCT ( talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading this thread one can not help but notice the unfortunate agenda-driven nature of some people involved in this edit war. I am compelled to pop in here myself to note that I too very definitely saw the: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters" quote, exactly as cited earlier by two different people, written on this comment page above, before it was removed (by someone who must have wised up that it hurt their cause) sometime after four p.m. yesterday May 4. To the subject at hand, clearly all who check the reliable source, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, can see that this attack was indeed intensified by irrational hatred of all Jews (as noted by Pelley, Logan isn't even Jewish, but the fact that the mob thought she was, was "gasoline" that made them assault her more). The only reason to hide that fact, now that it is confirmed, is to protect the agenda of people who don't want included, relevant facts about this event, on the irrational hatred of Jews, that had the effect of pouring "gasoline" on this intense assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.178.114 ( talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"For the record", I was the anonymous 96.224.50.200 VERIZON DSL user (today the Verizon pool apparantly gave me 96.224.61.87), but unless I have an undiagnosed multiple personality disorder that I am unaware of, I am very definitely not the person at 129.98.221.93 Albert Einstein College who posted earlier yesterday, or the other Verizon DSL customer, 108.14.178.114, who posted today. No need to apologize though. Though I did just look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) and confirmed what I suspected: that I've just been called deceptive and false without merit or reason. I can only assume that you must have good reason for calling the other two (or one) people "socks". Or is what they say about wikipedia being, by default, hostile to outsiders (Google: "wikipedia hostility to outsiders") really more true than it should be. And, yes the reaction to my one single comment (gee, he must be those other guys too) is kind of annoying. Particularly when also taking the time and space to add a comment that also complains that there is too much irrelevant arguing here! (kind of ironic) Brings me back to the old days of Usenet in the 80s when we used to endure long threads arguing that long threads arguing about long threads wasted bandwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.61.87 ( talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The 60 Minutes interview added the following information to what was already known:
The purpose of the article is to increase understanding of Lara Logan. I advocate inclusion of the latter two points because they contribute to an understanding of Lara Logan. The first point may or may not advance understanding of that particular mob and/or Egyptian culture. I don't see how it advances understanding of Lara Logan. So I mildly, but not strongly, object to it. Mindbunny ( talk) 21:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what the argument is really about. After reading the entire (long) exchange, I have not seen a single compelling reason why not to include the call that she was (supposedly) a Jew as a catalyst for the intensifying of the attack. This is not undue weight, and the fact that the transcript is 4 pages long as nothing to do with it—you'll notice that much of the transcript deals with details that are non-encyclopedia, and you yourself didn't want to include for that reason. On the other hand, not including this important line is called selective hearing / selective use of sources, and is a violation of WP:NPOV. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that while there is no consensus on some of the details, there is clear consensus about others, such as the inclusion of the call "Jew, Israeli" as being a cause for intensifying the attack on Logan. As far as I can tell, at least 6 editors are in favor of this, with 2 opposed. It also concerns me that Cs32en is making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the merits of the arguments presented. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Imagine this. An Egyptian woman journalist arrived in central London to report on a political demonstration. Things were fine until her camera battery died. Suddenly she felt hands on her. Then she heard someone shout, "She's a Muslim!" At that point she was dragged off into a crowd of over 200 British men, who tore off her clothes, photographed her, and raped her with their hands—to the point where she suffered internal injuries—over a period of 25 minutes. They appeared to try to pull her apart, and tear parts of her scalp off. The attack stopped only when a group of British women surrounded her, and the police arrived to disperse the crowd.
Our source is an interview the woman herself gave to a major Egyptian television network, and there is footage of the attack beginning, so we have independent evidence that something happened. Would we be trying to omit the details that she offered, calling them unjustified and prurient? Would we want to censor that a trigger for the attack was someone shouting, "She's a Muslim"? Would we try to remove details showing the severity of the assault?
We all know that we would not be censoring, or in any way minimizing, that reporting. So please, someone explain to me what the essential difference is. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 06:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
How about a compromise - based on SV's edit but with a reduction in the overall tone:
On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving a mob estimated at 200 to 300, and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. Logan stated that she suddenly felt hands touching her, and in spite of her protests, the touching quickly grew worse. At one point, somebody shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, and according to CBS, this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." The crowd tore at her clothes and hair, groped, beat and digitally raped her. As her clothes were torn off, she saw some onlookers taking pictures of her with their cellphones. The mob continued violently pulling her body in different directions, to the point she feared she was going to die. Eventually, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[8] Gatoclass ( talk) 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What the 60 Minutes interview actually says, very clearly, is that she was already being "savagely assaulted" by the mob, already having her clothes torn off, prior to "someone" saying she was Israeli. This is the fourth time, I believe, that I have pointed this out. I have repeatedly quoted the relevant portion of the interview. SlimVirgin's analogy is factually distorted. The proposed wording above is factually distorted. 60 Minutes described it as a "savage assault" PRIOR to any mention of anti-Semitism, and attributes the anti-Semitic remark to a single individual. Get the facts straight. Mindbunny ( talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I offer the following distillation and summary of the long discussion above: There seem to be four basic opinions on the - "Jew" hatred sparking the crowd - issue here: 1. Agenda driven people with a fairly obvious prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, who are arguing to censor out any mention that a very public assault on a very public person was in fact intensified by anyone in the mob thinking she's a Jew and hating Jews. 2. Agenda driven people on the other side who insist on using this incident to prove that antisemitism is everywhere. 3. Legitimate opinions of wikipedians to leave the current text as it currently is: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a 'match to gasoline.'", because, clearly, that is what CBS News (a reliable source) reported. 4. Legitimate opinions of wikipedians who want to massage the wording so that it is more encyclopedic. I would offer the suggestion that those (1. and 2. above) who want to debate whether what happened to Lara Logan is proof or is not proof that the mob assaulting Lara Logan was a bunch of bigoted antisemites or not, do so on an antisemitism talk page. But clearly, (as 3. and 4. type commentators have eloquently and accurately explained) the CBS broadcast did clear and dispel (at least by Wikipedia standards) any earlier doubts whether those antisemitism related shouts (Israeli,Jew) were a real part of this mob attack. They were. Period. For those of you scratching their heads and wondering why the agenda driven people are so drawn to this specific article (Lara Logan), consider the fact that something like 10 or 11 million people watched that "Lara Logan attack" broadcast, so both sides (1. and 2.) are driven to prove that the broadcast proves their side's point. But the fact that the "Israeli, Jew" was shouted is now verified, and the fact that CBS News reported that this shout was a 'match to gasoline.' of the attack on Lara Logan, is also accurate, relevant, and from a reliable source, so it should stay in, in some form. But please keep the debate about what this means about Egyptian society on the Egyptian society page, and what this means about antisemitism on the antisemitism page. And let those sites reference the accurate quote they should be able to find here, on the Lara Logan page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.51.27 ( talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I just took the time to actually read the transcript of the CBS interview (something I obviously should have done earlier) and a number of things became apparent. Firstly, I didn't realize this assault took place on a night of wild celebrations after Mubarak's resignation - I think that point needs to be made clearer in the article. Secondly, the story mentions the possibility that Mubarak agents may have been behind the assault - a point that I think is probably worth mentioning.
In relation to the issues already under discussion - Logan herself does not even mention the "Israeli/Jew" angle. It is only briefly mentioned by the voiceover, and the comment is obviously hyperbolic. It reinforces my view that there is little point in including this in the article. There are also one or two additional points that may be worth mentioning. For example, the initial comment from someone in the crowd: "Let's take her pants off" gives an insight, I think, into how the assault began which the narrative here currently lacks. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tidied this some more to take Gatoclass's points into account, though whether she herself mentioned the shout of "Jew" during the interview is irrelevant; CBS did, and I don't know what's meant by calling it hyberbole. It was at that point that the attack became more frenzied, according to the reporter, so it's clearly relevant.
I added the initial sexual comment, which Logan hadn't heard or understood at the time. And I added the point about no one knowing whether these were people from the regime, or just a criminal mob. So that section now reads: [52]
On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. [1]
On 1 May, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later the crowd had made inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard in the report shouting "stop," just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They began to tear off her clothes and rape her with their hands, while taking photographs of her with their cellphones. They pulled her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in hospital. [2] She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home. [3]
CBS said it remained unclear whether the attackers were from the regime targeting a reporter, or whether it was simply a criminal mob. Logan said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, to avoid being defined by the assault, and plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs. [2]
Guys, there are comments on this page that are inappropriate and offensive; for example, the chuckle, and the "I say, chaps," and talk of "manhandling." A sexual assault shouldn't be discussed like this on a Wikipedia public page, and editors—including women editors—shouldn't be expected to deal with light-hearted comments about it. If we were discussing a black person (male or female) being pulled into a crowd of white men, and assaulted to the point where he believed they were trying to scalp him, there wouldn't be a single joke about it on this page.
If only for reasons of BLP, could I ask that people modify the tone, and keep the discussion to the minimum necessary to get through this? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Enraged the crowd" places even more emphasis on this issue when as I already stated I think it is overemphasized. "She was an Israeli and Jewish" sounds too formal to me for the context: "I say chaps, did you know the young lady you are in the process of manhandling is both Israeli and Jewish?" I doubt that will work. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC) [53]
... The "information" is omitted because the one company originating it (various News Corp companies) ultimately has not named any sources, because it is not confirmed by the victim, because it is about something deeply sensitive and private, and BLP requirement stipulate high quality sources and sensitivity. Mindbunny ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC) [55]
SlimVirgin asked me on my talk page to address concerns she raised with respect to comments on this page about Lara Logan that she believes are inappropriate. Wikipedia (including talk pages) is not censored against material that makes others feel uncomfortable, including material that is insensitive or in bad taste, as long as our policies against incivility (as concerns editors) and biographies of living persons (as concerns article subjects) are adhered to. Nonetheless, I ask the people who made these remarks not to repeat them (or similar remarks) as a matter of courtesy and collegiality, as it is clear that they cause distress to a fellow editor without contributing anything to the development of the article. This deteriorates the editing environment and distracts from productive discussion focused on improving the article. Thanks, Sandstein 05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
(how do you do that "outdent" thingee?)
The idea that the context doesn't matter is absurd. This is a discussion about what was meant, and context determines what is meant. It's as if two friends were horsing around and one them said, "I'm gonna kill you!", Sandstein and SV would, apparently, insist there is no excuse for threatening murder and demand an arrest. The whole approach to this problem deepens the problem. SV is accusing everyone else of being antagonstic and trying to control them, without any recognition of her own antagonism and refusal to work cooperatively. Sandstein either has a bias in favor of SV (I suspect this, after my gratuitous block), or just didn't bother researching the context before making his/her comment. Mindbunny ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein blocked The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous for 48 hours. This is so over the top, I've requested an RFC/U (Administrator) on Sandstein: [74]. Possibly, anybody targeted by Sandstein's recent comment here can certify it (not sure).
The user, OpinionAreLikeAHoles is almost certainly a sockpuppet: [75] Mindbunny ( talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
A sentence I composed and inserted was reverted here. The sentence was supposed to be based on a part of the CBS 60 Minutes interview found below:
That night, her attackers faded away in the crowd. It's not likely anyone involved will be brought to justice. We may never know with certainty whether the regime was targeting a reporter or whether it was simply - and savagely - a criminal mob. It is true, in Egypt in particular, that sexual harassment and violence are common.
Logan: I had no idea how endemic that it is so rife, so widespread, that so many Egyptian men admit to sexual harassing women and think it's completely acceptable. In fact, blame the women for it.
Pelley: Why are you telling this story now?
Logan: One thing that I am extremely proud of that I didn't intend is when my female colleagues stood up and said that I'd broken the silence on what all of us have experienced but never talk about.
Pelley: What did they mean by that?
Logan: That women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do. They are not adrenaline junkies you know, they're not glory hounds, they do it because they believe in being journalists.
I'm not sure in what way my wording strayed from that which was conveyed by Logan in the interview. The video interview is found here. The exerpt above is found near the end. The transcript of that interview is found here. Bus stop ( talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont think Logan actually says why she is speaking out. The line on the prevalence on sexual harassment and assault in Egypt was something that she say took her by surprise, not that it was a cause for her to tell her story. The line on others being proud of her for breaking the silence on what happens to female reporters but is untold for fear of being unable to perform their jobs was something she said was unintended. I dont see what in the transcript actually answers the question as to why she spoke out. But as far as saying she spoke out to "break the silence" on sexual harassment in Egypt, that is just wrong. There hasnt been silence on that issue, in either the English or Arabic press. That is well documented and well known, at least to those who pay attention to Egypt. nableezy - 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Our biography of Lara Logan doesn't mention anything relating to the period in 2006 when she reported extensively from Lebanon and Israel. If someone has the time for it, this might be a good place to start gathering information.— Biosketch ( talk) 11:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Restored cited material twice removed from Hastings controversy. Neither time did the censoring editor explain the mass deletion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tidied this again. The version that The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous restored was a poorly written quote farm. Versions below:
Previous | current |
---|---|
A June 2010 Rolling Stone article by
Michael Hastings quoted General
Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff in Iraq disparaging U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other administration officials. As a result of the article, President Obama fired McCrystal as his chief commander in Afghanistan.
[1] Logan criticized Hasting for violating a tacit agreement between reporters embedded with the military to not report unflattering banter.
[2] But Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates noted that prior to publishing the article, the magazine had abided by all of the "express requests for off-the-record and background or not-for-attribution" made by the military.
[3]
Some reporters condemned Logan. Matt Taibbi wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck" which found Logan ignorant about journalistic responsibilities, saying, "If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a 'reputable' journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it." [4] CNN's Jamie McIntyre said Logan's making issue of Hastings' lack of military service was both "clueless and unhelpful.", and her "ill-conceived attack" had "unfortunately reinforced the worst stereotype" of reporters embedded with the military by making them seem to be "'in bed' with them." Logan had, McIntyre said, effectively presented the "smoking gun" to those "looking for evidence combat reporters are too dazzled by the shiny stars on the commander's epaulets." [5]
|
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist,
Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General
Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.
[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.
[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent,
Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters.
[3]
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.
[4]
|
SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 06:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I can agree with Slim that the "quote farm" should probably be reduced, and that a more concise version of this controversy would be appropriate per WP:UNDUE (just as I have argued per the assault section). However, I think the "clueless and unhelpful" statement should probably stay. When one war correspondent calls another's position "clueless", that can hardly be dismissed as a trivial criticism in my view. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
SV, the reason I think such a line should be included is because the others do not say the same thing. The line on her comments reinforcing the worst stereotype of embedded reporters doesnt say what that stereotype is. The line on her seeing herself as part of the military comes closer, but not quite where Taibbi went. Taibbi's point was about the establishment news media as a whole has stopped performing their duty and instead acts as PR in order to gain access, to be in the club. Logan's comments were, in his view, reflective of that trend. Nothing else really says that. If it were me, I would remove the line on the worst stereotype as I dont think that conveys any real information and add this. nableezy - 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
For those interested there is a discussion involving this article at the WP:BLPN. Link to it here. Bus stop ( talk) 00:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Taibbi has his partisans, including me, but after you consider what Greenwald actually said about Logan, he seems a little shrill, and even less effective a critic than Greenwald. She is not on the side of the angels in his mind. Again, is it being left to me to add Logan's defense of herself? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 02:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Included criticisms of Logan for maligning Hastings lack of military service. How strongly they felt she should not have gone there is notable. Added McInyre's defense of Logan. Added Greenwald's Logan's views typifying journalism's decline, echoing in a more detailed - though marginally less emphatic - way some of Taibbi's sentiments towards Logan. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
SV | The Artist |
---|---|
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist,
Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General
Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.
[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.
[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent,
Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters.
[3]
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.
[4]
|
In June 2010 many journalists reacted negatively to Logan's faulting Rolling Stone magazine's
Michael Hastings for reporting unflattering comments of General
Stanley A. McChrystal's and his staff's about U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other top administration officials. Logan disparaged Hastings for having not served in the U.S. military, did not believe what he reported, and said he violated an "unspoken" agreement between journalists and combat troops to regard soldiers' banter as off the record. She also lamented that due to the publication of Hastings' article, President Obama had fired McCrystal as his top military commander in Afghanistan.
[1]
[2]
Taking exception to Logan's maligning of Hastings' lack of military service were former CNN chief military correspondent Jamie McIntyre (now with Military.com), Glenn Greenwald of Slate.com, and the New Yorker's Amy Davis. McInyre said it was "clueless and unhelpful" for her to compare McCrytal's service record with Hastings', while Davis called Logan's approach in the matter "low", and Greenwald said that by furiously mentioning Hastings lack of miltary background, Logan had dropped her "neutral journalist mask." [3] [4] [5] Logan's alleging of Hastings' poor journalistic ethics was said by Michael Calderone of Yahoo News to be unsupported by "any evidence." [6] In regards to other effects of Logan's views of Hastings on journalism in general, Greenwald said she had reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters of seeming to be "in bed" and too protective of the military brass they covered at the expense of informing the public. Greenwald also suggested that journalism students study the differences of the "The two poles of journalism" represented by Hastings and Logan to learn learn how Hasting represented what "journalism is supposed to be", and how Logan presented "what it has actually degenerated into." [7] McIntyre on CNN's Reliable Sources found "insulting' that Hastings believed veteran military reporters would "write favorable stories in order to ensure access." McIntyre said he and his colleagues instead wrote balanced, accurate and fair stories with context, as shown, he said, by Logan's many "hard-hitting stories. That hasn't blunted her access." [8]
|
There was also an in-between version where Nableezy added material to SV's version (Nableezy's additions in bold):
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist, Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan. [1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them. [2] CNN's former chief military correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters, that being that they are "in bed" with the military brass that they are covering. [3] Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military and that she apparently saw her role as protecting the military brass, not informing the public. [4]
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)(If we could concisely excerpt relevant edits at issue, rather than submit a barrage of full diffs, it would be easier to get arguments and points across and consensus be found.)
In short, what some present as a pigeon turd, was, in fact, a shitstorm. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 04:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: too many editor's referred to the length of the section to go unnoticed and to doubt the merit of the perception. I've reduced the section to two paragraphs, and maybe half the size of my earlier edit.
I restored an edit that addressed concerns of other editors.
@ The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the perfect example of why facts require secondary sources. So what this says is that glenn greenwald says lara logan is a sellout, and the implication that what he says is true. The 2nd one's not sourced properly because it's an editorial, and the 1st one isn't because it's still an editorial and you're using him as a source for himself (he's writing about his opinion). If you can just quote an editorial about lara logan and credit it to its author, then you can do that anywhere, about anyone.
So you don't actually have a proper source for that part, or the one before it, or the one before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.80.230 ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Dispute over encyclopedic tone and level of detail in description of sexual assault. Mindbunny ( talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation.[13] CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with her about it on 1 May 2011; she said she was speaking out because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs.[14]
She said the incident involved 200–300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. She had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later he heard the crowd make inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline". They tore off her clothes and raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of women were camping. One woman wearing a chador put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in hospital.[14] She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home.[15] CBS said it remained unclear who the attackers were, and unlikely that any will be prosecuted.[14]
Logan was sexually assaulted by a mob of men while reporting in Tahir Square after Hosni Mubarak's resignation. The men beat her and raped her with their hands. In an interview with 60 Minutes (her employer), Logan said "there was no doubt in my mind I was in the process of dying." Her stated intention in doing an interview about her assault was to break a "code of silence." She said female reporters often conceal sexual assault, fearing future denial of hazardous assignments. Logan said she planned to return to reporting from trouble spots.
Issue over whether to specify that "someone yelled Israeli". Points against it concern due weight. It only gets about 12 seconds, in a voiceover, out of a 13-minute interview; she spends more time talking about her children. The interview makes clear the shout did not trigger the attack, although it may have intensified it. The argument in favor is that it reveals the midset of the crowd, and is described as intensifying the attack.
An encyclopedia article on someone's biography shouldn't contain graphic details. Stuff like " She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died." is encyclopedic neither in tone nor content. The bit about the shout of "Israeli" is given very little wieght in Logan's account--12 seconds in 13-14 minute interview, and is more about the crowd than Logan. There may be validity to coverage of the use of anti-Semitism in popular uprisings in the Middle East, but this article is not the place to do justice to that topic. Mindbunny ( talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The current version gives a much better understanding of the incident, and expresses Logan's experience and views much better. It's also better writing. The new version leaves details about the assault, and is so brief that one cannot even understand what happened or what the pretext was for it. Also, this RFC "vote" is a travesty, given that RFCs are supposed to be discussions, and this was opened less than a month after the previous discussion on the same topic closed. Continually re-opening discussions on topics where consensus does not support you is disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't like either, although the current version is the worst. It's unencyclopedic - written in airport paperpack pulp-style. The MB version is OK but it smacks of allowing Logan to soapbox. On the Jew/Israeli issue I don't think it's especially important or notable but I don't object to it going in. The best version is that proposed by NickCT in the previous discussion. Slightly tweaked, this is a version:
Collapse text copied from a blog, not a WP:RS. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a different story entirely at http://temorisblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/rape-women-stripped-what-really-happened-to-lara-logan/ which declares that Lara Logan wasn't seriously attacked (though she may have been badly frightened). [Témoris Grecko] was buying tea from a vendor in Tahrir with two friends, Amr Fekry, a 26 year old Egyptian call center agent, and Andi Walden, a San Francisco political science student. Then we heard the noise and saw the mob coming. A blonde woman, neatly dressed with a white coat, was being dragged and pushed. It didn’t seem to me she was panicking, but rather trying to control the situation. They passed us in an moment. They were yelling “agent!, agent!” I tried to run to intervene, but some Egyptians I didn’t know prevented me from doing it. There was nothing I could do and, as a foreign journalist, I’d surely end up being accused of being an agent too, and attacked. Fekry did go there and dissapeared into the crowd, 50 or 100 people strong. Later I spoke with two young male activists who helped the person I later learned was Lara Logan (I didn’t know her before, I don’t usually follow US networks). They were Omar El Shennawy, a 21 year old teacher of English, and Abdulrahman Elsayed, a 25 year old teacher of physical education. They said they had formed a human chain with other young men to protect Logan, and then delivered her to the Egyptian Museum military post. When I read CBS’s story and it’s interpretation by other media outlets, I felt troubled. It seemed misleading. “It didn’t make sense to me”, said Benjamin Starr, from Boston who arrived as a tourist on January 24th, and stayed to witness the uprising. He also saw the mob pass by with Lara Logan. “I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe something happened in another part of the square, but from what I saw, she was being taken by men to the soldiers, and her clothes were not torn off. There were no women, I didn’t see a single woman in the crowd around her.” Similarly, in hearing the CBS’s communiqué, Amr Fekry wrote on my Facebook wall: “It’s a little bit ridiculous what we hear that she was raped in Tahrir!! We were there! You remember she was about two meters away from us when we were buying tea! Maybe someone harassed her, but she ran and people protected her from being hit! I tried to go and help her but many people pushed me hard to go away as they thought I was trying to hit her. The only thing that some people only thought she was an Israeli spy!”'' ... I went to ask Abdulrahman Elsayed, and he related a similar account. “I was in front of her, one metre away. This was after I saw her running with a man beside her. They stopped, maybe because someone blocked their way. We formed a human chain to protect her. Only young people, 10 or 15, all men. We surrounded her. People behind us were pushing and trying to grab her, someone might have touched her. I saw her top was uneven. There was a women and children’s tent (Tahrir sq. had become a campsite) and we tried to take her there, but we couldn’t because of the pressure. Someone had a taser and he held it high, making electric noises and threatening the attackers. He told them to move away. So we could go to the Museum’s military post and deliver her to the soldiers. Then we stood there blocking the people who tried to follow her. We brought her two doctors, first a young male, then an older female. The doctor and Lara were the only women around.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulAmir ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:TakenbyChrisHondros cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, a user has added a pic and I have cropped it and added the cropped pic - looking at it and after asking the uploader and getting no reply its a copyright violation. I have nominated it for deletion at commons. As I have made one revert today if anyone is passing and agrees with the assessment - please remove it and replace the previous picture, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 June 2011
Without wishing to diminish the ghastliness of Ms Logan's ordeal, or the culpability of her attackers, but should sexual assault conducted with hands be classified as "rape"? Would such a definition be allowed in a criminal conviction: and if so, where? (Egypt, for example?) BobbyGillespie ( talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Lara Logan's been selected to receive the Daniel Pearl award this year in October ( source). I'm not sure if mentioning that now qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL.— Biosketch ( talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Logan's also in line to receive the John F. Hogan Distinguished Service Award on 26 September ( source).— Biosketch ( talk) 12:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As I write this, C-SPAN is airing an interview that
Marvin Kalb, via his "
The Kalb Report", has done of
Lara Logan. The on-stage interview occurred this past Monday Nov. 7th, 2011, at the National Press Club. Presumably a copy of it SHOULD be available at C-SPAN's web page.
http://research.gwu.edu/centersinstitutes/globalmedia/programs/thekalbreport
LP-mn ( talk) 03:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any Egyptian sources on the sexual assault at Tahrir square? This seems to be quite a big story in the US and with so many players involved it seems likely that some of the Egyptian press might have covered it.
Journalists keep getting raped in Tahrir square . . . On November 24, 2011 French television reporter Caroline Sinz from the state network France 3 was subjected to a violent sexual assualt by a gang of young men and boys and her cameraman was beaten while covering the "democracy protestors" (yeah,right) in Tahrir square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.49.158 ( talk) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
She was married to Jason Siemon in the late 90's. Her divorce became official in 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/arts/television/23loga.html?pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.116.233 ( talk) 08:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This title needs to be changed to "Reporting from Egypt and alleged sexual abuse". No trial, no evidence, just one reporter's account. Also, this entire section is a soapbox for Lara Logan's political ideology - quote after quote, instead of an encyclopedic description of significant events. Bureacracy ( talk) 05:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The claim of sexual assault is an allegation, not a fact. The title is misleading and this section is a meme for CBS media and its fellow travelers. Hopefully, a rational moderator will issue corrections to this page. Bureacracy ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does the section header use the word "abuse" and not "assault"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.54.30 ( talk) 23:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edbenson98 ( talk) 07:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
University Alliance françase doesn't exist in Paris. It's just a private school like the British Council for learning english. So the source is wrong. Thanks
There is simply no such institution. The Alliance Francaise is not a university and doesn't run one. This should be amended but how? 81.129.1.88 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
she gave a speech at the BGA slamming the administration for its lies with respect to afghanistan and the al qaeda resurgence. she added that she was non-partisan and would have slammed any administration "equally full of shit" (her words, not mine!).
it was shocking in its bluntness and has pretty much gone viral. why isn't it in here? 66.105.218.19 ( talk) 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Do the lurid details of the sexual assault really belong in an encyclopedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 ( talk) 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
More information is needed about Lara's ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.152.221 ( talk) 15:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
using a polemical word like "propagandist" seem inappropriate to the encylopedic writing style: "Lincoln Group propagandist Joseph Burkett." publicist? representative? spokesman? all more even-handed, which is the tone to be aimed at, i think. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.132.246 ( talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lara Logan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Université de l'Alliance Française" to "Alliance Française". There is no such thing as the "Université de l'Alliance Française". The Alliance Française is "an international organization that aims to promote French language and culture around the world" according to its Wikipedia page. [1] When you Google "Université de l'Alliance Française", the only hits are from Lara Logan's own biography. Nowayjose1900 ( talk) 12:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Lara Logan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brtnda\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Lara Logan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brtnda\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lara Logan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Why is Lara back on 60 minutes after knowingly put on a Benghazi report that she knew had errors and had a political context and would have effects politically? Dan Rather made a mistake and they kicked him off purposely. She knew and is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobe67 ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The page needs to be updated. Here's a suggested addition to the page:
According to the Associated Press on June 4, "CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said Wednesday that Logan is back. She had no details on when the correspondent resumed work and what stories she is working on." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/04/lara-logan-back-at-cbs-as-questions-linger-over/199604
Danpetitpas ( talk) 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lara Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lara Logan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding that she now works, at least temporarily, for Sinclair. SEC California ( talk) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is very simple. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This article has been under active ArbCom restrictions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since 2011. Per a request at my talk page I looked into it. The connection at that time was pretty tenuous, and nothing since has happened to make it more appropriate, so I have removed the notice and the restrictions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Happening pretty frequently and might deserve mention. Her new show No Agenda is noteworthy. Tinybirdie ( talk) 12:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn’t be quoting a Daily Beast article as an authoritative source - the article cited is an Opinion piece Tjavsky95 ( talk) 03:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This entire section is based off of that one Daily Beast opinion piece, and should definitely not be cited as fact - recommend deleting entire section or adding additional sources Tjavsky95 ( talk) 03:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
"Fact-checkers found that claims of bricks being left at protest sites were baseless."
Seriously? "fact-checkers?" We saw pallets of bricks multiple times at multiple locations where rallies, marches, etc. were going to occur. This is NOT a conspiracy no matter what some biased "fact checkers" claim. We saw them with our own eyes! 76.202.192.102 ( talk) 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The Greenwald quote is there as representative of the criticism of Logan over that incident, and there were much more severe critiques that were removed in favor of that. The "exact revenge" bit is available in any number of sources (and I replaced the dead link instead of removing it entirely in bad faith now). The Daily Beast bits dont seem especially controversial, or inaccurate, but what exactly is the issue with it? nableezy - 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Desperate for attention? I understand, haven't heard your name since you left CBS. 2603:6000:D640:1949:4554:E5F1:D124:571C ( talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what happened to you, never that influential, but now attempting to use horrible events in history to strengthen yourself in what is a right wing narrative is not helping the Republican Party! You are attempt to raise credibility in what is now a declining career is disgusting on so many levels. You may find support, though comparisons to the Holocaust is destructive and reflection if you as a person. The party needs leadership not “you”! Gd help your children. 2601:401:C501:8770:F0A7:9812:A356:289B ( talk) 17:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is ought to be "the free encyclopedia" and many believe in that. Yet in truth it is clearly ridicularizing ideas that doesn't match some ideological base in which wikipedia is founded.
This is clear in this section, when it calls "conspiracy theory" the narratives of Lara about the ukranian conflict. It is clear to any meticulous observer that wikipedia is biased into torwards the western narratives and russofobia, while in fact this narrative are itself showing to be fake even in the US media. Big tech is a shame. 186.227.92.62 ( talk) 01:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
"In November and December 2021, Logan promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories about AIDS and COVID-19. She shared articles that disputed the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS."
1) If there are articles disputing it, then clearly it is not a consensus ("general agreement", COD).
2) Even if there were a consensus, disputing it would not be "promoting falsehoods", as pointed out by the late Michael Chrichton:
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 18:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
If there are articles disputing it, then clearly it is not a consensusThat is bullshit. Of course there will be some incompetent people doubting the consensus among competent people. See also Scientific consensus on climate change, where the situation is the same. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
How do we know they're incompetent? Because they doubt the consensus.is not how it is. That is only how every expertise looks from the outside, to people who neither share nor like that expertise.
Last sentence in Personal section mentioning breast implants is not relevant nor is it cited. 65.66.76.130 ( talk) 22:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm just curious to learn whether any other news person or news agency has independently verified the basic facts surrounding the Tahrir Square attack that Lara Logan said targeted her and caused her to spend three days in a hospital in Egypt in 2011. 2601:200:C000:1A0:D83:32BD:89E5:E84C ( talk) 01:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Consider these two quotes: 'Logan was hired in 2000 by GMTV Breakfast Television (in the UK) as a correspondent' and 'CBS News offered her a full-fledged correspondent position in 2002'
Either (in the UK) needs to be removed from the former, or (in the US) needs to be added to the latter.
Could someone undertake? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:FD4C:2554:8A55:1C38 ( talk) 12:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Would it be fair to call her a conspiracy theorist in the page's opening sentence, assuming we can have reliable third parties judging her as such based on the Rothschild stuff and other things she peddles? Aresef ( talk) 21:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've added the word "sexual" to the article for the following reasons:
Parking this in the Discussion as it's rather poorly sourced. Perhaps it's time to split this incident off into its own article, though, to avoid the BLP constraints. Lara Logan awareness rally met with anger (5 March 2011)— Biosketch ( talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been going round and round for quite some time.
Here's a suggestion - count the votes of editors who have not engaged in spurious arguments, been banned, warred, called each other names, made arguments unrelated to the issue at hand.
If that's not enough, then stop the circular arguments of "You said...I said", etc and let less angry editors get a word in.
The tone of the discussion is often childish, one editor included "boxers or briefs...pistachio ice cream" in his argument when asked a question. Hardy the standard of discourse of an individual whose primary interest is the article.
p.s. If all you have is a childish response, just pretend you said rather than contributing it here. Clearwaterbehind ( talk) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested here. Someone might want to get the undisputed content back in before it happens. I'm not going to edit war and tried to explain to Mindbunny that he/she should be careful to only remove the disputed "Jew! Jew!" stuff. †TE† Talk 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the other content and sources that were deleted. The disputed material isn't all that Mindbunny removed. †TE† Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take each major point and break it down. Let's see where we stand and if we can reach some consensus here, I'll put the topic. And then ask 2 questions: 1) Are the sources reliable and 2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sentence involved: 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." [1]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
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
Sentence involved: Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery. [2] [3] [4] [1]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: 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. [5]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape." [6] WSJ Source
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Guidelines for BLP's
Note, these aren't principles of describing a sexual assault. You'd have to ratchet up the strictness even more... Mindbunny ( talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not just my opinion. No consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan. When Logan chooses to reveal details, we can discuss whether the details are appropriate and encycloepdic. In the meantime, it should not even be on the table. Mindbunny ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the article, and am rather surprised that there is no mention of immediate treatment at the hotel following the attack (which included sedation), or hospitalisation in the US following repatriation. [7]
This ommision seems to give the impression that the assault was trivial. Is there agreement that the treatment can be included in the article? Slowjoe17 ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read the article, and am rather surprised that there is no mention of immediate treatment at the hotel following the attack (which included sedation), or hospitalisation in the US following repatriation. [8]
This ommision seems to give the impression that the assault was trivial. Is there agreement that the treatment can be included in the article? Slowjoe17 ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny has made this edit with this edit summary: "undo BLP violation without consensus". What is the "BLP violation"? Can Mindbunny or anyone else present the case that there is a WP:BLP violation in including the material involved in the edit referred to? Bus stop ( talk) 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added back a properly sourced contrib from another user. That makes two of us so far that thinks it belongs. Mindbunny reverted saying it lacked consensus and to see talk. What exactly was that user supposed to look at?
There is only one source, and it is anonymous. It is a "network source", which seems to mean a CBS source, even though CBS hasn't reported anything about anti-Semitism. There is one report based on that anonymous source, which has been repeated by a number of News Corp publications such as the New York Post and The Times. These newspapers are just reprinting the same story, which is based on an anonymous source. An anonymous source for details of a sexual assault in a BLP is not unacceptable. It is doubly unacceptable for making accusations of racism.
The first link in V7's list is an op-ed/blog and not a reliable source for anything. The 2nd is a Fox News (owned by News Corp) spot directly linking to the New York Post article. The third is a report in Daily Mail (a tabloid) directly citing the The Times. The 4th link in V7's list is virtually identical to the 2nd. The 5th is just the New York Post again, citing the The Times. It is one report, based on an anonymous source, and being reported mainly by one company-- News Corp.
Nobody who has spent 60 seconds looking at this Talk page could think there is a consensus to add the material about anti-Semitism. To answer Berean's question, "where exactly was that user supposed to look"...you are supposed look at the sections of this page called "The Anti-Semitic dimension" [1] which is very long and heated and plainly shows no consensus. Or, you could look at the section called "Being mistaken for a Jew a BLP problem?" which is also very long and heated and shows nonconsensus, and is obviously about the material in question. [2]. Or, you ould look at the ANI discussion which also showed no consensus [3]. Or you could look at the BLP Noticeboard discussion, which also showed no consensus [4]. Or, you could also notice that the page has been fully protected twice in the last two weeks, strongly suggesting a lack of consensus. Mindbunny ( talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The proper way to get a consensus is use consensus format. Bunny's tactics are to distract & mire everyone in discussions that will go nowhere. Bunny has already stated the intention to hijack this page ("My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.") in the current ANI thread and revealed true intentions to control this article ("We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts."). If several editors use the consensus format (i.e. Keep or Delete) then editors may get somewhere in making something clear in terms of consensus. Then when Bunny reverts that it will clearly be in violation.
I would appreciate it if those who are requesting that further information be added to the article propose specific wordings, so the rest of us can tell what you actually want "kept". NW ( Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"Both the Post and the Times are News Corporation subsidiaries. Those are almost certainly the same story, which has been repeated in a variety of News Corporation outlets." Thanks again fr the "I didn't hear that". V7-sport ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact-set speaks for itself:
Getting the process moving doesn't entail getting us to talk amongst ourselves. The archive and this page contains many extremely long threads of these editors talking amongst themselves. The problem is listening and, frankly, honesty. There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV. Brewcrewer, V7-Sport, Bus Stop, Biosketch, and Jujistuguy have similar histories, and overlappping articles. It's a rather remarkable coincidence that they are all here on this one article, seemingly only caring about this one point. Mindbunny ( talk) 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In the grand scheme of this womans life, what was being shouted (or not) as she was assaulted is hardly going to be remembered or remarked upon. The important thing is to say that she was attacked, beaten, while working in Cairo during the rebellion/uprising/revolt of 2011. If this was an article about the uprising, it might be worth mentioning the views of some Egyptians towards Israel, or maybe not. If this was an article about the attack on her, its inclusion would be debatable, but it's not.
Striving, fighting and re-framing to get it included in a biography smacks of point scoring, particularly when, after four weeks, there is but one poor source.
There is no consensus, how much more lack of consensus is needed to bring this to a close? Overandout2011 ( talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Really, why bother discussing when NW is going to do whatever he wants anyway? V7-sport ( talk) 01:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We should not confuse discussions related to user conduct with discussions related to the article's content. However, this seems to be what is happening in the section ("Break for consensus") above. Cs32en Talk to me 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Her title in the lead should be lower-cased, as Lara Logan, chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News. See Wikipedia:MOS#Titles_of_people. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for material of this nature, added 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC). AOLnews saying "According to The Daily Mail" is not a reliable source. Nature saying "According to The Daily Mail" is not a reliable source. NW ( Talk) 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Gee whiz. Just report that The Daily Mail said it and let the reader make up his or her mind if that's a reliable source or not. Last I heard, Fleet Street journalists were all journalists and Fleet Street newspaper editors were all newspaper editors.
Yours,
GeorgeLouis (
talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Another frigging noticeboard. Like I wrote, why bother? If you are willing declare that the Times of London isn't a reliable source, to play the impartial administrator while reverting consensus and stopping the editing and post whatever end-product you decide on, why bother chasing our tails? You have already decided for us. V7-sport ( talk) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm done here. WP:BLPN or WP:ANI are there for your posting. NW ( Talk) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You might try following your own advice about relevance. A relevant comment would have been a contribution to the consensus effort earlier instead of having one of your first contributions to Wikipedia be finger wagging about the process. Then again, since nothing here other then NW's opinion is relevant, you might as well post whatever you want. V7-sport ( talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Has Lara Logan given any interviews since her attack? If she does corroborate the details, will the editors who have taken ownership of this article allow them to be added? 99.0.37.134 ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you claim she was given a bouquet of flowers for her trouble instead of brutally assaulted if you are going to censor sourced information? In terms of weight, it has already been censored to the point of being a footnote, despite earlier consensus. Seriously, if you are just going to purge what happened you might as well go all the way and take out the whole section. V7-sport ( talk) 01:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)And again, as a result of subjecting people to thinly veiled antisemitism, a cowboy admin, disruptive editing
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49] Edit warring, Forum shopping, whiny allegations of being anti-islam 2 ANI's and interpretation of consensus that is elastic enough to be meaningless we now have the polished turd that has been whitewashed of pertinent information. Heck of a job, Like I wrote, why bother saying anything happened to her at all?
V7-sport (
talk) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
"seems to be an argument you lost with someone else. " So when you said you had read the talk page that was just for show... "but it in no way informs us about the character and career of the subject of this article. It informs you about the event which happened to the subject."All I have to say further is that you were given a big clue stick by an admin over 12 days ago," And that has what to do with this? Funny how you looked through my history instead of the history of the argument you are commenting on. Going to bed V7-sport ( talk) 07:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The vote was a gauge of consensus, which was over ridden at the time. So your specific objection to the tag is that "Currently, only one person appears to be disputing it,"... Even if that were the case that would be enough. Do you think I couldn't get more by soliciting opinions from the above editors? V7-sport ( talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Even if you leave out the "salacious details" of her assault, I see no reason to exclude the anti-semitic aspects of the attack. It gives context to the event. Articles about the civil rights movement would definitely be neutered if you purge them of the racial overtones that led up to those events. 152.133.13.2 ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Lara Logan will give her first in-depth interview since the attack on 60 Minutes on 1 May, 2012. I'm sure that will qualify as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes. 99.0.37.134 ( talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why her birthdate (March 29, 1971) isn't included in the article? All the other wikipedias (ar, de, tr, cn) are showing it. 109.192.71.32 ( talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Requested here. Someone might want to get the undisputed content back in before it happens. I'm not going to edit war and tried to explain to Mindbunny that he/she should be careful to only remove the disputed "Jew! Jew!" stuff. †TE† Talk 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the other content and sources that were deleted. The disputed material isn't all that Mindbunny removed. †TE† Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to take each major point and break it down. Let's see where we stand and if we can reach some consensus here, I'll put the topic. And then ask 2 questions: 1) Are the sources reliable and 2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sentence involved: 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." [1]
NYPost
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
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
Sentence involved: Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery. [1] [2] [3] [4]
NYPost
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: 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. [1]
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Sentence involved: A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape." [1] WSJ Source
1) Are the sources reliable?
2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?
Guidelines for BLP's
Note, these aren't principles of describing a sexual assault. You'd have to ratchet up the strictness even more... Mindbunny ( talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not just my opinion. No consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan. When Logan chooses to reveal details, we can discuss whether the details are appropriate and encycloepdic. In the meantime, it should not even be on the table. Mindbunny ( talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it was "rape," the perpetrators were Muslims. That fact, and the deafening silence about that fact coupled with active efforts to suppress that information, is relevant and well sourced, while presented in a neutral and balanced manner. Jwbaumann ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be surprised to see reports on the Duke lacrosse rape case noting that the accused were ethnically Christians. But there is a conservative agenda to make prominent the presumed religion of Logan's attackers. [50]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the paragraph on the sexual assault, with details from the 60 Minutes interview. For the record, let's note the the tabloid claims that the entire mob was chanting "Jew! Jew" has been reduced, by Logan herself, to a single individual. The interesting portions, from a biographical perspective (which is what this is), are her interpretations and applications to her own life. The role her children played in her mental/emotional survival, and the value of being "out" about it to the careers of women journalists. The prurient detials and Middle-Eastern politics/baiting are less important. Mindbunny ( talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose the following. I prefer it to the other version because it provides insight into Lara Logan--her thoughts, motivations, etc.--which is what this article is supposed to provide. The other version is mostly gory details.
women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do
I certainly don't object to summarizing rather than quoting--that's a style question rather than a content one. Mindbunny ( talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
SV | MB |
---|---|
On 15 February, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following
Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. She was flown out of the country the day after the assault.
[1]
On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons. [2] She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs. [2]
|
In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in
Tahrir Square following the resignation of
Hosni Mubarak. She said the attack involved 200–300 men, that they tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, and "[f]or an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands." The more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. The attack continued for about 25 minutes. She said she believed she was going to die, but that she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "...when I thought I am going to die here, my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Eventually, an Egyptian woman, wearing a
chador, put her arms around Logan, and other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers, alerted by her crew, arrived and beat back the crowd with batons. Logan has said she does not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs.
[1]
[2]
|
I think I prefer the SV version. Although I think the "tearing at her scalp" sentence has an inappropriate tone and should probably be deleted. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
On 11 February 2011 Logan was attacked and beaten and sexually assaulted whilst reporting from Tahir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation. She was flown out of the country the next day.[7]. In an interview with CBS sixty minutes on May 1 Logan reported that the attack had involved 200-300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. Logan said one of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. The crowd tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her and "raped her with their hands." and took photographs of her with their cellphones. She was rescued by a group of women who closed ranks around her and some men with the women threw water at the crowd. At this point a group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[8] Logan said she planned to return to reporting from trouble spots and did not want the assault to define her.[8] Off2riorob ( talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. After an hour of reporting Logan was attacked and sexually assaulted by a crowd of men, some of whom erroneously shouted that she was Jewish. The attack continued for 25 minutes until a group of Egyptian women, and eventually soldiers came to Logan's aid. | ” |
How about this (as a starting point):
In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. In an interview with 60 Minutes (for whom she worked), Logan estimated the attack involved 200–300 men. She said the mob beat her, and "raped me with their hands." Logan said she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "... my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Logan said she was willing to do just one interview on the attack mainly because female reporters are often reluctant to report sexual assault, out of fear of being prevented from reporting in dangerous areas. [8][9] Mindbunny ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
An outsiders perspective - This is my first post ever to anything on Wikipedia: I have watched the debate on this discussion page for weeks, and its content has been essentially between, A. people who said that reliable sources reported that the mob assualting Lara Logan were chanting: "Jew! Jew!", versus B. people who insisted that the reports were from "unreliable sources" and thus this insight into the motivation of the assaulters should not be included. On Sunday May 1, 2011 CBS News 60 minutes journalist Scott Pelley confirmed explicitely and unambiguously that the groping mob became a savage frenzy of brutal sexual assault after the "spark" "igniting the gasoline" of chants of "she is a Jew" occured. Now the content of this discussion has shifted. The sources disparaged here were actually accurate, and, perhaps most amazingly (to the discredit of Wikipedia) we viewers are now witnessing a parade of people openly admitting that whatever "we do", we can't "let" this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters. At least you people admit that agendas drive your "encyclopedia". The agenda in this case being, agruing ad-infinitum to purge the truth (that the mob was motivated by antiJewish hatred of Jews) from the encyclopedia. God forbid anyone should be able to use wikipedia to find out the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.221.93 ( talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the truth here specifically. I do admire Wikipedia's excellence on non-controversial subjects. Back to this specific truth, I refer you to the editor above who wrote: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters".
There should be no removal of pertinent information that she herself volunteered. That the trigger appeared to be someone shouting that she was a Jew is clearly relevant, as is that they were tearing at her scalp, apparently trying to tear chunks of it off. She gained the impression that she was being killed by being torn apart. There should be no censorship of this. Just as we gave the details of Iman Obeidi's sexual assault (the details she offered), we have to tell this one too. I can't even imagine why any Wikipedian would want to censor this. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
On 15 February, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. She was flown out of the country the day after the assault. [1]
On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons. [2]
She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs. [2]
Why are you talking about censorship? As far as I can see the debate is about journalistic style v. encyclopedic style. What's that got to do with censorship? DeCausa ( talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
But it is censorship to edit with the rationale: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters", as was accurately quoted from this comment page, by the unsigned user above. Whoever had put that in their argument has obviously now realized they exposed their own violation of Wikipedia rules in their motivation for censoring out mention of the antiJew "fuel on the fire", and removed it, so that their case for hiding the hatred of Jews among the assaulters is hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.50.200 ( talk) 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(grumble) I feel like we're getting away from the point here. There are really two issues developing - 1) The gratuitous narrative nature of the wording, 2) the Jewish thing. The latter seems to be squelching discussion of the former. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in the 2 issue. Can I re-propose my wording, which I feel attempts to put things in a more scholarly tone, and ask whether anyone feels it's worse than the current wording?
“ | On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan detailing her recollection of the February assualt. Logan recounted that after an hour of reporting she was attacked and sexually assaulted by a crowd of men, who were reportedly spurred on by someone erroneously shouting that Logan was Jewish. The attack continued for 25 minutes until a group of Egyptian women, and eventually soldiers came to Logan's aid. | ” |
If not, can I add it? NickCT ( talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading this thread one can not help but notice the unfortunate agenda-driven nature of some people involved in this edit war. I am compelled to pop in here myself to note that I too very definitely saw the: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters" quote, exactly as cited earlier by two different people, written on this comment page above, before it was removed (by someone who must have wised up that it hurt their cause) sometime after four p.m. yesterday May 4. To the subject at hand, clearly all who check the reliable source, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, can see that this attack was indeed intensified by irrational hatred of all Jews (as noted by Pelley, Logan isn't even Jewish, but the fact that the mob thought she was, was "gasoline" that made them assault her more). The only reason to hide that fact, now that it is confirmed, is to protect the agenda of people who don't want included, relevant facts about this event, on the irrational hatred of Jews, that had the effect of pouring "gasoline" on this intense assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.178.114 ( talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"For the record", I was the anonymous 96.224.50.200 VERIZON DSL user (today the Verizon pool apparantly gave me 96.224.61.87), but unless I have an undiagnosed multiple personality disorder that I am unaware of, I am very definitely not the person at 129.98.221.93 Albert Einstein College who posted earlier yesterday, or the other Verizon DSL customer, 108.14.178.114, who posted today. No need to apologize though. Though I did just look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) and confirmed what I suspected: that I've just been called deceptive and false without merit or reason. I can only assume that you must have good reason for calling the other two (or one) people "socks". Or is what they say about wikipedia being, by default, hostile to outsiders (Google: "wikipedia hostility to outsiders") really more true than it should be. And, yes the reaction to my one single comment (gee, he must be those other guys too) is kind of annoying. Particularly when also taking the time and space to add a comment that also complains that there is too much irrelevant arguing here! (kind of ironic) Brings me back to the old days of Usenet in the 80s when we used to endure long threads arguing that long threads arguing about long threads wasted bandwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.61.87 ( talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The 60 Minutes interview added the following information to what was already known:
The purpose of the article is to increase understanding of Lara Logan. I advocate inclusion of the latter two points because they contribute to an understanding of Lara Logan. The first point may or may not advance understanding of that particular mob and/or Egyptian culture. I don't see how it advances understanding of Lara Logan. So I mildly, but not strongly, object to it. Mindbunny ( talk) 21:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what the argument is really about. After reading the entire (long) exchange, I have not seen a single compelling reason why not to include the call that she was (supposedly) a Jew as a catalyst for the intensifying of the attack. This is not undue weight, and the fact that the transcript is 4 pages long as nothing to do with it—you'll notice that much of the transcript deals with details that are non-encyclopedia, and you yourself didn't want to include for that reason. On the other hand, not including this important line is called selective hearing / selective use of sources, and is a violation of WP:NPOV. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that while there is no consensus on some of the details, there is clear consensus about others, such as the inclusion of the call "Jew, Israeli" as being a cause for intensifying the attack on Logan. As far as I can tell, at least 6 editors are in favor of this, with 2 opposed. It also concerns me that Cs32en is making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the merits of the arguments presented. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Imagine this. An Egyptian woman journalist arrived in central London to report on a political demonstration. Things were fine until her camera battery died. Suddenly she felt hands on her. Then she heard someone shout, "She's a Muslim!" At that point she was dragged off into a crowd of over 200 British men, who tore off her clothes, photographed her, and raped her with their hands—to the point where she suffered internal injuries—over a period of 25 minutes. They appeared to try to pull her apart, and tear parts of her scalp off. The attack stopped only when a group of British women surrounded her, and the police arrived to disperse the crowd.
Our source is an interview the woman herself gave to a major Egyptian television network, and there is footage of the attack beginning, so we have independent evidence that something happened. Would we be trying to omit the details that she offered, calling them unjustified and prurient? Would we want to censor that a trigger for the attack was someone shouting, "She's a Muslim"? Would we try to remove details showing the severity of the assault?
We all know that we would not be censoring, or in any way minimizing, that reporting. So please, someone explain to me what the essential difference is. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 06:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
How about a compromise - based on SV's edit but with a reduction in the overall tone:
On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving a mob estimated at 200 to 300, and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. Logan stated that she suddenly felt hands touching her, and in spite of her protests, the touching quickly grew worse. At one point, somebody shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, and according to CBS, this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." The crowd tore at her clothes and hair, groped, beat and digitally raped her. As her clothes were torn off, she saw some onlookers taking pictures of her with their cellphones. The mob continued violently pulling her body in different directions, to the point she feared she was going to die. Eventually, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[8] Gatoclass ( talk) 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What the 60 Minutes interview actually says, very clearly, is that she was already being "savagely assaulted" by the mob, already having her clothes torn off, prior to "someone" saying she was Israeli. This is the fourth time, I believe, that I have pointed this out. I have repeatedly quoted the relevant portion of the interview. SlimVirgin's analogy is factually distorted. The proposed wording above is factually distorted. 60 Minutes described it as a "savage assault" PRIOR to any mention of anti-Semitism, and attributes the anti-Semitic remark to a single individual. Get the facts straight. Mindbunny ( talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I offer the following distillation and summary of the long discussion above: There seem to be four basic opinions on the - "Jew" hatred sparking the crowd - issue here: 1. Agenda driven people with a fairly obvious prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, who are arguing to censor out any mention that a very public assault on a very public person was in fact intensified by anyone in the mob thinking she's a Jew and hating Jews. 2. Agenda driven people on the other side who insist on using this incident to prove that antisemitism is everywhere. 3. Legitimate opinions of wikipedians to leave the current text as it currently is: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a 'match to gasoline.'", because, clearly, that is what CBS News (a reliable source) reported. 4. Legitimate opinions of wikipedians who want to massage the wording so that it is more encyclopedic. I would offer the suggestion that those (1. and 2. above) who want to debate whether what happened to Lara Logan is proof or is not proof that the mob assaulting Lara Logan was a bunch of bigoted antisemites or not, do so on an antisemitism talk page. But clearly, (as 3. and 4. type commentators have eloquently and accurately explained) the CBS broadcast did clear and dispel (at least by Wikipedia standards) any earlier doubts whether those antisemitism related shouts (Israeli,Jew) were a real part of this mob attack. They were. Period. For those of you scratching their heads and wondering why the agenda driven people are so drawn to this specific article (Lara Logan), consider the fact that something like 10 or 11 million people watched that "Lara Logan attack" broadcast, so both sides (1. and 2.) are driven to prove that the broadcast proves their side's point. But the fact that the "Israeli, Jew" was shouted is now verified, and the fact that CBS News reported that this shout was a 'match to gasoline.' of the attack on Lara Logan, is also accurate, relevant, and from a reliable source, so it should stay in, in some form. But please keep the debate about what this means about Egyptian society on the Egyptian society page, and what this means about antisemitism on the antisemitism page. And let those sites reference the accurate quote they should be able to find here, on the Lara Logan page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.51.27 ( talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I just took the time to actually read the transcript of the CBS interview (something I obviously should have done earlier) and a number of things became apparent. Firstly, I didn't realize this assault took place on a night of wild celebrations after Mubarak's resignation - I think that point needs to be made clearer in the article. Secondly, the story mentions the possibility that Mubarak agents may have been behind the assault - a point that I think is probably worth mentioning.
In relation to the issues already under discussion - Logan herself does not even mention the "Israeli/Jew" angle. It is only briefly mentioned by the voiceover, and the comment is obviously hyperbolic. It reinforces my view that there is little point in including this in the article. There are also one or two additional points that may be worth mentioning. For example, the initial comment from someone in the crowd: "Let's take her pants off" gives an insight, I think, into how the assault began which the narrative here currently lacks. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tidied this some more to take Gatoclass's points into account, though whether she herself mentioned the shout of "Jew" during the interview is irrelevant; CBS did, and I don't know what's meant by calling it hyberbole. It was at that point that the attack became more frenzied, according to the reporter, so it's clearly relevant.
I added the initial sexual comment, which Logan hadn't heard or understood at the time. And I added the point about no one knowing whether these were people from the regime, or just a criminal mob. So that section now reads: [52]
On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. [1]
On 1 May, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later the crowd had made inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard in the report shouting "stop," just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They began to tear off her clothes and rape her with their hands, while taking photographs of her with their cellphones. They pulled her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in hospital. [2] She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home. [3]
CBS said it remained unclear whether the attackers were from the regime targeting a reporter, or whether it was simply a criminal mob. Logan said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, to avoid being defined by the assault, and plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs. [2]
Guys, there are comments on this page that are inappropriate and offensive; for example, the chuckle, and the "I say, chaps," and talk of "manhandling." A sexual assault shouldn't be discussed like this on a Wikipedia public page, and editors—including women editors—shouldn't be expected to deal with light-hearted comments about it. If we were discussing a black person (male or female) being pulled into a crowd of white men, and assaulted to the point where he believed they were trying to scalp him, there wouldn't be a single joke about it on this page.
If only for reasons of BLP, could I ask that people modify the tone, and keep the discussion to the minimum necessary to get through this? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Enraged the crowd" places even more emphasis on this issue when as I already stated I think it is overemphasized. "She was an Israeli and Jewish" sounds too formal to me for the context: "I say chaps, did you know the young lady you are in the process of manhandling is both Israeli and Jewish?" I doubt that will work. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC) [53]
... The "information" is omitted because the one company originating it (various News Corp companies) ultimately has not named any sources, because it is not confirmed by the victim, because it is about something deeply sensitive and private, and BLP requirement stipulate high quality sources and sensitivity. Mindbunny ( talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC) [55]
SlimVirgin asked me on my talk page to address concerns she raised with respect to comments on this page about Lara Logan that she believes are inappropriate. Wikipedia (including talk pages) is not censored against material that makes others feel uncomfortable, including material that is insensitive or in bad taste, as long as our policies against incivility (as concerns editors) and biographies of living persons (as concerns article subjects) are adhered to. Nonetheless, I ask the people who made these remarks not to repeat them (or similar remarks) as a matter of courtesy and collegiality, as it is clear that they cause distress to a fellow editor without contributing anything to the development of the article. This deteriorates the editing environment and distracts from productive discussion focused on improving the article. Thanks, Sandstein 05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
(how do you do that "outdent" thingee?)
The idea that the context doesn't matter is absurd. This is a discussion about what was meant, and context determines what is meant. It's as if two friends were horsing around and one them said, "I'm gonna kill you!", Sandstein and SV would, apparently, insist there is no excuse for threatening murder and demand an arrest. The whole approach to this problem deepens the problem. SV is accusing everyone else of being antagonstic and trying to control them, without any recognition of her own antagonism and refusal to work cooperatively. Sandstein either has a bias in favor of SV (I suspect this, after my gratuitous block), or just didn't bother researching the context before making his/her comment. Mindbunny ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein blocked The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous for 48 hours. This is so over the top, I've requested an RFC/U (Administrator) on Sandstein: [74]. Possibly, anybody targeted by Sandstein's recent comment here can certify it (not sure).
The user, OpinionAreLikeAHoles is almost certainly a sockpuppet: [75] Mindbunny ( talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
A sentence I composed and inserted was reverted here. The sentence was supposed to be based on a part of the CBS 60 Minutes interview found below:
That night, her attackers faded away in the crowd. It's not likely anyone involved will be brought to justice. We may never know with certainty whether the regime was targeting a reporter or whether it was simply - and savagely - a criminal mob. It is true, in Egypt in particular, that sexual harassment and violence are common.
Logan: I had no idea how endemic that it is so rife, so widespread, that so many Egyptian men admit to sexual harassing women and think it's completely acceptable. In fact, blame the women for it.
Pelley: Why are you telling this story now?
Logan: One thing that I am extremely proud of that I didn't intend is when my female colleagues stood up and said that I'd broken the silence on what all of us have experienced but never talk about.
Pelley: What did they mean by that?
Logan: That women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do. They are not adrenaline junkies you know, they're not glory hounds, they do it because they believe in being journalists.
I'm not sure in what way my wording strayed from that which was conveyed by Logan in the interview. The video interview is found here. The exerpt above is found near the end. The transcript of that interview is found here. Bus stop ( talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont think Logan actually says why she is speaking out. The line on the prevalence on sexual harassment and assault in Egypt was something that she say took her by surprise, not that it was a cause for her to tell her story. The line on others being proud of her for breaking the silence on what happens to female reporters but is untold for fear of being unable to perform their jobs was something she said was unintended. I dont see what in the transcript actually answers the question as to why she spoke out. But as far as saying she spoke out to "break the silence" on sexual harassment in Egypt, that is just wrong. There hasnt been silence on that issue, in either the English or Arabic press. That is well documented and well known, at least to those who pay attention to Egypt. nableezy - 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Our biography of Lara Logan doesn't mention anything relating to the period in 2006 when she reported extensively from Lebanon and Israel. If someone has the time for it, this might be a good place to start gathering information.— Biosketch ( talk) 11:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Restored cited material twice removed from Hastings controversy. Neither time did the censoring editor explain the mass deletion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tidied this again. The version that The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous restored was a poorly written quote farm. Versions below:
Previous | current |
---|---|
A June 2010 Rolling Stone article by
Michael Hastings quoted General
Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff in Iraq disparaging U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other administration officials. As a result of the article, President Obama fired McCrystal as his chief commander in Afghanistan.
[1] Logan criticized Hasting for violating a tacit agreement between reporters embedded with the military to not report unflattering banter.
[2] But Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates noted that prior to publishing the article, the magazine had abided by all of the "express requests for off-the-record and background or not-for-attribution" made by the military.
[3]
Some reporters condemned Logan. Matt Taibbi wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck" which found Logan ignorant about journalistic responsibilities, saying, "If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a 'reputable' journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it." [4] CNN's Jamie McIntyre said Logan's making issue of Hastings' lack of military service was both "clueless and unhelpful.", and her "ill-conceived attack" had "unfortunately reinforced the worst stereotype" of reporters embedded with the military by making them seem to be "'in bed' with them." Logan had, McIntyre said, effectively presented the "smoking gun" to those "looking for evidence combat reporters are too dazzled by the shiny stars on the commander's epaulets." [5]
|
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist,
Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General
Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.
[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.
[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent,
Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters.
[3]
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.
[4]
|
SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 06:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I can agree with Slim that the "quote farm" should probably be reduced, and that a more concise version of this controversy would be appropriate per WP:UNDUE (just as I have argued per the assault section). However, I think the "clueless and unhelpful" statement should probably stay. When one war correspondent calls another's position "clueless", that can hardly be dismissed as a trivial criticism in my view. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
SV, the reason I think such a line should be included is because the others do not say the same thing. The line on her comments reinforcing the worst stereotype of embedded reporters doesnt say what that stereotype is. The line on her seeing herself as part of the military comes closer, but not quite where Taibbi went. Taibbi's point was about the establishment news media as a whole has stopped performing their duty and instead acts as PR in order to gain access, to be in the club. Logan's comments were, in his view, reflective of that trend. Nothing else really says that. If it were me, I would remove the line on the worst stereotype as I dont think that conveys any real information and add this. nableezy - 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
For those interested there is a discussion involving this article at the WP:BLPN. Link to it here. Bus stop ( talk) 00:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Taibbi has his partisans, including me, but after you consider what Greenwald actually said about Logan, he seems a little shrill, and even less effective a critic than Greenwald. She is not on the side of the angels in his mind. Again, is it being left to me to add Logan's defense of herself? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 02:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Included criticisms of Logan for maligning Hastings lack of military service. How strongly they felt she should not have gone there is notable. Added McInyre's defense of Logan. Added Greenwald's Logan's views typifying journalism's decline, echoing in a more detailed - though marginally less emphatic - way some of Taibbi's sentiments towards Logan. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
SV | The Artist |
---|---|
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist,
Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General
Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.
[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.
[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent,
Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters.
[3]
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.
[4]
|
In June 2010 many journalists reacted negatively to Logan's faulting Rolling Stone magazine's
Michael Hastings for reporting unflattering comments of General
Stanley A. McChrystal's and his staff's about U.S. Vice-President
Joe Biden and other top administration officials. Logan disparaged Hastings for having not served in the U.S. military, did not believe what he reported, and said he violated an "unspoken" agreement between journalists and combat troops to regard soldiers' banter as off the record. She also lamented that due to the publication of Hastings' article, President Obama had fired McCrystal as his top military commander in Afghanistan.
[1]
[2]
Taking exception to Logan's maligning of Hastings' lack of military service were former CNN chief military correspondent Jamie McIntyre (now with Military.com), Glenn Greenwald of Slate.com, and the New Yorker's Amy Davis. McInyre said it was "clueless and unhelpful" for her to compare McCrytal's service record with Hastings', while Davis called Logan's approach in the matter "low", and Greenwald said that by furiously mentioning Hastings lack of miltary background, Logan had dropped her "neutral journalist mask." [3] [4] [5] Logan's alleging of Hastings' poor journalistic ethics was said by Michael Calderone of Yahoo News to be unsupported by "any evidence." [6] In regards to other effects of Logan's views of Hastings on journalism in general, Greenwald said she had reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters of seeming to be "in bed" and too protective of the military brass they covered at the expense of informing the public. Greenwald also suggested that journalism students study the differences of the "The two poles of journalism" represented by Hastings and Logan to learn learn how Hasting represented what "journalism is supposed to be", and how Logan presented "what it has actually degenerated into." [7] McIntyre on CNN's Reliable Sources found "insulting' that Hastings believed veteran military reporters would "write favorable stories in order to ensure access." McIntyre said he and his colleagues instead wrote balanced, accurate and fair stories with context, as shown, he said, by Logan's many "hard-hitting stories. That hasn't blunted her access." [8]
|
There was also an in-between version where Nableezy added material to SV's version (Nableezy's additions in bold):
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist, Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan. [1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them. [2] CNN's former chief military correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters, that being that they are "in bed" with the military brass that they are covering. [3] Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military and that she apparently saw her role as protecting the military brass, not informing the public. [4]
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)(If we could concisely excerpt relevant edits at issue, rather than submit a barrage of full diffs, it would be easier to get arguments and points across and consensus be found.)
In short, what some present as a pigeon turd, was, in fact, a shitstorm. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 04:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: too many editor's referred to the length of the section to go unnoticed and to doubt the merit of the perception. I've reduced the section to two paragraphs, and maybe half the size of my earlier edit.
I restored an edit that addressed concerns of other editors.
@ The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the perfect example of why facts require secondary sources. So what this says is that glenn greenwald says lara logan is a sellout, and the implication that what he says is true. The 2nd one's not sourced properly because it's an editorial, and the 1st one isn't because it's still an editorial and you're using him as a source for himself (he's writing about his opinion). If you can just quote an editorial about lara logan and credit it to its author, then you can do that anywhere, about anyone.
So you don't actually have a proper source for that part, or the one before it, or the one before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.80.230 ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Dispute over encyclopedic tone and level of detail in description of sexual assault. Mindbunny ( talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation.[13] CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with her about it on 1 May 2011; she said she was speaking out because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs.[14]
She said the incident involved 200–300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. She had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later he heard the crowd make inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline". They tore off her clothes and raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of women were camping. One woman wearing a chador put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in hospital.[14] She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home.[15] CBS said it remained unclear who the attackers were, and unlikely that any will be prosecuted.[14]
Logan was sexually assaulted by a mob of men while reporting in Tahir Square after Hosni Mubarak's resignation. The men beat her and raped her with their hands. In an interview with 60 Minutes (her employer), Logan said "there was no doubt in my mind I was in the process of dying." Her stated intention in doing an interview about her assault was to break a "code of silence." She said female reporters often conceal sexual assault, fearing future denial of hazardous assignments. Logan said she planned to return to reporting from trouble spots.
Issue over whether to specify that "someone yelled Israeli". Points against it concern due weight. It only gets about 12 seconds, in a voiceover, out of a 13-minute interview; she spends more time talking about her children. The interview makes clear the shout did not trigger the attack, although it may have intensified it. The argument in favor is that it reveals the midset of the crowd, and is described as intensifying the attack.
An encyclopedia article on someone's biography shouldn't contain graphic details. Stuff like " She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died." is encyclopedic neither in tone nor content. The bit about the shout of "Israeli" is given very little wieght in Logan's account--12 seconds in 13-14 minute interview, and is more about the crowd than Logan. There may be validity to coverage of the use of anti-Semitism in popular uprisings in the Middle East, but this article is not the place to do justice to that topic. Mindbunny ( talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The current version gives a much better understanding of the incident, and expresses Logan's experience and views much better. It's also better writing. The new version leaves details about the assault, and is so brief that one cannot even understand what happened or what the pretext was for it. Also, this RFC "vote" is a travesty, given that RFCs are supposed to be discussions, and this was opened less than a month after the previous discussion on the same topic closed. Continually re-opening discussions on topics where consensus does not support you is disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't like either, although the current version is the worst. It's unencyclopedic - written in airport paperpack pulp-style. The MB version is OK but it smacks of allowing Logan to soapbox. On the Jew/Israeli issue I don't think it's especially important or notable but I don't object to it going in. The best version is that proposed by NickCT in the previous discussion. Slightly tweaked, this is a version:
Collapse text copied from a blog, not a WP:RS. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a different story entirely at http://temorisblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/rape-women-stripped-what-really-happened-to-lara-logan/ which declares that Lara Logan wasn't seriously attacked (though she may have been badly frightened). [Témoris Grecko] was buying tea from a vendor in Tahrir with two friends, Amr Fekry, a 26 year old Egyptian call center agent, and Andi Walden, a San Francisco political science student. Then we heard the noise and saw the mob coming. A blonde woman, neatly dressed with a white coat, was being dragged and pushed. It didn’t seem to me she was panicking, but rather trying to control the situation. They passed us in an moment. They were yelling “agent!, agent!” I tried to run to intervene, but some Egyptians I didn’t know prevented me from doing it. There was nothing I could do and, as a foreign journalist, I’d surely end up being accused of being an agent too, and attacked. Fekry did go there and dissapeared into the crowd, 50 or 100 people strong. Later I spoke with two young male activists who helped the person I later learned was Lara Logan (I didn’t know her before, I don’t usually follow US networks). They were Omar El Shennawy, a 21 year old teacher of English, and Abdulrahman Elsayed, a 25 year old teacher of physical education. They said they had formed a human chain with other young men to protect Logan, and then delivered her to the Egyptian Museum military post. When I read CBS’s story and it’s interpretation by other media outlets, I felt troubled. It seemed misleading. “It didn’t make sense to me”, said Benjamin Starr, from Boston who arrived as a tourist on January 24th, and stayed to witness the uprising. He also saw the mob pass by with Lara Logan. “I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe something happened in another part of the square, but from what I saw, she was being taken by men to the soldiers, and her clothes were not torn off. There were no women, I didn’t see a single woman in the crowd around her.” Similarly, in hearing the CBS’s communiqué, Amr Fekry wrote on my Facebook wall: “It’s a little bit ridiculous what we hear that she was raped in Tahrir!! We were there! You remember she was about two meters away from us when we were buying tea! Maybe someone harassed her, but she ran and people protected her from being hit! I tried to go and help her but many people pushed me hard to go away as they thought I was trying to hit her. The only thing that some people only thought she was an Israeli spy!”'' ... I went to ask Abdulrahman Elsayed, and he related a similar account. “I was in front of her, one metre away. This was after I saw her running with a man beside her. They stopped, maybe because someone blocked their way. We formed a human chain to protect her. Only young people, 10 or 15, all men. We surrounded her. People behind us were pushing and trying to grab her, someone might have touched her. I saw her top was uneven. There was a women and children’s tent (Tahrir sq. had become a campsite) and we tried to take her there, but we couldn’t because of the pressure. Someone had a taser and he held it high, making electric noises and threatening the attackers. He told them to move away. So we could go to the Museum’s military post and deliver her to the soldiers. Then we stood there blocking the people who tried to follow her. We brought her two doctors, first a young male, then an older female. The doctor and Lara were the only women around.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulAmir ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:TakenbyChrisHondros cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, a user has added a pic and I have cropped it and added the cropped pic - looking at it and after asking the uploader and getting no reply its a copyright violation. I have nominated it for deletion at commons. As I have made one revert today if anyone is passing and agrees with the assessment - please remove it and replace the previous picture, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 June 2011
Without wishing to diminish the ghastliness of Ms Logan's ordeal, or the culpability of her attackers, but should sexual assault conducted with hands be classified as "rape"? Would such a definition be allowed in a criminal conviction: and if so, where? (Egypt, for example?) BobbyGillespie ( talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Lara Logan's been selected to receive the Daniel Pearl award this year in October ( source). I'm not sure if mentioning that now qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL.— Biosketch ( talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Logan's also in line to receive the John F. Hogan Distinguished Service Award on 26 September ( source).— Biosketch ( talk) 12:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As I write this, C-SPAN is airing an interview that
Marvin Kalb, via his "
The Kalb Report", has done of
Lara Logan. The on-stage interview occurred this past Monday Nov. 7th, 2011, at the National Press Club. Presumably a copy of it SHOULD be available at C-SPAN's web page.
http://research.gwu.edu/centersinstitutes/globalmedia/programs/thekalbreport
LP-mn ( talk) 03:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any Egyptian sources on the sexual assault at Tahrir square? This seems to be quite a big story in the US and with so many players involved it seems likely that some of the Egyptian press might have covered it.
Journalists keep getting raped in Tahrir square . . . On November 24, 2011 French television reporter Caroline Sinz from the state network France 3 was subjected to a violent sexual assualt by a gang of young men and boys and her cameraman was beaten while covering the "democracy protestors" (yeah,right) in Tahrir square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.49.158 ( talk) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
She was married to Jason Siemon in the late 90's. Her divorce became official in 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/arts/television/23loga.html?pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.116.233 ( talk) 08:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This title needs to be changed to "Reporting from Egypt and alleged sexual abuse". No trial, no evidence, just one reporter's account. Also, this entire section is a soapbox for Lara Logan's political ideology - quote after quote, instead of an encyclopedic description of significant events. Bureacracy ( talk) 05:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The claim of sexual assault is an allegation, not a fact. The title is misleading and this section is a meme for CBS media and its fellow travelers. Hopefully, a rational moderator will issue corrections to this page. Bureacracy ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does the section header use the word "abuse" and not "assault"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.54.30 ( talk) 23:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edbenson98 ( talk) 07:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
University Alliance françase doesn't exist in Paris. It's just a private school like the British Council for learning english. So the source is wrong. Thanks
There is simply no such institution. The Alliance Francaise is not a university and doesn't run one. This should be amended but how? 81.129.1.88 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
she gave a speech at the BGA slamming the administration for its lies with respect to afghanistan and the al qaeda resurgence. she added that she was non-partisan and would have slammed any administration "equally full of shit" (her words, not mine!).
it was shocking in its bluntness and has pretty much gone viral. why isn't it in here? 66.105.218.19 ( talk) 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Do the lurid details of the sexual assault really belong in an encyclopedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 ( talk) 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
More information is needed about Lara's ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.152.221 ( talk) 15:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
using a polemical word like "propagandist" seem inappropriate to the encylopedic writing style: "Lincoln Group propagandist Joseph Burkett." publicist? representative? spokesman? all more even-handed, which is the tone to be aimed at, i think. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.132.246 ( talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lara Logan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Université de l'Alliance Française" to "Alliance Française". There is no such thing as the "Université de l'Alliance Française". The Alliance Française is "an international organization that aims to promote French language and culture around the world" according to its Wikipedia page. [1] When you Google "Université de l'Alliance Française", the only hits are from Lara Logan's own biography. Nowayjose1900 ( talk) 12:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Lara Logan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brtnda\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Lara Logan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brtnda\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lara Logan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Why is Lara back on 60 minutes after knowingly put on a Benghazi report that she knew had errors and had a political context and would have effects politically? Dan Rather made a mistake and they kicked him off purposely. She knew and is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobe67 ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The page needs to be updated. Here's a suggested addition to the page:
According to the Associated Press on June 4, "CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said Wednesday that Logan is back. She had no details on when the correspondent resumed work and what stories she is working on." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/04/lara-logan-back-at-cbs-as-questions-linger-over/199604
Danpetitpas ( talk) 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lara Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lara Logan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adding that she now works, at least temporarily, for Sinclair. SEC California ( talk) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is very simple. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This article has been under active ArbCom restrictions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since 2011. Per a request at my talk page I looked into it. The connection at that time was pretty tenuous, and nothing since has happened to make it more appropriate, so I have removed the notice and the restrictions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Happening pretty frequently and might deserve mention. Her new show No Agenda is noteworthy. Tinybirdie ( talk) 12:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn’t be quoting a Daily Beast article as an authoritative source - the article cited is an Opinion piece Tjavsky95 ( talk) 03:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This entire section is based off of that one Daily Beast opinion piece, and should definitely not be cited as fact - recommend deleting entire section or adding additional sources Tjavsky95 ( talk) 03:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
"Fact-checkers found that claims of bricks being left at protest sites were baseless."
Seriously? "fact-checkers?" We saw pallets of bricks multiple times at multiple locations where rallies, marches, etc. were going to occur. This is NOT a conspiracy no matter what some biased "fact checkers" claim. We saw them with our own eyes! 76.202.192.102 ( talk) 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The Greenwald quote is there as representative of the criticism of Logan over that incident, and there were much more severe critiques that were removed in favor of that. The "exact revenge" bit is available in any number of sources (and I replaced the dead link instead of removing it entirely in bad faith now). The Daily Beast bits dont seem especially controversial, or inaccurate, but what exactly is the issue with it? nableezy - 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Desperate for attention? I understand, haven't heard your name since you left CBS. 2603:6000:D640:1949:4554:E5F1:D124:571C ( talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what happened to you, never that influential, but now attempting to use horrible events in history to strengthen yourself in what is a right wing narrative is not helping the Republican Party! You are attempt to raise credibility in what is now a declining career is disgusting on so many levels. You may find support, though comparisons to the Holocaust is destructive and reflection if you as a person. The party needs leadership not “you”! Gd help your children. 2601:401:C501:8770:F0A7:9812:A356:289B ( talk) 17:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is ought to be "the free encyclopedia" and many believe in that. Yet in truth it is clearly ridicularizing ideas that doesn't match some ideological base in which wikipedia is founded.
This is clear in this section, when it calls "conspiracy theory" the narratives of Lara about the ukranian conflict. It is clear to any meticulous observer that wikipedia is biased into torwards the western narratives and russofobia, while in fact this narrative are itself showing to be fake even in the US media. Big tech is a shame. 186.227.92.62 ( talk) 01:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
"In November and December 2021, Logan promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories about AIDS and COVID-19. She shared articles that disputed the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS."
1) If there are articles disputing it, then clearly it is not a consensus ("general agreement", COD).
2) Even if there were a consensus, disputing it would not be "promoting falsehoods", as pointed out by the late Michael Chrichton:
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
Paul Magnussen ( talk) 18:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
If there are articles disputing it, then clearly it is not a consensusThat is bullshit. Of course there will be some incompetent people doubting the consensus among competent people. See also Scientific consensus on climate change, where the situation is the same. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
How do we know they're incompetent? Because they doubt the consensus.is not how it is. That is only how every expertise looks from the outside, to people who neither share nor like that expertise.
Last sentence in Personal section mentioning breast implants is not relevant nor is it cited. 65.66.76.130 ( talk) 22:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm just curious to learn whether any other news person or news agency has independently verified the basic facts surrounding the Tahrir Square attack that Lara Logan said targeted her and caused her to spend three days in a hospital in Egypt in 2011. 2601:200:C000:1A0:D83:32BD:89E5:E84C ( talk) 01:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Consider these two quotes: 'Logan was hired in 2000 by GMTV Breakfast Television (in the UK) as a correspondent' and 'CBS News offered her a full-fledged correspondent position in 2002'
Either (in the UK) needs to be removed from the former, or (in the US) needs to be added to the latter.
Could someone undertake? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:FD4C:2554:8A55:1C38 ( talk) 12:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Would it be fair to call her a conspiracy theorist in the page's opening sentence, assuming we can have reliable third parties judging her as such based on the Rothschild stuff and other things she peddles? Aresef ( talk) 21:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)