Talk:Gareth Porter

Hue massacre

It is untrue that Porter has never been challenged in his Hue massacre myth assertions, see here: http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/072/0720213019B.pdf Who wrote this entry, Porter himself? Completely POV and glowing.

I agree. I will add your link and some relevant facts. HPlace 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious reporting

I was working on 2008 US-Iranian naval dispute. and I found the article Porter, Gareth (2008). "How the Pentagon Planted a False Hormuz Story". Inter Press Service. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I found out that Gareth Porter made a completely false statement:

The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the 5th Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on Jan. 7.

Here is the actual transcript:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4116

Kevin Cosgriff never says this.

I want to email the author of this story, but I can't find an email on the net. If anyone knows this author's email, please message me on my talk page. Trav (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

The above comment is terribly inappropriate, potentially libelous, and should probably be removed as per WP:BLP. -Darouet (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and done, per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:BLP, which requires solid sources when making such assertions against living people -- even on Talk pages. The editor is encouraged to provide substantiating references. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

heres the article Porter wrote - [1], and here's a guardian article on the subject [2] - why is it 'inappropriate' to comment as the ip did, darouet? Sayerslle (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? For the very reasons outlined in the WP:BLP policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two sources you just linked, they look fine. Neither support the contentious comments made by the IP editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

how is porter writing 'Instead, it points to the distinct possibility that the Israelis planned a carefully limited bomb attack that was not intended to cause serious injury to Israeli diplomatic personnel, but that would advance the larger Israeli narrative on the need to punish Iran.' - how is that not doing, what the ip said he was doing - - putting forward an Israeli 'false flag' theory? - Sayerslle (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone disagrees (or has disagreed) that the text you quoted advances a false-flag theory. That was never the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

well that was most of what the ip said - that porter says it was an israeli false flag - (bit like he is on ghouta too? - its all false flags?) -and you censored his remarks - the ip made interesting remarks imo and god knows why you censored the comments - porter has Press TV amongst many other outlets to make his opinions heard , but you censor an ip on a wp talk page? bit touchy. Sayerslle (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia can indeed be "a bit touchy". Hard for some editors to get used to, I suppose. You'll note that there has been no "censoring" of your quotations from Porter's article, nor your characterization of it as a "false-flag theory", for which you have even provided links. There is nothing wrong with valid criticisms, and discussion of same. But the soap-boxing, name-calling and personal opinions by an anonymous IP are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

and theres IAR. its just a comment on a talk page. and not without merit. he made a point. live and let live, regards to you too. Sayerslle (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "just a comment" when it comes to Biographies of Living Persons on Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is so hard-nosed about this, you won't find any support for citing WP:IAR as justification for ignoring WP:BLP with regard to unsourced, contentious comments. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accurate Sourcing

User Xenophrenic--for some bizarre reason--won't accept that Hoang Van Chi, interviewed by Daniel Teodoru, was the one who criticized Porter. "Bizarre" because he claims that the "cited source" supports this notion, when it actually doesn't--and the link provided on this page leads nowhere, thus I don't think he knows anything about the topic at hand (how could he, if his "source" is actually a broken link?). I, however, have read the full text of the source in question. It can be found here: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/deniers/vietnam/chi.pdf

Read it yourself. In the text, former North Vietnamese government official Hoang Van Chi (who put the death toll at 500,000) responds to Porter, claiming that he could barely speak the language he was accusing others of mistranslating, and adding that "Mr. Porter studies....a few propaganda booklets published by Hanoi....I lived through the whole process, and I described what I saw with my own eyes."

By the way, noted historian Robert F. Turner also responded to Porter here: "Expert Punctures 'No Bloodbath' Myth"

I'm not planning on adding it or any other criticisms of Porter. I could heap massive criticism on the guy, but that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. But jeez--you can't even get basic facts right?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It is unfortunate that you are having trouble accessing the cited source. I have followed the link, and it displayed a .PDF file of the Congressional committee hearing testimony (produced by the Government Printing Office) given by Teodoru. It includes, right after his swearing-in oath, his admission that he has no academic training or education in the matters on which he is about to testify. The source does convey and support the text in this Wikipedia article. If the links you have privided are also to this Congressional testimony, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble verifying this information.

If you insist on deleting properly cited and sourced content a 4th time, I won't hesitate to raise the matter at a more appropriate forum. If, however, I can be of assistance in helping you to resolve your difficulties in accessing this information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Click on footnotes 7, 8, or 9. They link not to a PDF, but to a website called "The Vietnam Center And Archive." The page is blank. Perhaps it once had some content, but it's gone. Check it right now. This is where it takes you:

http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=0720213019

I don't think there's any problem with my computer. And I have no reason to lie. I could easily add that Porter was also criticized by Hoang Van Chi and Robert F. Turner, among others. I also fail to see why you bring up Teodoru's lack of academic training here. Nobody's talking about him. He's not Porter's only critic. I didn't dispute what you said about him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason your access to the .PDF files would be restricted? The Congressional testimony is split between 2 files (presently links 7 & 8 ... they appear to be scanned, as some of the pages have handwritten notes in the margins) ... and I have accessed them within the past 15 minutes at the links provided. I have no doubt that Porter has critics, but that isn't the issue here. The article text says Teodoru, not Chi, criticized Porter's argument before that subcommittee. I'm going to see if I can find a mirror site, or access to the same transcripts through JSTOR or something. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll just assume that you're right. Nevertheless, I've marked numerous claims in need of citation and added one sentence mentioning additional critiques of Porter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias on this page needs to be discussed

The amount of criticism of Porter from his political enemies and marginal sources makes this page biased to a degree well past Wikipedia standards. Porter is an award winning journalist with a book from the University of California Press. This page needs to have serious surgery. Should we start with a call for outside comments?Chip.berlet (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits/revert

With this edit, an editor has inserted "claims", and I have changed it to "saying" as a more neutral term. With this edit, the same editor has removed a sentence giving the context to what Porter is responding to (indeed, the very reason he was interviewed by phone in the first place). If the editor would like to reword the text giving context to the Porter quotes, that would be great. Otherwise I'll be reverting that edit and returning the sourced text to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

the context is there already, 'pressure from the United States upon the United Nations to uninvite Iran from scheduled international peace talks about the unrest in Syria', that is the context, ( and the sourced text is only stuff from the Iranian regimes mouthpiece Press TV anyhow, its not sacred text, hence 'unrest' as their NEWSPEAK for a very bloody civil war in which they are deeply involved) - and 'saying ' is kept in the text - Sayerslle (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The context is not "there already" after your removal of part of it; the reader is left uninformed about the very actions about which Porter is speaking in his brief interview. The fact that the invitation to Iran was rescinded, for example, or information about agreeing and objecting parties, is left out. Without that context, we're left with simply "Porter said pressuring the UN to leave a major player out of peace talks means you aren't serious about diplomacy" -- and that has no apparent encyclopedic value, and leaves one wondering why it was introduced to a biography in the first place. So as I've indicated above, I've returned the sourced content. I also did not understand your parenthetical comments about Press TV or their choice of wording. If your concern is about the word "unrest" (I've seen equally reliably sourced alternative descriptions including "uprising", "civil war", "conflict", "Syrian crisis" ...), so other wording is certainly available. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

oh yeah I heard the news last week on BBC - 'meanwhile the unrest in Syria continues ...' - I changed some of your wording, which looked too much over the top for the article (and robbing the 'context' of the Syrian shelling and delay that was a legitimate concern - you take extraordinary care of context in one place and jettison it entirely in another) - ( I don't get this POrter at all -even when UN cw expert Sellstrom says hexamine is an acid scavenger in the regime cw programme he says - 'new info' says it might be something else - he seems a bit determined to see things how he wants. and talk to Press TV. have you followed his career? is he highly regarded?) my point about PressTV's language is that it is debased language . PressTv is not exactly a RS on Syrian civil war. it is engaged and propagandistic. that was all I was saying. straightforward Sayerslle (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"the Syrian shelling and delay that was a legitimate concern"? The "legitimacy" isn't conveyed by the cited article. In fact, several chemical weapons experts and the UN spokesperson showed that concern to be invalid (see the whole last half of the article). The wording you inserted failed to convey that. Please revisit your comment about context. My initial edits left out both the U.S. official's excuse about "shelling/elapsed time", and the refutation of that excuse (there was no "delay", and there was still plenty of evidence to be collected after any shelling) -- which is not an omission of context, but simply an issue of conciseness and space. I take no issue with adding that info, if you prefer, but adding just the excuse without the refutation from the same cited source is where the context gets jettisoned. I've addressed that with my recent edit. At the risk of making the section even more bloated, we could add that Porter speculated that the U.S. reversed its position on having inspectors investigate the site, after Syria agreed so promptly to let them, out of fear that the results would not support U.S. intentions to go to war. Same news source.

re:Porter, I only know what I've read, having first heard of him when I was editing articles related to the war in Vietnam. He's a SE Asia/Middle East expert, and a reliable source in his field of expertise (which is why I chuckled when you referred to his reporting as 'opinion'). He seems to specialize in exposing government propaganda and misinformation, including that from the U.S. (regardless of the political slant of the Administration at the time), which has earned him no small number of detractors of all political stripes. I don't follow your thoughts on hexamine; Porter explained the information from the cw experts (Sellstrom, Kaszeta, Bishop, etc.) about the traces found; it's use in sarin production, but also non-sarin chemical weapons, as well as its presence in explosives. What are you saying is "seeing things how one wants" versus an intellectually honest assessment of all available information?

re:Press TV, he doesn't seek to talk with them; more likely Press TV seeks out news sources and analysis it considers compatible with its own perspectives. I spent a little time browsing through Press TV (never heard of it before last week), and I partially agree with you regarding an apparent bias, including propaganda -- but that does not mean it cannot be cited as a reliable source. If propaganda or bias or even political "engagement" were the disqualifiers you seem to think, we would have to purge Wikipedia of thousands of news sources (the most popular U.S. ones come immediately to mind). Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

when porter writes 'Harf did not explain, however, how the Syrian agreement to a ceasefire and unimpeded access to the area of the alleged chemical weapons attack could represent a continuation in “shelling and destroying evidence”.' - I don't know what to make of it - there was a delay of days - they did not agree to immediate access - they did continue shelling ghouta after the chemical attack - I have to go back to material on this - 'He seems to specialize in exposing government propaganda and misinformation' (!)- well, up to a point, lord copper - I think, like hersh, these minds were formed in the 1960s and they've addled - and if the misinformation and propaganda emerges from Moscow or damascus or Tehran, they couldn't be more amenable to it. but I am straying. notforum. fact is the U.S did not stop the investigation. fact is the investigation leader sellstrom called efforts to implicate the rebels 'poor theories' - all the material evidence points to regime culpability. porter, like hersh, like press tv, like putin - they prefer their pathetic self-serving conspiracy theories that have no evidence behind them at all. nauseating. Sayerslle (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you have formed some definite opinions. I'll concede that you are likely more well-read than I on matters related to the Syrian civil war, but I'm not seeing in reliable sources the "delay" you mentioned. I checked our article on Ghouta chemical attacks, figuring that certainly dozens of interested Wikipedia editors have separated fact from fiction and compiled the most reliable sources by now. I found 4 citations supporting the sentence: "The UN requested access to sites in Ghouta the day after the attack." Upon close review of those 4 sources, however, I found the two Guardian sources said nothing of the sort. The other two sources only confirmed that the UN had sent a "formal request", in the person of Angela Kane, to request unimpeded access. She arrived on the 24th, immediately engaged in talks, and secured agreement in under 20 hours for cease-fire of the warring factions, safe passage and access -- just the opposite of "delay". During my first edit to correct the errors, I was treated to a big red warning that the article is under sanctions -- so I figured I'd exercise an abundance of caution before continuing. Could I impose upon you to direct me to what you consider the most convincing source (or two) supporting your contention that there was intentional "delay" (as opposed to just passage of time)? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (We should probably find a more appropriate venue for this discussion; it is no longer Porter-specific...) Xenophrenic (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

this has were denied access for a second day - [3] -I get that delay and mere passage of time are not interchangeable - but the U.N. is always hamstrung anyway by assad regime ally putins Russia, that provides cover for assad at the U.N., -(I believe old soviet influence there and kgb training for Syrian secret police goes back decades - this is from the article you removed from the lead -On Wednesday, the security council called for more "clarity" on the use of chemical weapons, but Russia and China insisted on the watering down of a tougher approach backed by the US, UK, France and 32 other governments that called on the UN investigative team already in Damascus to be allowed immediate access )- so there are delays and denials enforced by Russia and Assad regime at this time - I'll look back at how much delay was unnecessary kind of thing - I hope there aren't any outright errors - if you are sure I think you should change the wording to make it not erroneous and not be put off by the red warning -I think that is more for regular editors isn't it who have clashed? - its true that I have set ideas on this so am not crazy about going over it all again - basically if one supports the assad regime one 'believes' any theory - the rebels stole all the sarin and weapons belonging to the Syrian military, or else saudi Arabia , or turkey supplied al nusra, having manufactured the sarin in Aleppo or somewhere -the stories keep changing- porter just hates his own government it seems to me, he forms delusions and attachments even to the Khmer rouge ? is that what it says in the article? , - I think he is living and writing in a free-(r) country , and use that freedom to write loose stuff of use to tyrannies - contemptible really. Sayerslle (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Porter hates his own government? On what do you base that dubious claim? He actually lives under, participates in, and works with it -- by choice -- which reveals the absurdity of that statement. I also see no evidence that he "forms delusions and attachments", and it doesn't say so in the article -- although I've just corrected an inaccurate sentence that may be related. So, sources? Part of living in a "free country", governed by the people, is to hold that government accountable -- which includes calling out and protesting its missteps. To do otherwise would be contemptable, really. That "tyrannies" may try to make selective use of the results of that process for their own ends may be unfortunate, but is really beside the point. I'll address your points with regard to Syria on a more suitable Talk page after I've finished reading a few more sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

fine. he is lucky he is so free to live so productively , living under, participating in and working with -his government - in Aleppo the government of the Syrians is dropping barrel bombs on them - i think his writing on ghouta is shabby. you obviously admire him a lot. this is good on hexamine, [4]- btw - what is this but an admission of deluded-ness - in the section as you've edited it , 'Porter said he had been waiting many years for someone to ask him about his earlier views of the Khmer Rouge. [-] 'I was right about the bloodbath in Vietnam, so I assumed I would be right about Cambodia." - you may think that a statement which is evidence of integrity and high intelligence , I regard it as evidence of the opposite of those things. he admits he deluded himself - so if you see no evidence that he forms delusions , that isn't my fault is it. its in the text you yourself have set out. Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"i think his writing on ghouta is shabby" - Okay, but you failed to indicate exactly what "writing", and why you feel that way. It would help if you provided specifics; you know, examples where what Porter has written has been directly refuted by equally reliable sources. Otherwise, you are just giving your unfounded personal opinions, which are of little value in editing this article. "you obviously admire him a lot" - What an odd thing to say. I don't know him, and I've seen very little of his work, only what has been cited in these Wikipedia articles. If you can so easily mistake the correction of a few misstatements as "admiration", then perhaps you are confused about the definition of the word. "so if you see no evidence that he forms delusions" - I do not, because you have not provided any. What you refer to is his acknowledgement that he formed an assumption based on previous precident, which has nothing to do with "delusions". Perhaps more confusion about the definition of the word? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

look at this for example - sellstrom has called all efforts to accuse the rebels of being behind the attacks 'poor theories' remember , in the interview porter uses for this article - now look at the spin Porter puts out - [5] - unbelievable - he must know he is cherry-picking . Sayerslle (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "spin", nor "shabby writing", for that matter -- and I've just read the article you linked, and the (two!) Sellstrom interviews Porter references (as well as the Wall Street Journal article). Porter's exact words on the matter: He (Sellstrom) has apparently questioned the larger narrative of Syrian government culpability for the attack as well. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after the release of the December UN investigation report, Sellstrom said he believes both sides in the Syrian conflict had the “opportunity” and the “capability” to “carry out chemical weapons attacks.” No spin; in fact, that's a very even-handed assessment, and reflects Sellstrom's most recent personal position when he was asked directly about rebel culpability: "We do not have the evidence to say who did what, but on the other hand, we do not have the evidence to say that it could not have been done by this or that party." Porter could easily have emphasized Sellstrom's statement that "So there was a background that makes you believe that maybe, just maybe, that the government was right", or Sellstrom's conclusion that the rebel opposition lied about casualty numbers, etc., but Porter did not. Perhaps the "spin" is not in the words, but in the reading of them? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you have removed most of the information under the Syrian Civil War header without explanation here on the Talk page, and only this edit summary: (you are just setting forth his articles here - tendentious as they are - and that isn't the point of articles I don't think). To clarify, we are both setting forth his articles there (and not just articles, but you also deleted a news analysis interview), and I find it odd that you would present that as reasoning to delete just some selected content, but not all. Since Porter is primarily notable for his writing - his news articles, papers and books - that's what you'll find discussed in this bio. In light of that, your edit summary doesn't make much sense. I've returned most of what you deleted from that section pending an actual explanation as to why you deleted some of that paragraph yet left some of it intact. If you think that content should be reduced, we can certainly discuss that, but your edit summary does not explain why you delete some while retaining others. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem abysmally determined at this point simply to use the page to re-hash this mans propaganda - from the article about ghouta , porter writes near the end 'The UN team's Sellstrom was not convinced that only the regime had the capability to carry out the attack. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Sellstrom said he believes both sides in the conflict had the "opportunity" and the "capability" to "carry out chemical weapons attacks." ' - now before you keep writing your versions of his propaganda and using that as content for this article you should read sellstroms interview [6] - POrter chooses not to make it clear that SEllstrom regards theories of rebel responsibility poor - this man who is a favourite of presss Tv- ( and who can wonder at that given the kind of stuff he is vomiting up) -- when it is abundantly clear that SEllstrom does not in the least regard rebel versus regime responsibility as equally plausible - to convey that is simply absurd and utterly misleading - I suggest you keep the Syria section short - if you keep just repeating his propaganda , repeating his articles spin, which excise all material that runs counter to his chosen narrative, - then this is not a Wikipedia article but simply another POrter written article. but that isn't the point of Wikipedia. please dont re-hash porters rubbish without reading sellstroms interview. if you try and just put back porters unchallenged spin, it will need segments from sellstroms interview etc - otherwise the article becomes simply an echo for this mans pathetic Press tv friendly distortions. Sayerslle (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, please refrain from personally attacking other editors. Your edit summaries like "the Syria section is just you re-writing his propaganda and is not for wp -its clear you just want to re-write whatever he wrtes" or your talk page comments beginning with "You seem abysmally determined at this point simply to use the page to re-hash this mans propaganda..." are not only inaccurate and insulting, but they harm what should be a collaborative editing environment. Also, please refrain from making baseless and unsupported comments about living people, like the subject of this WP:BLP. The policy against posting unsourced, contentious content about living people applies to Talk pages, too, so please keep your personal opinions about the man to yourself. Discussing published, reliably sourced and encyclopedic opinions of the man is fine, however. I was going to drop a more direct warning on your talk page when I noticed a similar issues mentioned in a section about edits to the Syrian Civil War topic opened by Callanecc recently. I'd rather not escalate this, so can we please agree to keep this discussion a little less emotional and more Wikipedia policy-compliant? Thanks in advance. Regarding your comments:

you should read sellstroms interview [and] please dont re-hash porters rubbish without reading sellstroms interview

You apparently missed my previous comment above where I said, "and I've just read the article you linked, and the (two!) Sellstrom interviews Porter references (as well as the Wall Street Journal article)" -- so you see, I have read the interviews with Sellstrom. Please also recall that you were the editor who first introduced a "Syria" section in this BLP, and inserted a report by Porter here, along with a personal opinion of yours. So now I am confused as to what your concern is. Are you saying we (1) should not convey Porter's reporting on Syria here, (2) should convey Porter's reporting here, or (3) should only convey some of Porter's reporting selected by Sayerslle, while prohibiting other reporting, as exemplified in this edit? Your clarification would be appreciated, as I'm not seeing the logic in that edit, which I intend to revert pending an actual policy-based reason why I should not. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

its probably best to remove the section altogether - I shouldn't have started it - it has not been reported anywhere as significant reportage on the conflict - I think I was just so astonished by it I mistook my consternation for a reason for me to set it down on his page. I don't think - outside of the Iranian regimes propaganda outlet - his opinion on Syria is sought after or regarded as in any way important. Sayerslle (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you've reverted 'his opinion regularly sought by press TV' - which it clearly is - i'm just going to place here a reuters report about the bus bombing in Bulgaria [7]-it says Hezbollah has been linked to the attack by the Bulgarian prosecutors - and here is porter saying Hezbollah link is dodgy [8] - and with ghouta chemical attacks he points the finger at the rebels - I had never heard of this man until about a month ago but it seems to me he supports any Iran/Hezbbollah friendly narratives and attacks anything that implicates them in anything - he wrote himself about the Bulgarian bus bombing ; 'The US and Israel continue ignoring the actual evidence in terrorism cases to advance their political interests' - oh the sodding irony of that, - since if you replace the US and Israel with gareth porter , it seems to me you get a self portrait - certainly his reporting of GHouta has been slanted, ignores anything and everything that disturbs his world view - I wont edit war with you with 'his opinion is regularly sought' - at least the ref now indicates it isn't a case off a one-off appearance on press tv or anything - hope someone with knowledge fills up the Iran section - I would love to know when he first made contact with iran regime and Hezbollah elements for example and how his ideas about iran and Hezbollah developed- ( this 2008 article says visited Iran for visit to get to know Iranian regime views ,but when did he first visit Iran ? [9] -Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy, has just completed a 12-day visit to Tehran to find out how Iranian officials, analysts and political figures view possible negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran ) - I do know from bits I've read about the Lebanese civil war of the nefarious role played by hafez Assad and Amal militia and iran and assad regime are not the angels that flit about in his mind - anyway - not a forum -I will hope someone with knowledge of him fills up the sections that are empty and will forbear editing myself - ( as you can tell I have such a distaste for this man that it would leak into anything I wrote probably) -I maintain 'his opinion is regulary sought by press TV' was a legitimate edit, but its true it was just an inference I made having seen him appear about 6 times since autumn 2013 Sayerslle (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Cambodia section

I'm going to revert some of your edits to the Gareth Porter article. They are misleading with regard to Porter's views on the Khmer Rouge in 1977.

For example, you claimed that Congressman Solarz did not criticize Porter directly in a Congressional hearing. If you will look on page 34 and 35 of that hearing you will see that Solarz in a direct exchange with Porter called his views "contemptible" and compared them to a denier of the Jewish holocaust. Solarz added that "it is beyond belief that anyone could seriously argue" or "deny" the murderous nature of the Khmer Rouge government. Your contention that Solarz did not directly criticize Porter is incorrect.

Your quoting (an excessively long quote in my opinion) of Porter's opening statement is misleading. If it is going to be put into the article, we should balance it with what Porter said later in the hearing. For example Porter (page 37), to refute evidence that more than one million deaths had been caused by the Khmer Rouge, cites a letter to the Economist that said Khmer Rouge "executions could be numbered in hundreds or thouuands rather than in hundreds of thousands." In subsequent questioning, it turns out that Porter knows nothing about the letter writer who in the words of Congressman Solarz "might be a psychotic."

I could go on with more examples of statements by Porter which turned out to be mistaken. The point is that your edits have portrayed Porter as a careful academic whose only error was to utilize questionable documentation in his analysis. That was actually the least of his mistakes. Porter was still defending the Khmer Rouge after the evidence of Khmer Rouge atrocities on a very large scale was overwhelming. Porter specifically denied the expertise of two authors and the careful documentation of two books: One by a leftist priest who had lived in Cambodia and spoke Cambodian and the second the results from interviews with several hundred Cambodian refugees which he dismissed as a "Reader's Digest book." His evidence to the contrary was a letter from a person to the Economist and the official statements of the Khmer Rouge -- and that's about all.

Porter was wrong in his assessment of the Khmer Rouge -- but one would never know that from what you have deleted or added to the article. Smallchief (talk 11:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A few corrections and clarifications to what you posted above, Smallchief:

• you claimed that Congressman Solarz did not criticize Porter directly

That is incorrect; I did not. Here is exactly what I said in my edit summary: (rem Sholarz cmt as not specifically mentioning Porter). Solarz didn't mention Porter, or the others who gave testimony that day, or those who gave testimony at the previous Cambodia hearings (there were more than one, you know). Here is what Solarz said (see pgs 32-33 in your cited source): "Some of the justifications or explanations which we have heard for the events of the last year have been frankly, in my judgment, both cowardly and contemptible. They are, as I see it, very much the same kind of justifications that were offered to justify the murder of the Jews by Hitler in the 1940's." He does not specifically mention Porter, so I have removed your edit which mistakenly conveys that he did. You are in error when you claim that I said Solarz did not criticize Porter; he most certainly did. And Porter criticized Solarz. If you'd like to convey the substance of those criticisms in an encyclopedic manner in this article, we can certainly discuss that. If the issue is merely whether we should shoehorn "Hitler" and "Holocaust" hyperbole references into BLPs, complete with Wikilinks, that is another matter entirely. You might get away with inserting it in the Solarz article, because U.S. Representatives are known to say over-the-top stuff all the time, but I wouldn't advise that either. Solarz does, however, later advise Porter specifically that if Porter proposes that hundreds of thousands of Cambodians have not been "murdered", Solarz would "consider any such effort to be essentially contemptible", and Porter does indeed engage him on that specific point. Would you like that to be expanded upon in this biography? Let's discuss it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Smallchief's response:

Page 34 of hearing transcript: Porter to Solarz: "I cannot accept the premise of your question which is that it is a fact that the Government of Cambodia is systematically slaughtering its people"

Solarz in response to Porter: "I would suspect...that it would be rather difficult for someone to maintain a proposition that hundreds of thousands of Cambodians have not been murdered by their own countrymen....I consider any such effort to be contemptible."

Page 35 hearing transcript to Porter: "At least some of the other witnesses have had the intellectual decency not to deny it [the Cambodian genocide]...How anyone can deny it is beyond me."

Page 43 hearing transcript Solarz to Porter: "Do your really believe what you are saying?...This isn't some kind of a put-on where you are playing a role? I mean you actually believe what you have said is true...?"

Facts: Solarz was correct. The most accepted estimate of victims of the Khmer Rouge, either through execution, disease, or starvation, is 1.7 million. I would consider Solarz's characterization of Porter's views as "contemptible" to be directly critical of him. Thus I see no reason to change the present formulation which roughly stated reads "Solarz criticized Porter for his favorable views on the Khmer Rouge. Smallchief (talk 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You completely skipped the issue. I've already read the full transcript of that hearing (which does not, by the way, say that Solarz or anyone at that hearing was "correct"). I removed the unsupported Solarz text you inserted (and reinserted) because it is not supported by the reference cited. Would you care to fix that by rewording it, or provide an actual reference that supports it, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

On another point, however, it is very clear from the testimony at the Solarz hearing that Solarz was directly criticizing Porter. I will footnote that appropriately in the summary paragaph, although I do not generally believe that footnotes are necessary in summary paragraphs if those same points are adequately referenced in the main text. Smallchief (talk 11:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If Solarz presented an actual criticism, we can certainly consider its inclusion. Name-calling ("contemptible", "cowardly", etc.) and hyperbole, however, is not "criticism", nor is it encyclopedic or informative to our readers about the subject of this article: Porter. If you feel it gives some measure of insight about Solarz, then you might consider adding it to his bio (good luck with that). As for references in the WP:LEDE, they do not need to be duplicated if they exist in the body of the article. But the wording of the lede must accurately reflect significant content in the body of the article, which your recent edits did not do (see your POV word choices: "favorable views" and "for relying on"). Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• If it is going to be put into the article, we should balance it with what Porter said later in the hearing.

That's fine, but you didn't do that. You deleted the content outright, instead of adding "balancing" content, so I have reverted your deletion. Please proposes the additional wording you feel would add balance.

First of all, your quote of Porter is probably the longest quote I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Does the subject justify such a lenghty and vague quote?

If you insist that the quote is important, fine, put it in, but I will insist that several more meaty quotes from Porter's very long statement concerning the Khmer Rouge be put in to balance the introduction. For example, quote such as Porter's statement that "I cannot accept the premise of your [Solarz's] question which is that it is a fact that the Government of Cambodia is systematically slaughtering its people." Smallchief (talk 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Meaty quotes are the best; I've no problem with that. And if the lengthy quote can be summarized without distorting what was said or omitting key points, that's fine too. Mass burial of what Porter said, however, is not. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I could go on with more examples of statements by Porter which turned out to be mistaken.

I suggest you start with just one, to begin with, before we get to "more examples". And please include references to reliable sources to support them. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

See above Smallchief (talk 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I did, and you have not provided an example, as I believe will become evident as we resolve the above two issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Porter specifically denied the expertise of two authors and the careful documentation of two books

Yes, he did, and I added that to our article. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• His evidence to the contrary was a letter from a person to the Economist and the official statements of the Khmer Rouge -- and that's about all.

Incorrect; he's written whole books with evidence to the contrary, as well as papers and talks on the same subject matter. If you would like to expand on the details of this subject, we can certainly do that, but I suggest that the Cambodian genocide article would be the appropriate venue, which we can then summarize here in this biography. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Porter denies the expertise of a leftist priest who lived in Cambodia, speaks Cambodian, and spoke to many Cambodians in writing his book. He also denies the expertise of two authors who interviewed hundreds of Cambodian refugees in compiling their estimate that one million Cambodias had been killed, starved, or died of disease during two years of Khmer Rouge rule. That is not to mention numerous press reports from journalists familiar with Cambodia about the character of the Khmer Rouge. Some of these press reports were eye -witness from the early days of the Khmer Rouge government and written by journalists who had previously been highly cticial of the US bombing of Cambodia.

Porter, I don't believe, ever mentions that he had talked to a single Cambodian or visited Cambodia. He cites sources such as a letter to the economist and the work of an Austalian student to support his views. Under questioning he admits that he didn't know either of them personally. Another source who has examined Porter's book on the Khmer Rouge found that 33 out of 50 citations in the book derived from the Khmer Rouge, 6 from the KR's friend, China,; plus 2 vaguely written French newspaper articles. That hardly sounds like critical scholarship -- to derive more than 80 percent of your material from highly-suspect government sources. Smallchief (talk

We agree that Porter denied the expertise of the 3 authors you mentioned. I even added that to the article, which you then removed. Baffling. Regarding whether Porter has ever visited Cambodia, or whether a scholar can only cite sources whom he has personally met ... you are losing me. If this is specific information you'd like to add to Porter's biography, then please propose the wording and produce the reliable sources. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the edit we're discussing. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Porter was wrong in his assessment of the Khmer Rouge -- but one would never know that from what you have deleted or added to the article.

What I added or deleted from the article wasn't about whether Porter was "wrong in his assessment of the Khmer Rouge". I deleted unsourced material, and added an expanded quote from his congressional testimony. If he was "wrong", and I have no doubt he may have been -- since no one is right about everything all of the time -- then please provide the necessary documentation saying so. I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying that if you wish to assert that in this article it must be accompanied with reliably sourced documentation. For example, when you insert verbiage like "He lated recanted those views", without citing a reliable source to support that, I'll remove it (typos and all). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I will be most pleased on your request to provide additional voluminous material from reliable sources establishing beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Khmer Rouge were responsible for one to three million Cambodian deaths during their less than 4 years of rule. Given that the total number of Cambodians was less than 8 million, the death toll of the Khmer Rouge was somewhere between 12 and 40 percent of the population.

Regarding Porter recanting his views, that is not footnoted in the summary. Footnotes are not usually used in the summary paragraph, but rather placed in the body of the article. The referenced statements in the body of the article support the statement that "Porter recanted his views." Do you disagree that Porter later said he was wrong? Smallchief (talk 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to argue the nature and extent of deaths in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge's rule, that would be fine at Cambodian genocide. Content at this article should be specific to Porter. As for saying "Porter recanted his views", that will require sourcing. I'm sure the man must have many views, so please be specific. If you are asking me about his exchange with Shawcross, wherein he states, "It is true, as Shawcross notes from my May 1977 Congressional testimony, that I have changed my view on a number of aspects of the Cambodian situation", that is already in his biography. You will note that "changed my view on a number of aspects" does not in any way equate to the vague "recanted his views", especially since he also immediately chastizes Shawcross for having "an interest in rejecting our conclusions" -- so he obviously still defends at least some of his conclusions. Do you understand how your wording is problematic? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me if we don't say that Porter recanted his views. Frankly, I thought that Porter admitting on at least two occasions that he was wrong on Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge made him a less ideological and much more sympathetic character. 20,000 documented mass graves and mountains of skulls in Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge period should make anybody reconsider their previous denial that large-scale murder was occuring. Porter admitted his "intellectual arrogance" on Cambodia and that he "changed his view in a number of aspects." But, if you don't think that is recanting, have it your way. Smallchief (talk 11:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your frank comment is informative. We really should adhere to Wikipedia policy and not let personal feelings about portraying living people as "sympathetic characters" (or otherwise) influence our article construction. We should also not interject our own conclusions based on limited information. For example, conflating a July 1978 statement by Porter that he has "changed my view on a number of aspects of the Cambodian situation. I have no interest in defending everything the Khmer government does, and I believe that the policy of self-reliance has been carried so far that it has imposed unnecessary costs on the population of Cambodia. Shawcross, however, clearly does have an interest in rejecting our conclusions. It is time, I suggest, for him to examine it carefully, because it does not make for intellectual honesty" into the completely unsupported conclusion that Porter "recanted" his position that large-scale death was being propagandized into "large-scale murder" -- because he knew of 20,000 pre-1978 mass graves? Wow. Do you have sources that you are using of which I should be made aware? The "intellectual arrogance" remark (I would like to see the actual full context of when/where he said that) and the "changed his view" comment (where he still defends "our conclusions" in the very same breath) do not equate to "recanting". Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On another point, however, it is very clear from the testimony at the Solarz hearing that Solarz was directly criticizing Porter. I will footnote that appropriately in the summary paragaph, although I do not generally believe that footnotes are necessary in summary paragraphs if those same points are adequately referenced in the main text. Smallchief (talk 11:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've responded to this point in the section we already started above, just to keep things in one place. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional edits to Writing section, and sub-sections:

• I removed this wording from the Cambodia section: dismissed Western media reports of grave crimes as a "systematic process of mythmaking," ... and disputed charges of government-inflicted famine: "It is the officially inspired propaganda of starvation for which no proof has been produced... Thus the starvation myth has come full circle to haunt its authors." Reasons: It's cited to Page 97 of the H&P book, but most of it isn't conveyed by that (or the immediately preceding or following) page. Figuring there must be a mistake, I performed text-string searches to locate the text (most of it is actually on page 86, by the way), and came across this self-published website; and it appears the whole paragraph introduced into our article is a copyright-violating close paraphrase from that site -- even down to the parsing of text and insertion location of ellipses. In addition, closer scrutiny of that text & quotes from the H&P book, taken in fuller context (and without ellipses, etc.) reveals that some of the conclusions are non-neutrally presented or inaccurate. We can certainly quote H&P's book, but we should obtain our analysis of H&P's writings, including those quotes, from Wikipedia-compliant reliable sources.
• I changed the "most recent book" info in two sections, since PoD is no longer his most recent book.
• I've reverted the insertion about Schanberg which was accompanied by this edit summary: (it shows his 'arrogance' he himself acknowledged - from outside the country he attacks a person who was there , kind of thing, living it - imho-) -- there is no indication by Porter (or other source) that this is in any way related to "arrogance", unless you are using a source that hasn't been mentioned yet. If you feel that H&P's criticism of the Schanberg article is important, we can include H&P's reasoning behind the criticism -- which seems to have been left out of our article. We should also use a Wikipedia-compliant source which conveys that importance, rather than give our own personal spin on it.
• I moved writings under the "Writing" header, and sub-headed them.
• I removed the sentence structured as "While other sources reported ... Porter and Hildebrand stated ..." which appears to convey that H&P expressed disagreement in 1976 with reports that wouldn't exist until 1986 and 1991. If the intent was to convey that H&P were later shown to be mistaken about the nature of the city evacuations, then produce the reliable sources to that effect, and let's accurately convey what they do if it is appropriate in this venue (it is likely that such material would be more appropriate in the Cambodia genocide article). Otherwise, we should stick to conveying the actual disagreements with contemporary sources expresssed by H&P. We should also follow Wikipedia policy regarding regarding our use of "reported" versus "stated" versus "claimed".
• Likewise, I removed this content: Due to years of civil war and an influx of refugees, Phnom Penh had limited supplies, with François Ponchaud estimating that the city had no more than two months worth of food in April 1975. The Khmer Rouge had been forcibly evacuating the inhabitants of the villages and towns they occupied since 1972, contributed to Phnom Penh's dire situation by shelling the city for more than a year, and rejected offers of foreign aid. Author William Shawcross wrote that "arguments about the precise quantities of food available in the city" were "somewhat academic", citing a statement by Pol Pot that the evacuation had been planned in advance to assist in the Khmer Rouge policy of "smashing... all sorts of enemy spy organizations." By contrast, Porter and Hildebrand suggested that the evacuation may have been undertaken for humanitarian purposes, and "undoubtedly saved the lives of many thousands of Cambodians" which again sets up a "by contrast" juxtaposition that doesn't exist in the quoted H&P book, and includes several assertions from sources produced years later. Strangely, the Pol Pot quote from Shawcross was directly addressed by Porter during an exchange between the two, yet that is absent from our article. Instead of conveying information specific to Porter, these 4 sentences appear instead to be intended to continue the debate about the nature of the Phom Penh evacuation -- something better suited to a Cambodia article. (I also removed the Solomon Bashi non-reliable, self-published source, but RS sources might be found for the same info.)
• I added a basic infobox.
• I've removed the sentence which began "In response to Porter's statement..." because what followed was not conveyed by the cited source as being a response to Porter. Related to that, please see my observation above about the sentence being not a "criticism", but hyperbole that doesn't inform the reader at all about Porter. (And the verbiage "some of the explanations" couldn't be more vague, after pages of testimony from several experts.)
• I also added that he wrote for other publications like Foreign Policy, the peer-reviewed Journal of Environment & Development, etc.
• I keep finding more publications where Porter's work has been published, so rather than add more to the lede, I've summarized it into a few simple categories.

More in a bit, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Since this page is obviously contentious (given the talk discussions), I thought I would post here before making any changes.

I would like to propose adding the following to the intro: While at Cornell, Porter was a member of the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars and Chairman of the Cornell chapter. (documented by a cite - 800 Attend Indochina Teach-In By MONICA REISS The Cornell Daily Sun Sun Apr 14, 1972, pg. 9

With regard to the Hue Massacre, I have discovered that Porter misrepresented the information in Alje Vennema's The Viet Cong Massacre at Hue.

In The 1968 ‘Hue Massacre’ Porter writes the following: The elusiveness of Saigon's figures is significant in the view of the testimony of Alje Vennema, a doctor working for a Canadian medical team at Quang Ngai hospital, who happened to be in the Hue province hospital during the Tet Offensive and who made his own investigation of the grave sites. Vennema agreed that there were 14 graves at Gia Hoi High School but said there was a total of only 20 bodies in those graves. Vennema also stated that the other two sites in Gia Hoi district of Hue held only 19 bodies rather than the 77 claimed by the government, and that those in the area of the imperial tombs southwest of Hue contained only 29 bodies rather than 201 as claimed in the official report.

Here is what Vennema wrote that Porter “quotes”:

At the front of the [Gia Hoi] school there were fourteen trenches containing 101 bodies. During the ensuing three days, however, other bodies were found in front, to the side, and behind the school. The whole school site eventually yielded 203 bodies of young men, older men, and women.

…………….

Most of those led away from the ruined monastery into captivity succumbed near the imperial tombs. By June, 1969, a total of 203 bodies had been discovered.

In The Myth of the Hue Massacre Porter wrote, regarding Vennema:

Dr. Alje Vennema, found that the number of victims in the grave sites he examined were inflated in the U.S.-Saigon count by over seven-fold, totalling only 68 instead of the officially claimed 477, and according to Vennema most of the bodies were clothed in military uniforms and had wounds suggesting that they were victims of the fighting.

Clearly this is incorrect. In the above two cites alone Vennema lists 406 bodies, not 68. The total number of bodies that Vennema accounts for in his account is 2397, and that does not include Pike's "fourth phase" which would add a minimum of 240 more bodies to Vennema's numbers. Furthermore, Vennema only cites VC dead at two sites; Gia Hoi School - "Four corpses were of members of the Front." pg 131 and Con Hen Island -"According to refugees from the island who had managed to survive the crossfire, there were several corpses of uniformed males on the island, some in the khaki of the Front, others in short tunics, some in South Vietnamese army uniforms, others in civilian clothes." pg 132 However, Vennema also states that the communists executed some Front members who didn't want to leave with them. "Among the younger men were eighteen students, a number of whom had joined the Front after the anti-government struggle and had retreated to the mountains. This time they had returned and were joined by other students forced to participate by the Front. When the Front prepared to leave, the students were given the choice of returning with the Front to the mountains or staying behind. Those who chose to stay behind were shot and buried in the yard." pg 129 --Txantimedia (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Txantimedia. This page doesn't appear to be particularily contentious, but I have certainly seen some contentious commentary about war (which can be found everywhere) spill over onto the pages of this biography. Regarding your proposed edit, and speaking just for myself here, I see no reason why we can't add to this article that Porter was a chairman of the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars at Cornell in 1972. The Daily Sun piece you cited supports it, and I don't see any contradictory information after a brief search -- plus his anti-war activism at that time seems well-documented.

Regarding your assertion "that Porter misrepresented the information" from Vennema, that's a strong accusation and will require strong reliable sources which specifically convey that. At first glance, it appears that you are saying that you read some stuff from Porter and then read some stuff from Vennema, and you concluded they don't match up. Maybe they don't -- I haven't thoroughly read the related material -- but may I ask you for some published reliable sources that make that same assertion of "misrepresentation", please? After just a few minutes of reading, it appears you are claiming Porter, in 1974, misrepresented something Vennema wouldn't say until 1976. Anyway, accusing a scholar of "misrepresenting" sources is very serious, so I'll need to see the exact publications, page numbers and wording of that accusation. If you are saying he was merely incorrect, or mistaken, that, too, is still very serious and would still require strong reliable sourcing if it is to appear in a WP:BLP such as this. If your intent is to present competing arguments about how many bodies were found in how many graves in how many locations, this is the wrong article for that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits (May 2018)

Regarding the proposal to add the following information to this BLP:

• In 2014, Porter traveled to Tehran to participate in the "New Horizon" conference alongside 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites. Following the conference, Porter said he regretted attending along-side 9/11 conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites and that had he been aware in advance of the contents of the conference he would have avoided attending. (Cited to this BuzzFeed piece)

What encyclopedic information about Porter are these two sentences supposed to convey? It appears to me to be a construct intended to associate the subject of this biography, Porter, with the nastiness of "9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists", complete with blue links and all. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, but I've removed the proposed content from the article based on WP:BLP and WP:ONUS concerns. Please also see WP:GUILT. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a 'get out of jail' card for information that is unfavorable to the subject if they are a pubic figure, as Porter surely is. The policy is explicit about this : "BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. This incident is clearly relevant and noteworthy, as evidenced by the fact that it was covered in multiple reliable sources, and even elicited a public response from Porter. I'm willing to entertain alternative formulations, to address your concern about 'alongside', but not wholesale removal of a relevant, well documented event that both Poerter and his critics commented on. Accordingly, I'll be restoring this, and reminding you that you've already reverted 3 times . Attack Ramon (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This incident is clearly relevant and noteworthy, as evidenced by the fact that it was covered in multiple reliable sources, and even elicited a public response from Porter. --Attack Ramon

I see only one source cited, and it is to the sketchy BuzzFeed article. In fact, a Google search of news sources produces only one passable source mention here, and even that provides no justification for this non-encyclopedic addition. Please save the lectures on policy interpretation; I am not concerned with legitimate negative or positive content additions here. We're talking about the 2 sentences listed above. I asked what encyclopedic information about Porter these two sentences were intended to convey, and you didn't address that. Would you mind explaining what encyclopedic information about Gareth Porter you hope to convey to our readers? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not sketchy, and your Googling skills need improvement:

• http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/186201/medea-benjamin-iran
• https://www.adl.org/blog/iran-new-horizon-conference-draws-us-anti-semites-holocaust-deniers

Since you are not interested in policy arguments, can I take it you are no longer claiming this is a BLP issue?

I am intending to convey the information that Gareth Porter presented at a propaganda conferences, was criticized for it, and later regretted it, as multiple media outlets found noteworthy. This is no different than reporting on his fringe (and now debunked) views that Iran never intended to develop nuclear weapons. Attack Ramon (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Buzzfeed is indeed sketchy (see the numerous discussions at WP:RSN archives where their crazy stories and listicles, etc., are discussed in more depth). I never said I was "not interested in policy arguments"; I merely asked that you not lecture me about policy interpretation. (Once you've made more than 500 article edits, or been here more than a year, I'll still make the same request of you.) The BLP issue we're discussing will likely remain a BLP issue until the BLP policies about high-quality source requirements, tabloid journalism, and removal of poorly sourced content are re-written. By the way, your two 'sources' do not even support your "presented at a propaganda conferences, was criticized for it, and later regretted it" thesis, even if they weren't crappy sources). I do, however, appreciate your candor in admitting what impression you hope to leave with our readers regarding this living person. You will need actual high-quality reliable sources that support it, and which convey its relevance. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is widely covered. Porter himself acknowledged the problem. We cover all major aspects of a subject and this clearly is one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually it isn't "widely covered", and the only "problem" Porter appears to have acknowledged was the problem with Buzzfeed. What "major aspect" of Porter are you referring to, may I ask? It certainly isn't evident from those two sentences proposed above. As for your "widely covered" assertion, could you perhaps share your top 3 high-quality reliable sources so they can be reviewed here, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

that's incorrect - I gave you multiple RSes, above, and what Porter acknowledges was that he shouldn't have gone, and he claims he was tricked into going by the organizers. Attack Ramon (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask for "multiple RSes", a description for which almost anything can qualify. (A hand-scribbled shopping list qualifies as a RS, if properly attributed, for content about what I'm hoping to pick up at the local super-market, for example.) WP:BLP requires "high quality reliable sources" that actually support the "factual" encyclopedic content you are proposing, and that is what I was asking about. Have any? I would like to review them, if they exist at all. Citing a commentary piece by a college professor, or citing an activist/advocacy website, do not meet that requirement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So the ADL, a 100+ year old civil-rights NGO is now a "crappy source"? What is it that makes Tablet magazine a "crappy source'? As I wrote, I am willing to consider alternate formulations, but not wholesale removal. Feel free to suggest a phrasing that you feel is supported by the ADL source or the Tablet Source. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In answer to your two questions: No, I didn't say that. And I don't know, because I didn't say that either. I'll repeat what I did say: "By the way, your two 'sources' do not even support your "presented at a propaganda conferences, was criticized for it, and later regretted it" thesis, even if they weren't crappy sources)."

As for asking me to suggest something supported by the ADL blog or the college professor commentary piece in the Tablet source, that isn't how we do things. You are skipping steps. If you are proposing an article improvement addition to this BLP, please detail what encyclopedic information you wish to convey to our readers and include the required high-quality reliable sources that convey both that specific information and it's relevance. (Again, see WP:BLP and WP:ONUS.) We don't take an unsupported personal opinion about a living person, like your "Gareth Porter presented at a propaganda conferences, was criticized for it, and later regretted it" and then try to generate "alternate formulations" of what is said in low quality sources to promote it. Let me know if I haven't explained that clearly enough. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

When I present you with 2 new sources, and you respond with "....even if they weren't crappy sources" then you are most certainly calling them "crappy sources". That's how the English language works, and how human conversation works. I'm glad to see you are backing off from that baseless contention. I've meanwhile had the time to review the RSN discussions about BuzzFeed- this is the most recent one - and contrary to your elaims, it was found to be a solid news source - "This looks much like a solid news article. Note that "told BuzzFeed News" is repeated eleven times. Buzzfeed news articles are usually okay ".

You seem to be confused about who is trying to change the article. I am not adding any new content- I am reverting your deletion of material that has been in it for quite a while - more than 6 months, if I am counting correctly, and thus assumed to have consensus. If you want to change that consensus, you need to explain why, and get consensus for your desired changes. I don't see that new consensus at this point. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. When you scrape up 2 new sources, or mention the Buzzfeed source, I responded with: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." - "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." - "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." As to your repeated insertion of the two sentences, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." I've not "claimed" what you say; there's been no "backing off"; there's been no "confusion" on my part. That is how reading comprehension works.

You are seeking to put disputed content back into the article. The onus is on you to establish why that content should be in this BLP, and to achieve consensus for that reasoning. I've tried to help you along that path by requesting that you explain just what it is you are trying to convey to our readers, and what required high-quality sources you have to support that. Instead of producing the required high-quality sources that show that this rises to the level of widely covered encyclopedic information, you scrape the bottom of the barrel and present an opinion commentary piece (not even primarily about Porter) by a professor, and an ADL blog post about some guy named "Garth Porter", and which doesn't even support the two sentences you are trying to put back into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

New Horizon conference

Re this edit (deleting this text: In 2014, Porter traveled to Tehran to participate in the "New Horizon" conference alongside 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites. Following the conference, Porter said he regretted attending along-side 9/11 conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites and that had he been aware in advance of the contents of the conference he would have avoided attending. with explanation "this is an incredibly one sided and inflammatory summary and totally inappropriate for a BLP". I don't see what's one sided or inflammatory. We have two sources, both I think RSs, showing it was noteworthy. Do people agree it's inappropriate for a BLP? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

He made a mistake and apologized, sounds like guilt by association. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What actually happened is that Porter was invited to the conference, he demanded more information, and when he was informed an antisemite was invited, he refused to come unless that bigot was disinvited first. He also warned the conference organizers that he and others should not and would not tolerate those kinds of views. When he arrived at the conference he found there were antisemitic and conspiracy theorist people in attendance, and he publicly declared his regret in attending. I don't think it makes one bit of sense to put this episode into his Wikipedia biography. If he had 1) organized the conference, or 2) had engaged in some major public debate on the issue that became a defining feature of his career, it might warrant a mention. Instead, putting it here places a lot of emphasis on what is, for Porter's life and career, an inconsequential event.

Also, regarding reliable sources. @Bobfrombrockley: the first source you've linked is written by Todd Gitlin, and that's a plus. Otherwise though it's an opinion piece and public letter written to a different conference participant, with references to Porter that are totally ambivalent. The letter title is printed in all caps and written in the style of a yellow journalism piece. Suffice to say this isn't news. The Buzzfeed piece merely documents Porter's principled actions in opposing antisemitic perspectives at the conference and ultimately regretting that he still found them present. Again, not important enough to be in his encyclopedia bio, and the text you added back from a banned editor didn't faithfully represent the episode. In particular the first sentence of the disputed text introduces the subject in the most inflammatory manner possible. Happy to take this to BLPN if you're still not convinced. -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If our wording is inaccurate, we can change it based on sources, so that's not a reason to delete. However, I've just looked at Google News, and it seems that these two sources are the only sources for this, suggesting it isn't that noteworthy, so I'm fine with leaving it out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

historian, investigative journalist, author and policy analyst

Can we describe him with these words without secondary sources for them? He has written books about the recent past, but does that make him a "historian", for example? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Gareth Porter is a historian, investigative journalist, author, and policy analyst specializing in U.S. national security policy. Gareth Porter, an independent investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national-security policy, received the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism for his coverage of the US war in Afghanistan. Gareth Porter is an independent scholar on issues of war and peace and an historian of the Vietnam conflict. Cmon, Porter is unquestionable an historian of the Vietnam War. This push to wipe away all of somebody's record because of a distaste for their stances on current conflict or where they choose to publish is getting ridiculous. nableezy - 18:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to add sources then. Which of those are secondary? Or is this legitimate ABOUTSELF territory? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think this is aboutself at all, the blurb from the publisher or from The Nation isnt written by Porter or published by him. nableezy - 15:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)