Talk:Jamil Hussein controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jamil Hussein controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Note to editors

Folks, please remember that this is a tricky issue, with claims and counter-claims buzzing around the ol' tubes. Moreover, the warning on all Wikipedia edit pages that:

[i]f you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

applies especially strongly to this page. Anything we write, here or in the article, could well be completely out of date a week later. So let's try not to get too het up about the various debates that go on here ... easier said than done, but worth trying anyhow. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006

Where did the phrase 'Jamilgate' arise? It sounds rather loaded and perhaps the article should be renamed, especially as it is still not clear that the allegations are accurate. --Lollerkeet 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article appeared to have been at Jamil Hussein earlier, and perhaps it still belongs there, as most of the scandal still centers around the existence and veracity of "Jamil Hussein". But moving it would probably start an edit war, so I'm not going to bother. Argyriou (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Jamilgate sounds POV. No citations on it's use - fails WP:OR? Let's move it back for now. Ronnotel 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "the concern was that Hussein might be an Insurgent using AP to spread disinformation in the media" to "the concern was that Hussein might be using AP to spread disinformation in the media". I am not sure if this is the correct decision; while there were no doubt concerns that Hussein was opposed to the Occupation, he could have had other motives for spreading misinformation. Perhaps it should read "there were concerns that Hussein might be an Insurgent using AP to spread disinformation in the media". However, that still has a rather anti-Insurgency sound to it. --Lollerkeet 10:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks fine. Ronnotel 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the 'references' for this article, most of them appear to be blogs (flopping aces?). Correct me if I am wrong, but blogs might be used to show that a controversy exists, but not for the facts. Will someone clean up the references to be more in line with the policy for citing sources? Invidus 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this article is that the references and external links are completely one sided.

Among other places, there is a discussion on how this entire "issue" was fabricated: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/credibility-of-right-wing-blogosphere.html

Michelle Malkin wrote an article

In her article she stated she visited only two mosques of the six. In her article she showed video of a substantially destroyed mosque that she first claimed was still standing and then claimed had been abandoned earlier. In her article she then repeated the reports of the military saying that the other mosques were still standing, but she never visited those other mosques.

If this "affair" is controversial and discusses whether the AP made a mistake or was deliberately misleading then it is very relevant to point out Malkin's mistakes and misleading statements, esp., since Malkin is one of the proponents of the theory that the AP cannot be trusted.

It is extremely POV for that information to be removed from this article.

I reverted the information back, please do not edit it out. 71.39.78.68 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Hum

Not the least of which is Brit Hum of Fox News says the that Jamil Hussein does indeed exist: http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050004

Or that the people starting this controversy refuse to admit their errors in making fraud allegations against AP: http://mediamatters.org/items/200701050012

At the least, IMO, the External Links and references should be balanced.

Thanks.

article is one sided?

If you feel that the article is one sided, then you should feel free to either add information in support of Jamil Hussein or the AP to the article, or at least submit the info for approval on this page. But having skimmed the articles you linked, they don't seem have any information in them, they're simply virulent attacks on the "right wing blogosphere". This isn't a debate on whether their accusations are accurate or not, it's mainly about the credibility of the Associated Press on this particular issue. Even if Jamil Hussein is proven to exist, it was proven that his reported executions by immolation and the destruction of the mosques did not happen. And it does not answer the question as to why he was used as a witness for so many incidents spread over such a huge area.

Until the left-wing blogosphere can produce actual evidence in support of Jamil Hussein or the AP's story, they should be left out of the article as irrelevant.McJeff 05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs not reliable

Blogs are not reliable sources. Please do not use blogs as sources. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that's asinine. Is hotair a blog? hotair's bloggers include Malkin and the other guy that actually went to Iraq. Is E&P a blog? It sure looks like a blog. Why is E&P not a blog, Hotair maybe not a blog, and SadlyNo a blog? Is Paul Krugman's blog reliable? Is Brad DeLong's blog reliable? Are blogs run by tenured professor's reliable? Is Robert Reich's blog reliable? What makes one blog reliable and other blogs unreliable? Is WorldNewsDaily reliable? Is Pravda reliable? Is Newsmax reliable? Is FoxNews reliable? Is townhall reliable? Is National Review reliable? Is national review online reliable? It is faulty reasoning to say "blogs are unreliable" and to say that "traditional newsreporting outlets" are reliable. 71.39.78.68 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are pretty clear - see WP:RS#Self-published sources. Blogs can sometimes be used per the guidelines, but they're relatively strict. - RJASE1 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a primary sources about the writer themselves they are ok. Mathmo ^Talk 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about "Jamil Hussein controversy," not "Bob Owens." Please also review WP:STALK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elision of Bob Owens, The Confederate Yankee's Contribution to the controversy

It doesn't matter whether blogs are reliable are not for this article. The only reason this article exists, the only reason there is a controversy is because it was brought up by bloggers, including specifically, Bob Owens, the Confederate Yankee. This is not a case of Bob Owens testifying about the existence of Dark Matter. This is a case where bloggers, specifically Bob Owens, raised the charges and provided the analysis. Insisting on quoting only established media reports of what the bloggers are saying is nonsensical. The established media here is the third party source. Bob Owens, the Confederate Yankee is the primary source. I am going to revert your elision and ask that you stand by the primary tenet of the wikipedia: assume others are acting in good faith, and improve and do not delete.

By all accounts of anyone knowledgeable about this controversy, it came to light because of three people: "Curt from flopping aces", Michelle Malkin, and Bob Owens, The Confederate Yankee" Without all three, there would be no controversy. Eliminating mention of Bob Owens or Curt because they are mere bloggers is to give a POV chauvinistic bias towards the traditional media.

We must not mention bloggers, and so Malkin is barely a journalist gets all the credit. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Refusing to acknowledge the roles of these three bloggers is a POV act. 71.39.78.68 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to do primary research at the Wikipedia. The primary research here was not done by the traditional media. Everyone acknowledges the primary research here was done Flopping Aces and the Confederate Yankee. There are 30,000 google cites of Jamil Confederate Yankee". To refuse to name them, discuss their roles, and give them credit just because they are bloggers is a POV act. 71.39.78.68 03:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a WP:RS act. Find reliable sources for your claims before including them. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there is no way you can claim that Bob Owens is less reliable on this affair than you. Who is Hipocrite and what was his contribution to the controversy? Zilch, nada, nil. Who is Bob Owens? He was the person that scoured the AP articles and put the links together and his research has been cited by E&P and other traditional journalists. It is POV to claim that a wikipedia editor is more knowledgeable than the primary source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am not using myself as a source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that "Jamil Hussein" is a pseudonym

I've added some details about Bob Owen's claim that (1) "Jamil Hussein" is a pseudonym and (2) using pseudonyms is against the AP's stated policy. Of course, Mr Owen is not a WP:RS, so we must be careful to not state these as facts, only as claims by Mr Owen. I did this because

I suspect he's right, and
this seems to be a major theme of the next chapter of this messy saga.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless an opinion is published by a reliable source, it does not exist. Find a reliable source for Bob Owen's opinion - someguysblog is not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. SomeGuysBlog is perfectly acceptable as a source for a statement such as "SomeGuy, who blogs at SomeGuysBlog, reports that he contacted the Sheriff's department and that they said the car in question was a Ford Taurus, not a stretch limousine". Note that the subject of the sentence is "SomeGuy" and the verb is "reports"; note also that the subclauses are falsifiable statements of fact, not expressions of opinion. Of course, it would not be acceptable to write the equivalent of "the car in question was a Ford Taurus, not a stretch limousine" and cite SomeGuysBlog as a source.

Most political blogs are vehicles for opinions, but some (eg., Michael Totten and Michael Yon) concentrate on original reporting. So I believe that the relevant part of Bob Owen's post is not an opinion, and is acceptable as a primary source for what Bob Owen claimed.

The risk in my approach is that lots of bloggers make lots of wild claims. My assessment is that this claim is solidly researched, and fits previous reports (eg., Jordan Eason's 2007-01-01 article) better than any alternative. It could turn out to be a dead end, in which case we'll just remove it from the article. (All Wikipedia articles are subject to change, this one more than most.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What blogers say is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. What bloggers says is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia in certain cases, especially in articles about blogs, bloggers and/or blog-based controversies. Since this article is about a blog-based controversy, we have to report what bloggers said or did. To my mind, the only rational alternative is to delete the article entirely; this reductio ad absurdum argument proves that we should use blogs as sources when appropriate. Of course, lots of ~~argument~~ discussion about what is or isn't appropriate is likely — and indeed desireable. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a controversy was not mentioned in reliable sources, it does not exist. We should never use blogs as sources - review WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have reviewed WP:RS frequently in the last few days. Here's some points I consider important:

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. The difference is important. See WP:PG#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.
The difference between primary and secondary sources is also important. From WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources (emphasis added):
Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.
The section on WP:RS#Bulletin_boards, wikis and posts to Usenet can be misleading (emphasis added):
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See WP:RS#Self-published sources for exceptions.
"Messages left on blogs" must mean comments on blog posts made by people other than the blogger(s).
Note also that there are exceptions to this guideline.

So it is not true that "[w]e should never use blogs as sources". In fact, clearly there are two classes of articles:

(1) For most articles, use of blogs as sources is not acceptable.

(2) For some articles, use of blogs as sources is acceptable.

I say that this article is not in class (1). In fact, I say it belongs to a third class not yet covered by WP:RS:

(3) For a few articles, use of blogs as sources is mandatory.

(Obviously, it's legitimate to argue about which of these 3 classes this article belongs.)
However, I hope I have proved that Wikipedia does allow use of blogs as sources.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly spent all that time reading WP:RS and missed the section header "Self-published sources in articles about themselves"? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it was really hard not to snap back at User:Hipocrite with an even worse insult.

That subsection relates only to "self-published sources in articles about themselves". This is not an article about Michelle Malkin, Bob Owens or Flopping Aces, so that subsection is irrelevant.

Hipocrite, if/when you reply to this, please address the arguments I and others are making, instead of just giving another snappy quip.

More importantly, I started checking on how the article currently uses sources, and the first one I looked at contradicted the article! I also noticed that the article is rather disorganized. (This is only to be expected in an article which has been edited by lots of inexperienced contributors.) I advocate a substantial rewrite with careful attention to exactly what our sources say. It will be hard work. In a related development, I'm not going to do any more editing tonight. Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seek consensus for your interpretation of WP:RS. You are, in fact, wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CWC's conclusion that Wikipedia does allow use of blogs as sources. Mathmo ^Talk 07:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Video shows the dome was substantially destroyed, the Article says rooms were firebombed

Together, that's a significantly damaged mosque with a substantially destroyed dome.

Would you folks please click on the link to Michelle Malkin's OWN PICTURE of the dome that is included in the article? Describing this dome as "substantially destroyed" is an accurate, NPOV statement. Pointing out that Malkin then described the mosque as "still standing" is also a factually accurate NPOV statement that goes to the heart of this controversy: Malkin saying the AP cannot be trusted. 71.39.78.68 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the linked video at Malkin's hotair site. Anyone that says that the dome was merely significantly damaged and not substantially destroyed is full of POV. Read Malkin's report that quotes the Army as saying two rooms were burnt out by a lobbed firebomb. It maybe you can claim that the mosque was merely significantly damaged, but you cannot claim that the dome was not substantially destroyed and still fight for any meaning left to the words we use on a daily basis.

Cleaning up this text by removing remarks about the dome are POV and a whitewash. Cleaning up this text by downplaying the damage to the dome is a whitewash. 71.39.78.68 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self published

This is the section that I inserted the self published tag due to. Please reinsert the tag. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 30, 2007 Conservative blogger Bob Owens of the Confederate Yankee, (one of the three bloggers that started the controversy) stated that he was considering revealing the complete full name of Jamil Hussein Should I "out" Jamil, revealing his real, full, and complete name? ^[1] Owens asks Do you trust the single policeman hiding behind a pseudonym who lied to his superiors about his involvement with the AP, and who lied about other key elements of this story? Or is it much more likely that the dozens of involved American and Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and fire department personnel are telling the truth? Owens apparently believes that any possible threat to Hussein's life (by naming him as Sunni reporting about Shiite atrocities) may be outweighed by the possible elimination of what Owens feels is a untrustworthy source. Owens goes on to say that he is leaning against the outing of Hussein and asks his readers for their views.

^ "The Case for Outing Jamil?" Confederate Yankee 30 January 2007

And, of course, it's back. Apparently the blogwarriors of wikipedia just can't accept that we're not treating their blogs as reliable sources. I'd ban you all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd ban you all", phew... good thing you are not an admin! If you ever are on RfA please be sure to drop me a note to let me know! Cheers. Mathmo ^Talk 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

Everyone outside the wikipedia agrees that this controversy came about due to three bloggers, Malkin, Flopping Aces, and the Confederate Yankee. To remove their names from this article is POV, the POV being that bloggers are somehow unreliable, and somehow should not be credited for their contributions. Claiming at the article then does that there were certain allegations without saying who started those allegations is misleading and bogus. It is also contra wiki policy. Including Curt's threats to "out" hussein is using Curt, a primary source, as a primary source.

This article thus becomes yet another wikipedia whitewash. wikiliality, and truthiness abound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Wikipedia rules assume that bloggers are less reliable than the MSM (the irony, the irony!), so this debate is not, strictly speaking, a POV issue. Nevertheless, you have a very good point about the ..erm... strangeness of trying not to quote/cite bloggers in an article which is about an event confined largely to the blogosphere. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is this is an article about a subject to do with bloggers, and thus naturally bloggers are sources for this article. This does not mean bloggers are to be generally accepted as sources across all of wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:KazakhPol's edits

Go ahead and revert User:KazakhPol's edits whenever they're stupid, like his claim that you can't cite AP. KP is a known tendentitious POV-warrior, and has an RfC discussing his lack of comprehension of Wikipedia sourcing policies and other policies. Αργυριου (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally confused

Not being aquainted very well with the story, coming across this page to skim for information is very confusing. It seems like almost every other paragraph was written by a different person with a different take on the subject. The opening statement I think needs to make clear whether the controversy was equally over whether certain events occured in Iraq and whether Jamil Hussein existed, or make clear that it was more about one than the other. As it is the article doesn't really seem very coherent. Worse, this article seems to focus heavily on the issue of the original story itself being false, whilst in its' summary entry on the AP article only Hussein's existence is mentioned, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rough consensus is that the conservative bloggers were driving at two points: A - that Jamil Hussein may not have existed at all, and that a fact-finding mission initially seemed to conform this until the Iraqi government said he DID exist and was arrested, and the bloggers conceded this.

B - The particular AP story that sparked all this was about four mosques being destroyed, and six people being lit on fire and burnt to death while the Iraqi army stood and watched. There seems to be a consenus that this didn't happen - one mosque was heavily damaged in the fighting and nobody can confirm any of this stuff about peole being burnt death, whilst the AP story itself was quietly changed to the 'one mosque' story.

Just trying to see if this is what everyone agrees upon. Since the story doesn't really count as a current event and nobody is looking into it any further (maybe the arrest is being followed?) efforts to clean this article up should hopefully be fre of any more major edit wars :). Edders 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is confusing. Worse still, some of the statements contradict their own cited sources. This article needs a lot of work. It's on my to-do list ... but not near the top. Any volunteers?

Edders is also right about this no longer being a current event. AFAIK, the last person to write about this was Bob Owens (who blogs as ConfederateYankee), back in early March (see here for a useful summary of his posts; note that he is not a Reliable Source by Wikipedia rules). Cheers, CWC 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist?

This article is totally confusing. It sets up a straw man and then gets around to saying, oh and by the way, the assumption of this article, that the AP erred is mostly wrong, and that the most famous blogger, Malkin, who made the claim that the AP was wrong, apologized for her errors. This is the worst example of a non-encyclopedic article I have seen on Wikipedia. Can anyone explain the bare bones of why this article exists? I believe it is a candidate for extinction. Skywriter 22:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'event' this article covers has some historical significance. It shows the power of bloggers (Estate 4.1?) to monitor media accuracy, how the blogosphere can be manipulated, and thereofre how that power can be misused. (It is also an interesting example of some conservatives trusting military spokespeople above journalists.) This situation will no doubt be played out a thousand times, but this is one of the earliest cases and will no doubt be used as an example for some time to come. For this reason I argue that it be kept. --Lollerkeet 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably exist, but it seems to be presented in a confusing order, and somewhat repetitively -- Malkin's visit to Iraq is mentioned several separate times on the page, etc. AnonMoos 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening of this article seems misleading, citations please

The Jamil Hussein controversy refers to an allegation by right wing bloggers, including Michelle Malkin, that a massacre the Associated Press reported had never happened, and that their source, Captain Jamil Hussein, did not exist.

How about some citations to back up this claim? Did Michelle Malkin ever come out definitively and say that no massacre happened or that Jamil Hussein did not exist or did she just question whether reports on these facts were accurate? Looking back over her posts, I cannot locate any of Malkin's on the subject where she actually made such claims. If none exist, then this opening needs to be changed. If they do exist, then they need to be cited. 24.113.82.222 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from memory, the scandal started when right wing blogs started looking through Jamil Hussein's other contributions, and found that almost all of his articles were unsourced and many of them had already been disproven. Claims that Hussein didn't exist didn't start until after Hussein's credibility was questioned, and they picked up steam in the months it took them to actually find Hussein.

I do not believe Malkin ever actually said Hussein didn't exist, although some of the right wing blogs probably did - for good reason, it looked for months like he didn't. Here's a page concering Hussein's identity, dating 2006-11-30 [1]. The closest thing I found was a page on Flopping Aces that she linked to, where it was claimed that it was the AP's responsibility to prove themselves and their source (Hussein) credible after "strong doubts" had been cast on the story. [2].

And here is her last anti-Jamil update, where the man who eventually turned out to be Hussein, Jamil Gulaim [3]. Lastly, here's a link to a post where she states that the Interior Ministry made a mistake when they first claimed that no such person as Jamil Hussein existed. [4]

McJeff 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Edits

I really hope that I didn't make too much of a mess of it. I tried to re-focus the entry on the fact that the initial AP reports didn't correlate with the actual damage on the ground, and make the article more "readable". I think that this article should include a few references to "fauxtography" and the use of local stringers to report on events in Iraq. Wasn't that part of the controversy?Nightmote (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links Updated

There is still hope for this article. It is more readable after Nightmote's revision.

There are several "dead" links because they go to a subscription only site. I have alternate links to the same articles, and I will substitute them in tomorrow.

I have additional information to add, and I believe I can do a revision that will tell both sides of this controversy. (W E Hill (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamil Hussein controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217113609/http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006641.htm to http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006641.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Case for Outing Jamil?" Confederate Yankee 30 January 2007

[1]