Talk:Seymour Hersh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deleting weasel wording[edit]

I have removed this content [1] because it implies some sort of fault in the work was behind the rejection. No such explanation, or indeed any explanation, has been offered by the two publications [2] - so such a thing cannot be implied. Moreover, what sources that do exist give alternative reasons, including reasons that have nothing directly to do with the article's content, see [3] and [4] and others. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring omission[edit]

The "family jewels" article that led to the creation of the Church Committee (currently tucked away in the bibliography and the See Also section) is extremely important, and deserves some detail in the selected stories category. I know the obvious answer here, as with so many other talk page complaints, is "so do it yourself", but a more experienced editor could do an infinitely better job than I could. On the off chance that someone actually reads this: any thoughts? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new section: Marginalized by Mainstream Media[edit]

Or some other suitable title

see this article from Jonathan Cook Humanengr (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer proposed, but created, although the original publication of the article is on a self-published blog. Although it was cited to a reprint on Counterpunch website. I deleted it, however, because it is by a journalist without much of a mainstream reputation and Counterpunch is a contentious source. Hersh is now more likely to be dismissed or criticised in sources we can quote, despite his status decades ago. Philip Cross (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re "it is by a journalist without much of a mainstream reputation": Jonathan Cook is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, given for "reporting that … exposes establishment conduct and its propaganda, or 'official drive', as Martha called it."
Re "Hersch [sp.] is now more likely to be dismissed or criticised in sources we can quote": The quoted material reflects that. Do you have any factual objection to the content? Humanengr (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed Cook for several years, and he has not been published by the most reputable outlets in the West for some years. As he has an anti-mainstream media fixation, this may be deliberate or it may not, but that does not mean we have to include his comments. The disgraced Johann Hari won the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2010, the year before Cook gained the related 'Special Award for Journalism' with Julian Assange gaining the main award. So the award is both fallible and unconventional, and thus not a demonstration of Cook's credibility. Your use of the term "Martha" suggests you have a conflict of interest. Philip Cross (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My use of term 'Martha' was part of a quote from the Wikipedia page. You apparently misread. So withdraw your 'suggestion'.Again, do you have any factual objection to the content? 13:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, my mistake. But an opinion is not a fact; the New Yorker and London Review of Books may have had good reasons for declining to publish Hersh's work. Of course, it is not completely up to me what is included or deleted, but ake this to a discussion page if you feel so strongly that Cook's article should be cited. Philip Cross (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Philip Cross (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Lai[edit]

I've removedthis entire paragraph from the My Lai section, for reasons which I will explain below:

Hersh had been directed to the Calley court-martial by Geoffrey Cowan of The Village Voice and later remarked, "Yeah, part of me said, 'Fame! Fortune! Glory!' The other part was very pragmatic [in thinking] about, 'How are you going to prove this?'"[1] A critical attitude to Hersh perceives him as the mere instrument by which the My Lai massacre became public knowledge and a part of the machine with which the army built its case against a scape-goat. According to this view, Hersh served in this way to shape the memory the military wanted—an exceptional atrocity, an anomaly, that was dealt with.[2][3][4]

My reasons for removal are as follows:

  1. The contributor who created this paragraph is a User:Sayerslle, who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for sock puppetry and tendentious editing related to the Ghouta chemical attack in Syria. He added the paragraph on April 13, 2014, and no one seems to have seriously examined it since. The background of the contributor would not be worth noting if the paragraph in question was reasonable and reliable, but it is not.
  2. Most of this paragraph is just a poorly-worded expression of an opinion attributed to "a critical attitude to Hersh," which I believe is merely user Sayerslle's way of smuggling in his own opinion of Hersh. This "critical attitude" belittles Hersh as "the mere instrument by which the My Lai massacre became public knowledge" and as part of a U.S. military propaganda "machine." I'm sure there are many opinions of Hersh and his work, and this "critical attitude" may be one of them, but it is certainly not the most prevalent opinion about his My Lai reporting. There is no reason to mention it in this article unless we want to provide a larger compendium of opinions about his reporting. Moreover, the citations provided do not provide much evidence even for the existence of this "critical attitude." The only source cited that expresses an attitude along these lines is an obscure blog named "Linux Beach" written by someone named Clay Claiborne, a self-proclaimed "revolutionary Marxist." One of the other sources cited in the paragraph is a Youtube video that has been taken down so it is no longer available, and the other cited sources don't make anything resembling that appraisal of Hersh's reporting.
  3. There are a couple of factually accurate statements in the opening sentence of this paragraph which I considered including but decided were better left out. Geoffrey Cowan was indeed the source of the tip that led Hersh to his story, and the On The Media transcript does quote Hersh saying that when he first got the tip, "part of me" was thinking about "Fame! Fortune! Glory!" However, these details about the origins of the My Lai story are not terribly important and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia article. Hersh's statement about "fame and glory" sounds to me like an offhand, slightly self-deprecating appraisal of his internal mental processes, and in any case this was only part of his motivation for reporting on My Lai. If the article is going to seriously examine his motivations, it would also have to explain why he persisted in pursuing the story at considerable personal effort and expense even after it had been turned down for publication by major media outlets.

-- Sheldon Rampton (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheldon Rampton: Your reasoning is good and I support your edit. The first source would likely not be allowed per WP:COPYVIOEL and the third source can be rejected per WP:BLOGS. The second source - the transcript - could possibly be preserved in the EL section; however, I agree with you that it was cherry-picked. The fourth source is reliable but it only states that he broke the story. -Location (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yB9JUEIHlmw%7C16:06
  2. ^ Hersh on My Lai transcript
  3. ^ My Lai and Sy Hersh reappraisal
  4. ^ Nick Turse the nation My Lai month

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Seymour Hersh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war[edit]

I removed a paragraph which paraphrased Hersh's claims on Erdogan's support for al-Nusra and ISIS without clarifying them to be purely his opinion. It cited an article from MintPress News (an openly pro-Assad source) to show that Erdogan let jihadis into Syria. This sounds like partisan, agenda-driven writing. I'll go through the entire article in more detail to make it more objective; if you have issue with me removing the paragraph for now, you can refer to it here. I'll be following the page. Ignostic199 (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in improving Hersh's article, there is plenty of room for that. I'm not protesting your first removal, just raising a couple of general and a couple of specific points. Sourcing and attribution is key to improving the article. Including POV material, especially Hersh's, is fine and actually necessary in many instances. Just get the best source available and make clear who is making the claim. As for the comment above, Erdogan has supported al-Nusra in the past, and Turkey's border was wide open to foreign jihadis to enter Syria. That's fact, not an opinion. There are good independent, reliable sources for that. Using MintPress News is controversial, and a substitute should be found if available. But if not, or in situations of providing POV claims and attribution, it is usable. Smearing it as openly pro-Assad does not help. It might favor Assad over the rebels, but that does not mean it is banned from use as a source. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I understand the need to improve the article according to those guidelines. Will be looking through it in detail soon and will use your advice Ignostic199 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with My Lai Veterans[edit]

I just removed this from the My Lai section: A movie called Interviews with My Lai Veterans won an Oscar in 1971 for Best Documentary (Short Subject).[1] As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with Hersh. If I'm wrong, please restore it! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "New York Times: Interviews with My Lai Veterans". NY Times. Retrieved May 26, 2008.

South Dakota[edit]

Here's the current sentence

"He later became a correspondent for United Press International in South Dakota"

I think the article should specify that it was in Pierre, the capital of South Dakota---he was covering the legislature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.187.130 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused paragraph[edit]

The fourth paragraph of the Syrian civil war section is a big mess. I've explained the problem here.

I also notice that none of the references in the first paragraph mention Hersh. That seems strange for a BLP. SashiRolls t · c 20:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans:: thank you for fixing part of your mistake, but the sources in your topic sentence also refer to bin Laden. Note the publication date in particular of the second article which predates the 2017 article by two years. I still don't understand how you could have made this mistake. SashiRolls t · c 21:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy/criticism section[edit]

I have placed a tag on this section:

  • Some of these are assessments of Hersh's work, some are criticisms and some are Hersh's comments on events. Lumping them under this heading is inappropriate. It would be better to include these in a chronological description of Hersh's work. Items that provide a general assessment can be placed in an Assessment section.
  • Where are the positive assessments of Hersh's work? Why is he such a highly decorated journalist?

Burrobert (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Locations[edit]

The article says the Hersh family dry-cleaning shop was in the Austin neighborhood. Both Hersh’s own memoir (“Reporter: A Memoir”) and a nostalgic city tour with a Chicago Tribune reporter (“The Muckraker,” June 25, 2004) place the shop on the South Side, specifically at 4507 S. Indiana Ave. 2600:1702:4610:3470:5CCB:9182:7E4A:D321 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing the slander to front and centre. Labelling Hersh a Conspiracy Theorist is inaccurate.[edit]

This article towards the end, where current articles written by Hersh are reported, are skewing towards a blatant bias that seems to be perpetuated by parties who have financial or political gain to suppress information. Hersh is a highly awarded journalist, renown for uncovering government ops to propagate social support for things such as war. The label "conspiracy" needs to be removed to maintain impartiality. 124.148.174.167 (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is contained in reliable sources so cannot be ignored. Perhaps we should include Sy's response - "I don't care". Burrobert (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist who broke the story of the My Lai massacre and has never had to retract a single story is a "Conspiracy Theorist" (according to some (Redacted) vlogger at Vox.) 184.170.114.42 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. Seymour Hersh has a long history of excellent investigative journalism and it doesn't make sense to label him a conspiracy theorist on the basis of his current investigation, especially when the term is meant to bring to mind someone who makes entirely baseless claims. He might have cited an anonymous source, but sources like the Washington Post and the BBC do the same thing all the time and are still considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards (and they are). We should hold off until the story is proven fabricated if it is. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 08:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I have redacted part of 184's comment above per WP:BLP. While it's fine to challenge a source, this should be done based on evidence problems with the sources such as whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It should not be based on random insults. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should only label people, particularly with controversial labels like "conspiracy theorist", with labels that are widely used by reliable sources. We call for instance Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist because he's consistently labeled like that in reliable sources, but we don't label everyone who's ever said "Epstein didn't kill himself" a conspiracy theorist even though they are promoting a conspiracy theory. Zero of the two sources presented (the Vox article and the opinion piece in The New Republic) label Hersh with the term, so we can't either. If reliable sources widely/consistently call Hersh's view on the death of bin Laden as a "conspiracy theory", then we can say that—though I'll note not even that has been argued—but that is a significantly lower bar than labeling Hersh (the entire person) as a conspiracy theorist. Endwise (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The label is perjorative and biased. It's another example of how Wikipedia is unreliable on anything or anyone controversial. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:C5D3:3E09:47E:991E (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have whole academic articles about Hersh as conspiracy theorist, see Culloty 2021 "Evaluating conspiracy claims as public sphere communication" [5]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
widely used is the standard, not just used. How wide is the use of that label for Hersh? (That's not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer, but I think the answer will decide the issue.) Levivich (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the article does not currently call Hersh a conspiracy theorist and there is no open proposal to do so. IP wants to cut what we do have which doesn't say that. On the question that's actuary being asked describing Hersh's work as conspiratorial, questionable, or pushing conspiracy theories is pretty much universal for the most recent sources, for example Snopes from yesterday "His later work, however, has been controversial and widely panned by journalists for promoting conspiratorial claims that hinge on dubious anonymous sources or speculation." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only uses of the C word in the current article are in the title of a book and a quote "Hersh has appeared increasingly to have gone off the rails. His stories, often alleging vast and shadowy conspiracies, have made startling — and often internally inconsistent — accusations, based on little or no proof beyond a handful of anonymous 'officials'." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice that. I guess if someone at some point wants to add the label "conspiracy theorist", they can make the case that it's "widely used" at that time? Levivich (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If only because these are WP:RS which have a clear policy of not making ad hominems attacks, like we do they try to critique the work not the individual. We probably should have something in WikiVoice about his more recent publishing being less reliable though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is accurate to call him a conspiracytheorist, since that's what he's been doing for the past 15 years: he spreads accusations that are untrue. Just because someone won awards in their youth, does not make them infallible and absolutely not beyond critism. Whatever you might personally believe should be left out of this factual Wiki; journalists are held to journalist standards. Spreading disinformation and hoaxes are not journalism. There is no such thing as a "fringe" journalist. Either you report the truth or you report fake news. Hersh hasn't been a journalist in decades. Every source for his wild claims he hás revealed so far has been other conspiracytheorists (like Scott Ritter). Don't let this Wikipedia be tainted by his fellow conspiracytheorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.169.143 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hersh hasn't been a journalist in decades"? If the "s" in "decades" means two or more of them, then you're claiming that Hersh ceased to be a journalist no later than February 2003, more than a year prior to his widely heralded coverage of the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture scandal for the New Yorker. Even the people most dedicated to smearing Hersh's recent journalism don't usually set the timeline this aggressively! 75.100.42.217 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally sources note that piece as his last good work, Snopes for example "Hersh's most notable work has exposed government and military abusers and cover-ups, and his past work has revealed U.S. military abuse. He uncovered the U.S. military's role in the My Lai Massacre — work that won him a Pulitzer Prize in 1970. He described the U.S.'s role in a covert bombing campaign in Cambodia. He reported on the U.S. military's mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War. His later work, however, has been controversial and widely panned by journalists for promoting conspiratorial claims that hinge on dubious anonymous sources or speculation. " Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the 4/30/04 New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib is his last good work, and he ceased to be a journalist on 5/1/04, then the period during which he hasn't been a journalist has been roughly 18 years and 9 months. Aside from the slightly tongue-in-cheek semantic point about "decades," the more serious point here is that the sources who've dismissed his recent work as fringe conspiracy theorism are often the same ones (if not literally the same people, then people at the same outlets and institutions) who were similarly dismissive toward his earlier "good" work at the time it was originally published. One interpretation might be that Hersh's work over time transformed from good serious investigative journalism to bad unserious conspiracy theorism; another might be that there was no transformation, and those denouncing Hersh's work today are wrong in similar ways and for similar reasons as those who previously denounced it during the 1970s-2000s. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that we have WP:RS that say "Hersh's work over time transformed from good serious investigative journalism to bad unserious conspiracy theorism," (I assume you're being a bit hyperbolic) we don't have any that say there wasn't a transformation or that those denouncing Hersh's work today are wrong in similar ways and for similar reasons as those who previously denounced it during the 1970s-2000s. You would need to present a reliable source which said that in order to make that argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Yale historian and 2020 Pulitzer winner Greg Grandin making more or less exactly that point in The Nation, during the fallout from Hersh's 2015 reporting on the bin Laden raid: There’s a standard boiler plate now when it comes to going after Hersh[...]: establish Hersh’s “legendary” status [...]; invoke his reporting in My Lai and Abu Ghraib; then say that a number of Hersh’s recent stories [...] have been “unsubstantiated” [...]; question Hersh’s sources; and then, finally, suggest that Hersh has gone “off the rails” to embrace “conspiracy theories.” (Ellipses to shorten the quote by omitting references to the specific examples under discussion; you can read the second paragraph of the linked article to see that I'm not distorting Grandin's point by omission.) Obviously any tinfoil-hatted conspiracy nut can claim to be telling dangerous truths that the mainstream political/media establishment doesn't want people to know about, but it certainly helps Hersh's case that even those who dismiss his work today still acknowledge that he has a long and venerable track record of doing precisely that. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

external link[edit]

personal page https://seymourhersh.substack.com/

Use of the substack article[edit]

@Spudst3r: if you finish reading you would have noticed that " Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Just going down the list its unduly self serving, it involves claims about third parties, and it involves claims about events not directly related to the subject. Thats three strikes and you only need one strike to be out in this game. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article is unduly self-serving in any way? There is a discussion to be had more broadly on Wikipedia I guess, about the veracity of whether substack is a reliable source with so many respected journalists now "self-publishing" to it . In Hersh's case, with a solid track record of truthfully breaking stories from anonymous sources, but also stories where others doubt the reporting. In a BLP article about a respected author, I lean towards respecting the citation of content the author makes.
I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to achieve by removing the citation to Hersh's article on his own page here?. It's clearly a prominent development in the person's life, the content at hand here is being treated as notable by multiple national governments, and we are making a good faith effort at describing what he said on his wikipedia page. The reader is best served by having a link to the reporting Hersh published. Spudst3r (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any other choice in a BLP besides to abide by WP:RS... And even if you think its not unduly self-serving it definitely involves claims about third parties and events which Hersh is not directly related to, again failing even one of those five criteria means it can't be used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Substack's status as an RS, I'd think it would be in the same category as a post to Twitter or Facebook; even if the person making the post was a reporter for an RS, their social media posts wouldn't be RS, since there's no editorial/vetting process around them. So, I can see the concerns around directly citing the article here. One option would be to not directly cite the article here, but rather to add his personal/Substack site (seymourhersh.substack.com) to the infobox. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That category is called SPS and we can't use SPS which make any claims about third parties or events which are not directly related to the author (such as the pipeline sabotage). If it was Hersh making claims about Hersh we could use it, but it isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, except in this case, we wouldn't be using the substack post as a claim for the veracity of the statements made, but rather just to show that he made the claims. That said, if we can reasonably describe the claims he's making without citing the substack post directly, that would be better. I don't have access to The Times, so I don't know how much of the description of what he wrote occurred that's in the article here is in that story. If that Times story says "Hersh says that [everything in the wiki article paragraph]," then we don't need to link to the substack post. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be used for that if those claims are about third parties or events which are not directly related to the author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Seymour Hersh. Per WP:ONUS, it should stay out until/unless there is consensus to include. Levivich (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with the following: "Hersh wrote that NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg had been cooperating with US intelligence services since the Vietnam war and has been cleared ever since, and that this was part of the reason why the U.S. involved Norway in the operation.[60] At the time the Vietnam war ended, Jens Stoltenberg was 16 years old and that, in his teens and early twenties, Stoltenberg participated in demonstrations against the U.S. and the Vietnam war and advocated for Norway leaving NATO.[60]" Hersh writes, " He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War." Hersh does not say that Stoltenberg supported or opposed the US war in Vietnam, and "since" can mean after, not during the war. "since the Vietnam War" is ambiguous, not specific, and so I would consider removing this critique.Marcywinograd (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That you disagree with a WP:RS is not a valid reason to remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with the source that says Stoltenberg opposed the Vietnam War. Let's say he did, that reliable sources say he opposed it. So what? What does that have to do with him cooperating with the US intelligence community since (could mean after) the Vietnam War. Nothing. It has nothing to do with it--it's cherry picking.Marcywinograd (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it means after, in context its a very clear claim. It's a claim that turns out to be false as many of Hersh's do but it isn't ambiguous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Dictionary: since /sins/ 

Learn to pronounce

preposition preposition: since in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present. "she hasn't spoken to him since last year"

The Oxford Dictionary is a reliable source for definitions, and according to this dictionary, since does not mean during--it means in the "intervening period" and that would be after the Vietnam War ended to now. This section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcywinograd (talk • contribs)

To my reading, "has been cooperating with US intelligence services since the Vietnam war" means the cooperation began during the Vietnam war and continued thereafter, to the present. I just checked Meriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Collins, and they all use "from X until now", and I understand "from" to be inclusive of the starting point. To go with Oxford's example, if one says "she's been talking to him since last year", it means she talked to him last year. "She's been talking to him since 2010" means she talked to him in 2010, not starting in 2011. So, "he's been cooperating since the Vietnam war" means he was cooperating during the Vietnam war, not just after it. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and recentism tags[edit]

Watching this article develop over the past week, I have some concerns about the direction it's headed that I'd like to raise for discussion. In sum, I've added NPOV and recentism tags:

  1. The section about Nord Stream (the most recent report) is 3x longer than the one about My Lai and 2x longer than Abu Ghraib. This is not proportional, it's WP:RECENTISM. How long/short each section should be should be in proportion to its coverage in RS, making proper adjustments to fight against RECENTISM.
  2. The section about bin Laden is even longer
  3. There shouldn't be a "Controversies and criticisms" section at all, for the reasons stated in the essay WP:CSECTION. Instead, his career and his reports should all be listed chronologically. Both negative and positive reactions about his reports should be included in each section, in proportion to their coverage in RS.
  4. I've noticed that positive things said by others about Hersh have been removed, but negative things said by others about Hersh keep getting added. I'm not sure how we strike the appropriate balance, but we need some method for determining when we include "so-and-so said such-and-such about Hersh" and when we exclude it.

I just want to note that the problems I see isn't due to any one edit or any one editor; it's the cumulation of different people adding and removing different things (all in good faith), but I think we need to have a larger discussion about NPOV and RECENTISM in this article. Is it just me? Levivich (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the issue is that this article was horribly unbalanced prior to Nordstream and the attention from that is uncovering all these old issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I for one never looked at this article before a few days ago. I guess it wasn't just me, because I see several editors have been improving the article and already some of the things I've raised are fixed. Thank you to everyone! (I am enjoying my newfound power, "Summon Editors".) Anyway, anyone working on this should please feel free to remove the tags I placed whenever they think best. Thanks again, Levivich (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nordstream 2 added to Lead[edit]

In February 2023, Hersh reported that the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines had been carried out by the US Navy, the CIA, and the Norwegian Navy, under the direct order of President Biden. Hersh's report relied on an anonymous source who stated that, in June 2022, US Navy divers placed explosive C4 charges on the pipelines at strategic locations selected by the Norwegians. The source said that charges were placed under the cover of a multi-nation wargame simulation known as BALTOPS 22, and remotely detonated three months later by a signal from a sonar buoy dropped by a Norwegian P-8 surveillance plane.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyforwikiapps (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Midolo, Emanuele (February 8, 2023). "US bombed Nord Stream gas pipelines, claims investigative journalist Seymour Hersh". The Times. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  2. ^ "White House Denies Seymour Hersh Report That U.S. Sabotaged Nord Stream Pipelines". Democracy Now!. February 9, 2023. Retrieved February 10, 2023.

Tweet as a source[edit]

The following sentence and citation was recently added:

[[Eliot Higgins]], the founder of investigate journalism group [[Bellingcat]], said that Hersh was unable to get his article published in a reputed newspaper and that his reporting would only impress the likes of people who support Putin and al-Assad.<ref name="Nau.ch">{{Cite web | title=Reporter-Legende sicher: USA haben Nordstream gesprengt | url=https://www.nau.ch/news/amerika/reporter-legende-sicher-usa-haben-nordstream-gesprengt-66416133 | work=Nau.ch | date=9 February 2023 | access-date=13 February 2023}}</ref>

It is quoting this tweet from Eliot Higgins https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1623352957826658304

The only people Hersh impresses any more are the sort of people who carry water for Putin and Assad, or the terminally dumb.

Should a tweet really be part of the article? Is the reason that a German source was used because no English language news site quoted Higgins's tweet?

Secondly, this German article literally engages in name-calling. It name-calls Seymour Hersh «Eine-Quelle-Seymour» meaning "One Source Seymour" (It might be Eliot Higgins who is engaging in name-calling and the German article is just repeating it - I'm not sure).

Er hebt auch hervor, dass «Eine-Quelle-Seymour» den Artikel nicht bei einer grossen Zeitung habe veröffentlichen können.

Is it possible to find a better source?  selfwormTalk) 04:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Higgins and Bellingcat are notable fact-checkers and they have debunked Hersh's earlier claims about Syria. Sources do of course differ in how they have quoted Higgins and others; 20 Minuten,[6] Heute,[7], Journalisten.[8] German and Nordic sources seem to have covered Hersh's claims more in-depth, which makes sense considering the geographical location of the Nord Stream pipelines. Guillemets are quotation marks. Prolog (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true to say that Higgins and Bellingcat have 'debunked' Hersh's articles about Syria. They have claimed to, but their self agrandisement and willingness to engage in character assassinations of world reknowned journalists doesn't make them interesting, or useful for BLP.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Higgins is a notable and fairly trustworthy person, but I don't really think we should use his primary source tweets for criticism in this article. Secondary sources that discuss Higgins' tweets would be preferable, but IMO even better would be proper, non-self published sources that make their own more substantive critique of Hersh's substack article, rather than just quoting what is effectively an insult from Higgins. I'd be okay with using the articles Prolog mentioned above to acknowledge what Higgins said, but I think criticism specifically of the content in the article is what we should be focusing on. Endwise (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists Kit Klarenberg and Alan MacLeod have accused Bellingcat and Elliot Higgins of carrying water for the British and US goverment. I would argue that framing Higgins as a "notable and fairly trustworthy person" and Bellingcat as only "fact-checkers" could be considered inappropriate, as it omits a larger context. Besides, there seems to be animosity here from both parties, as suggested from Higgins tweet. Hersh was also on a podcast interview yesterday where he said "i can't care about Bellingcat, come on" (42:55 in).
Also i apologize for the poor format etc. First post here! 193.183.194.67 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately both Grey Zone and Mint Press are deprecated, that means due to a history of knowingly publishing false information they can't be used as sources on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for more. Also just FYI this is appears to be your second post here, first was back in 2020[9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good to know! 193.183.194.67 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grey Zone and Mint Press being deprecated has no bearing on the factual nature of the relationship between Bellingcat and the British and American governments, or of the inappropriateness of including tweeted personal attacks as part of BLP.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat + NED: „Next to growing demand for training, Bellingcat also attracted the attention (and financial support) from international funders and donors (Open Society Foundations, National Endowment for Democracy, Adessium) to both expand its work in research and training, and to professionalize its organisation.“, „The contributed funds consist of strategic partnerships with larger funders (national and international), private family foundations, some institutional donors (National Endowment for Democracy), Postcode Lotteries (currently the Dutch Postcode Lottery) and donations from individuals (smaller and larger).“ - bellingcat.com (pdf, p.3, 13) 92.75.172.191 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So hold on... a paragraph meant to illustrate mainstream media criticism of Hersh's Nord Stream article contains two quotes from actual named journalists, and not only is one of the quotes a brief polemical Tweet from the journalist's personal Twitter, but both quoted journalists work for a media outlet with a history of financial sponsorship by the very government whose alleged covert operations are the subject of Hersh's article? Can anybody really say with a straight face that this doesn't pose serious neutrality concerns? Seems to me like both referenced quotes (particularly Higgins' Tweet) should ideally be replaced with non-self-published quotes from mainstream media outlets with no such financial links to the US government (or the Norwegian government either, I guess) and if no equivalent suitable replacements can be found, the potential conflict of interest should at least be mentioned parenthetically along with the quotes. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a legal front of the CIA. As early as in 1991, the co-founder of NED Alan Weinstein, under the Reagan administration, put it bluntly in an interview with the WaPo that a lot of what they were doing was what the CIA had done 25 years ago. NED is therefore known as the “second CIA”. here: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." Wrighting "Seymour Hersh has been refuted: CIA has denied" is similar to "Seymour Hersh has been refuted: Bellingcat/Higgins/Grozev has denied" - it's is promoting stupidity. --91.54.9.225 (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction[edit]

@Goszei: RE [10] I don't have access to that text, can you pull the relevant quote out of the book for us? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"And then, on December 5, Life magazine — which had turned down both Ron Ridenhour and Hersh when they sought to reveal the massacres — printed ten pages of photographs. Bodies on bodies lying in ditches in graphic color, all captured by former army photographer Ron Haberle and sold for $20,000 to America’s largest circulating magazine." (Miraldi, p. 34) — Goszei (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you for catching that! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hersh's sourcing[edit]

I'm not sure if it's possible to find a better source for this, or if it's relevant, but in regards to Hersh's use of anonymous sources, he himself claims in his memoir that he verifies things by his sources and that even if he had a second source, he would have to pretend it didn't exist.

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the section regarding anonymous sources? 193.183.194.67 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TASS Interview[edit]

In the article it's stated, based on Bellingcat quoted in the source, that "Hersh gave his first interview to the Russian news agency TASS". But also in the source it's just staed he talked with them. What I can find in sources otherwise is that TASS contacted him and he answered, they asked if the source is reliable and he answered yes basically. There doesn't seem to be what you would call an interview at TASS either, which I assume they would strongly advertise. Maybe write "TASS first got in contact with him about the article" to avoid the exaggeration. 2A02:810B:109F:E7D8:20F6:1EC3:9F9E:7DB9 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "interview" is correct, but it does seem too ambiguous. I changed it to "TASS was the first to speak to Hersh", which is directly supported by the source. Prolog (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the source could conceivably know that TASS was the first media outlet to speak to Hersh, unless Hersh confirmed it himself or the source has a tap on Hersh's phone/email; they could've checked publicly available media sources and determined that TASS was the first major outlet to report that it had spoken to Hersh, but the phrasing "first to speak to" could still easily be interpreted as implying preferential treatment on Hersh's part by choosing to communicate with TASS before any other outlet. The same sentence also mentions Hersh's article being "picked up" by RT, a phrase often used in journalism to describe a large outlet or syndicated news service republishing content that was originally self-published or published in a smaller outlet, implying that Hersh sought out and/or granted permission for RT to be the first media outlet to republish the article under its own imprimatur, when even the cited German-language source only refers to RT picking up Hersh's "Enthüllung" (revelation, disclosure, scoop) or in other words, publishing its own content about Hersh's article as opposed to republishing the article itself.
The problem in both cases is ambiguous wording with potential to imply that Hersh granted special access or favor to a Russian state-backed media outlet, an unsubstantiated idea with obvious and severe NPOV implications in the current highly-charged political climate around US/Russia information warfare. It seems perfectly appropriate for a section describing media responses to Hersh's article to make note of the contrast between Russian media (along with media in various other countries not fully aligned with the US) reacting to Hersh's article as a serious and newsworthy allegation, as compared to most Western mainstream media outlets either not mentioning it at all or criticizing it as an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory... but this point should ideally be made without inadvertently implying any unsubstantiated conspiracy theories of its own about Hersh and Russia. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this position. There are a half dozen interviews available of Hersh that I've seen, from outlets like Democracy Now, to Berliner Zeitung, to Jacobin. In these interviews it is not stated when he talked to them, but it is abundantly clear that he was interviewed, at length, as each article / video has a back and forth exchange with Hersh. TASS does not. 202.52.36.50 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat lied. See: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/02/16/the-sy-hersh-effect-killing-the-messenger-ignoring-the-message/
"“If anyone has a more convincing story then come out with it, show us the goods,” charged Mark Ames, co-host of the Radio War Nerd, which on Monday hosted Hersh in his first interview since the article was posted."
Aren't their allegations totally inappropriate for a BLP anyway, since they're basically just making unfounded personal attacks as opinion pieces? 202.52.36.50 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly sounds like they're just being petty. Is this grounds for considering them not a reliable source for this article? Are there guidelines for when to challenge a reputable perennial source when they're in their own blindspot?218.215.253.194 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023[edit]

Add this to referenes and link it from the section on the Nord Stream sabotage https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream 88.102.168.240 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please join the discussion about this in above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bin Laden section poorly descriptive[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden

This section is more than 300 words, yet if someone were to read it without prior knowledge of Hersh's reporting on the bin Laden raid, they'd come away with pretty much zero idea what Hersh was actually alleging or why it was so controversial. It's unclear why the section doesn't contain any link to Hersh's LRB article itself (especially when the section explicitly mentions its newsworthiness in having drawn enough traffic to crash the LRB website) but even if there's been some kind of WP editorial decision that directly linking to Hersh's controversial/disputed articles is haram, there are still plenty of mainstream sources that summarize the allegations far more succinctly than this WP article currently does, like this from NBC: The Hersh story says that a "walk in" asset, a former Pakistani military intelligence official, contacted U.S. authorities in 2010 and told them bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad; that elements of ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency, knew of bin Laden's whereabouts; and that the U.S. told the Pakistanis about the bin Laden raid before it launched. The U.S. has maintained that it did not tell the Pakistani government about the raid before it launched.

(Including something of this nature would also make clear why the final paragraph of the section is there at all, i.e. as a vindication at least to some extent of Hersh's account, since the mainstream narrative Hersh was disputing was the Zero Dark Thirty version in which the intel came from a lead procured through interrogation/torture of a US detainee and not from the Pakistani walk-in.) 75.100.42.217 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added details on the U.S. account of the raid as well as Hersh's alternative account. — Goszei (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Stoltenberg[edit]

The current wording makes it look like Hersh even identified him correctly as the General Secretary (communicative/representative function, mostly), whereas he introduces Stoltenberg bombastically as NATO's "supreme commander", which is already counterfactual nonsense. At this point and having the basics all wrong I'd say hardly anyone seriously expected him having more luck when it comes to biographical details. Besides Hersh no longer insists on depending on a single source, instead now spreading the warped post-narrative of it all being just a smart protective "device", and that there were (as usual..) in fact many sources. Just why he would then give up such protection barely a couple days after publishing to my knowledge he did not yet reveal. 82.83.175.52 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Hersh reporting on Ukraine/Russia[edit]

https://americanreveille.com/politics/the-end-is-nearing-seymour-hersh-slams-the-white-houses-wishful-approach-to-ukraine-war/ 96.18.81.28 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a paywalled opinion piece by Hersh and not appropriate for a WP:BLP. It could only be appropriate if this essay were to become extensively discussed in reliable secondary sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seymour_Hersh&oldid=1204420848"