Talk:Seymour Hersh/Archive 1

Untitled

"These public claims have not been independently verified, nor appeared in print under Hersh's byline in the pages of his current employer, The New Yorker, which fact checks its writers, and as Hersh himself has admitted may be distorted to protect sources or for other reasons. [10]" This seems like a horrible run-on to me. At least, I can't figure out what the intent of this sentence is. --Kluge 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused: Did Seymour break the Abu Ghraib story first, or did 60 Minutes? I haven't found a good reference for this question. --NightMonkey 10:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, it was 60 Minutes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37860-2004May18.html

- Also in "Chain of Command" the Introduction mentions that CBS News recieved the photos prior to when Seymour did and agreed to hold them at the Pentagon's request however Seymour had obtained the photos as well as the report written by (Aguando?). But Hersh being the guy he is decided to publish anyway at which point CBS News cleared with the Pentagon their report so it's kinda like the USANews and Matt Drudge thing with Clinton..oh well. -

• Stefanomie and others: it's ridiculous to take a quote from a hatchet job about this respected investigative journalist and put it into his opening paragraph. Like what's done with the George W. Bush article however, please notice I'm leaving it as part of Wikipedia, just a few pages deep under a separate "criticisms" heading.

Brodo 04:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh last night on an interview with John Stewart stated the US forces will more than likely be withdrawing from Iraq in the future. He stated that the insurgency is working at a dull moment currently and is going to escalate attacks in the near future. He said his New Yorker piece came out a few days ago, anyone have a link to this? -- Nick August 16, 2005.

Looks like his newest article was dead on, Tehran is now reporting two US unmanned aircraft were found, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1108-07.htm.

Hersh and the Clinton Administration

Lately, Hersh has gotten undue flack for being anti-Bush. It isn't true -- if anything, he's completely non-partisan. One reason people buy into the criticism is that, of Hersh's stories in the last ten years, only those regarding Abu Ghraib -- and more recently, Iran -- are cited.

What gets lost in the shuffle is that Hersh was equally merciless on the Clinton Administration.

An addition that might reflect this, and also highlight one of Hersh's less-cited achievements, is a mention of his story "The Missiles of August," about the bombing of the Khartoum pharmaceutical factory (there were two targets; the other was a suspected bin Laden training camp).

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020114fr_archive02

This was a controversial move, despite Sandy Berger's assurance that the Administration knew "with great certainty" that the factory produced "essentially the penultimate chemical to manufacture VX nerve gas."

Why?

At the time, the Lewinsky scandal was at its peak.

As Hersh wrote:

"Almost every aspect of the Administration's planning for the Tomahawk raids has been challenged, in more than a hundred interviews conducted over the past six weeks with past and present officials in the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the C.I.A. The men and women who make American foreign policy believe Osama bin Laden to be an extreme threat to American well-being. No one disputes that Sudan has systematically violated human rights, and permitted bin Laden and other terrorists to operate with impunity inside its borders, at least until 1996, when he and some hundred of his followers were expelled at the request of the United States and Saudi Arabia. Many certainly would have applauded his death if he had been slain, as was hoped. Nevertheless, there is a great degree of disquiet and dissatisfaction over the raids—and widespread concern over the President's possible motives for ordering them. There is also widespread belief that senior officials of the White House misrepresented and overdramatized evidence suggesting that the Tomahawk raids had prevented further terrorist attacks."

History has proven Hersh correct.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

(comment by: 23:20, 12 January 2006 User:Misterbones)

Part of your comment is appropriate for the discussion page, but with material as strong and clearly NPOV as this - there's no controversy as to whether or not Hersh criticised the Clinton attack on the medicine factory, there might be controversy whether his criticisms were valid or not, but nobody serious can discount the fact that he made the criticisms, there's no need to be shy - just add it to the article itself! i've added a section with a couple of sentences to get started. Boud 17:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC) )

redirects - shouldn't basic article be Seymour Myron Hersh?

i don't know what the chances are of someone else with the name Seymour Hersh eventually becoming "notable", in the wikipedia sense, but since we already have a redirect from Seymour M. Hersh to Seymour Hersh, wouldn't it make sense that the basic article is Seymour Myron Hersh and that the others redirect to it? On the other hand, most people probably won't use his middle name either in full as an abbreviation (M.), so if the criterion for choosing the "best" name is frequency, maybe Seymour Hersh is the best choice? Well, as you can see, i'm too lazy to search for the wikipedia naming policy, so i'm unlikely to be active about the issue - but i'm just a bit worried about some future ambiguity occurring if another Seymour Hersh (singer, actor, ...) sooner or later pops up... (Incidentally, physicist Jorge E. Hirsch writes somewhat related stuff regarding the threats to Iran, but his name only sounds the same (i presume) as Hersh, there's no spelling ambiguity :P.) Boud 17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Shouldn't the Perle Hersh be reversed with respect to who was going to sue who, i.e. wouldn't Hersh sue Perle for calling him close to a terrorist and not the other way around?

No. Perle threatened to sue Hersh over what Hersh wrote in the New Yorker. --82.35.240.214 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a hell of a way to defend freedom and liberty and all that crap. LamontCranston 00:27, 02 September 2006 (UTC)

hersh is all about the MONEY not the truth. half the stuff he says is sensationalism to get attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.71 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be worse. He could be an anonymous troll. malenkylizards 74.10.227.130 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanunu and Maxwell

This passage is terribly POV. From the israeli point of view (which is absolutely not respected !), Vanunu was a traitor and a major threat to national security. Here, his actions are portayed in an unequivocally sympathetic light, though. RCS 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Thise passage does not portray anything sympathetically, its just telling the story of what happened, though not as expansively as it could. There is no question from reading this that Israel considered Vanunu a traitor. What is missing is the overall context of the crisis over Israel's development of nuclear weapons, which at the time filled much of the world with dread and speculation about a coming nuclear holocaust in the mid-east. The collaboration with South Africa's apartheid gov't (whose nucelar ambitions were subject to several security council decisions vetoed by the US) made matters worse.

However, I do think the "perhaps coincidentally..." bit at the end is less appropriate.

If you had signed your comment, your disagreement could have been a little more believable. The version you are talking about has already been de-npoved a little. RCS 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a biographical article on Sy Hersh. This section is covering what he, as an investigative journalist and commentator, wrote about that crisis. It should not contain a complete discourse on the entire issue of the contreversy, which should be covered well in other articles on the subject. I replaced "revealed" with "wrote" which should be more encyclopedic, but there doesn't appear to be much more to do to make it NPOV. Yes, it could probably use more info with respect to his findings and opinions, but you can add info yourself, too, as long as it sticks to the official policies. ;) You don't really make any Wikipedia policy-based criticisms, other than you apparently disagree with what Hersh wrote, which isn't enough to merit a NPOV tag. If you or other editors aren't more specifc in their policy-based objections, I'm going to remove the NPOV tag on this section in 3 days. Thanks. --NightMonkey 07:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome ;). As it is now, the section is way better than before, anyway. RCS 08:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. However, this section, and the article as a whole, could definitely use some TLC. --NightMonkey 07:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Appreciation

What a load of crap. Brodo 22:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

His reports may be somewhat valuable to foriegn governments that oppose us, but I doubt that he is "worth his weight in gold." I would rather know than remain ignorant as a voter.

Ronduck 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are these governments that are opposed to Wikipedia? BTLizard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Sense

It's too bad that User:IzaakdeMaker's sentence had to be deleted. He was explaining that the military plans for all possible situations. In so doing, they wisely consider all possible responses. He wrote:

I am sorry about the removal (i did it twice). The problem is that it's not allowed in wikipedia to editorilize. If the edits are accompagnied w/ sourced material, i believe nobody would remove them. -- Szvest 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting People Killed

It is too bad that we can't talk about how ridiculous the Sy Hersh articles are, and how they often end up in getting innocent civilians killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.231.219 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Iraq

Deleted quote:

On November 2, 2006, at McGill University, Hersh said, "… there has never been an army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."[8]

Two major problems with it: (1) It omits the bracketed word "[American]": "there has never been an [American] army ...", which is how the cited source rendered it, and this radically changes the meaning by taking away the context provided in the cited source. (2) Even if the source were properly quoted, a one-off remark like this is not encyclopedia material, as it isn't an effective illustration of any point made in the article. It functions only as an inflammatory soundbite with clearly POV intent. RickDC 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lestrade, Regarding the brackets, they seem necessary to convey the speaker's meaning (at least the original reporter thought they were, and so do most others who've picked up on the quote on the Web) Regarding the relevance of the quote to the article, I'll admit a bias: I often see Wiki articles laden down with "gotcha" quotes and anecdotes that make the articles resemble political campaign ads rather than objective, neutral accounts. (I don't suggest this was your intent!-- only that I sense in the case of the Hersh article that the extensive citations of some of his speeches/interviews sort of overwhelms the importance of these in evaluating his body of work) However, if the comment in question is included in the article, it needs to be tethered better to a point. I've restored it and tried to put it in a context. My own sense of balance would be to give less importance and space to the informal speeches--but we all have different senses of balance. Cheers, RickDC 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Sorry, I fail to understand the "criticism" section. There are a couple a quotations by Hersh, but hardly any sourced criticism. For instance, "Those who criticize Hersh's credibility especially point to allegations Hersh has made in public speeches and interviews, rather than in prin" ; really ? Who, when, where said this ?

"Some of Hersh's speeches concerning the Iraq War have described violent incidents involving U.S. troops in Iraq..." ; that is evidence of criticism of the behaviour of the US troops in Iraq, not criticism of Hersh. And so on.

I would almost be under the impression that someone exhibits these quotes, assuming that they will automatically trigger indignation and criticism; I fear that this is not how we work here. Rama 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lestrade, did you read the question ? Rama 09:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran anonymous edit

I wasn't the editor, but this seems to be a link relevant to what an editor earlier today was writing ("CIA analysis finds no Iranian nuclear weapons drive") Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Deleted section. It describes a common journalistic practice of protecting sources who require anonymity. The practice is far from unique to Hersh. Newspapers do it every day. To single out Hersh's use of it to suggest his sources are unreliable is misleading. RickDC 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry, but I fail to see what is peculiar or noticeable in this. This is a common journalism practice. Rama 08:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Hersh gets criticized a lot for his use of anonymous sources. I agree that the section above, though, at least in its current form, doesn't belong. That's because it's pure original research. If you can cite someone making a similar point, that would be much better. I found some examples here and here. Korny O'Near 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it known that an anonymous source really exists and is not a mere fabrication?Lestrade 04:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

An excellent question Lestrade, but one that would be more appropriately discussed under the news sources article. If you have specific evidence that Hersh has used anonymous sources in an unethical manner, then it would be a valid topic for discussion. The overwhelming evidence in the public realm now shows that Hersh's sources are valid and generally very well-informed. KellyLogan 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with that jovial assertion, KellyLogan, is that if somebody writing here did have reliable evidence that Hersh has been making certain things up - or blowing them out of proportion . clothing them under an "anonymous government source" or the like, it would get panned as original research. And if some writer, researcher or man of politics who ranks as reliable in their own right would say the same thing, and maybe source it, it would get swept aside from here with "any great journalist gathers up his share of enemies". It's obvious when you peruse this talk page that there's a powerful Sy Hersh fan club here who prefer to think Hersh can do no wrong. I admire his persistnce too, and I think his war reporting has been very important, but that doesn't mean I think he is raised above criticism or couldn't put out a few crappy books. /Strausszek (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing article

In March 2007 he revealed the support of the Sunni Fatah al-Islam by the USA and Saudi Arabia to counterbalance the power of the Shiite Hezbollah.

Can't Emigrate

And how exactly does your personal political opinion contribute to the betterment of this article? --Michael K. Smith 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lestrade perhaps has never experienced unconditional love, or at least s/he cannot recognize it in others. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacking Lestrade does even less to improve this article, Slrubenstein. There are plenty of forums where you and Lestrade can discuss personal issues. Let's keep the discussion on Wikipedia focussed on the articles and how to make them better. KellyLogan 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy research

I've once again deleted Dooyar's paragraphs. Dooyar, you don't adhere to or perhaps don't understand Wikipedia's standard that you don't report your own detective work in an article, e.g., in this case, you don't check out old newspapers and report that you've discovered an error in Hersh's reporting. This is what's called "original research." In addition, it's unclear what the significance of this information is. Why is this story important enough to devote several paragraphs to it? What conclusions are to be drawn from it? The story itself--the "original research" issue notwithstanding--seems far too minor to warrant inclusion.RickDC (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do any detective work, and Hersh didn't make an error. What he did was lie. He said the Washington Star (really the Evening Star) reported that a heckler named Florence Kater disrupted a JFK speech calling him a womanizer. The Evening Star did no such thing. Doing such a thing in 1960 would have violated a cardinal rule of journalism: ignore a presidential candidate's personal life and ignore whoever draws attention to it. If you weren't old enough in 1960 to know what was going on, then you can't see through Hersh's bullshit. This is not detective work. This is not CSI. This is an article about a "journalist" who has been debunked. Dooyar (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dooyar, It actually is "original research" to say that you've discovered someone has lied. You need to find authoritative sources that declare "Hersh has lied about this;" you can't, under Wikipedia guidelines, assert this on your own recognizance or based on your own check of the evidence. Also, there's the question of significance: why is the story important enough to devote several paragraphs to it? Hersh has had a long career. Even if he got a fact wrong about this particular story, of what great significance is it? Wikipedia articles shouldn't get mired down in minutia. RickDC (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at microfilmed back issues of a newspaper is not police detective work. If it is, why can't I get paid to do it ? And Hersh got many more facts wrong than the one about the old woman supposedly heckling JFK and calling him a womanizer to his face. Hersh's "...Camelot" book is filled with many claims that were proven to be lies, including a claim that JFK encouraged his White House aides to have sex with his mistresses after he finished with them. One of the aides, Dave Powers, said when the book came out that this is a sexual fantasy. Hersh claims Powers fornicated with a slutty woman in Bing Crosby's swimming pool in Palm Springs after JFK had fun with her. Powers called this a load of crap.

Ted Kennedy took the unusual (for him) step of calling a press conference in 1997 to call Hersh a liar. Ted doesn't do that for "minutia" (sic) from 35 years ago. You say "Hersh has had a long career ?" Yes. A long career filled with accusations of lying. Dooyar (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to delete this same material, and for the exact same reason, and decided to check here first. I'm going to take it out. The material is unsourced original research. Even if accurate, it constitutes the basis for the editor's otherwise-unpublished criticism of Hersh, not that of an appropriate source. John2510 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The price of power.

I noticed that there is almost no mention of his book The price of power. Is there any reason not to add a few limes about it ? : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Are last 3 paragraphs of "Kennedy research" section original research and are they of encyclopedic significance?

Are last 3 paragraphs of "Kennedy research" section original research and are they of encyclopedic significance. See Talk comments above.

• The paragraphs appear to be significantly original research, beginning with the opening sentence: "One of Hersh's assertions in this book can be disproven easily" and continuing with unsourced material, editorializing ("before she decided on her life's mission"), personal commentary on what was and wasn't included in a book, and finally ends up with a tangent about another matter completely, namely stationary from a law office. This type of material is better suited for a novel, essay or magazine article and isn't encyclopedic in the least. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first two of the three paragraphs are clearly written as original research and are unsupported by any reliable source; there may be BLP issues as well, as they make the controversial claim that Seymour Hersh puts easily disprovable material into his books. The third paragraph is more nuanced and refers to what it portrays as a reasonable piece of journalism; if cited and corrected against what was published, that paragraph could be rewritten to become acceptable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• User:Sam Blacketer has it exactly right. The first two paragraphs are 100% original research and can't stay; the third could be salvaged, but requires sourcing per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The consensus is for removal of the first 2 paragraphs, on grounds of original research, and that the last paragraph must be reworked. I've deleted all 3 as a result. Reinstating the last paragraph will mean, first of all, sourcing the information. I'd also urge making clearer what the point is: for example, the paragraph says that Wolfe's book "cited the documents as reliable sources," but then says that Wolfe called Hersh a dupe for relying on the same documents. The accusation that Hersh was "high on methamphetamines" when he wrote his book is a serious one; one person's allegation of this, absent corroborating evidence, shouldn't go into a Wikipedia article.RickDC 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments above, those three paragraphs appear to be original research at best and were correctly removed since they look like WP:BLP issues as well. They use many telling words like "easily disproved" and "supposedly" -- the paragraphs themselves seem higly POV. In order for any of the information in those paragraphs to be used it needs to be very well sourced and written in a more encyclopedic tone. Shell ^babelfish 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy chapter

I added a short paragraph to the Kennedy section. Every sentence has a footnote. It's about a highly publicized episode with Lawrence Cusack, who eventually went to federal prison for conning people into thinking JFK had signed some legal documents. Hersh was planning to use them in his book. Dooyar (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapped

Two different IPs have tried to replace the word "kidnapped" in the Mordechai Vanunu section to the word "apprehended." Based on my own interpretation fo those words conotations and this lenghty debate on the Vanunu talk page [1]. it would seem that there is a consensus for kidnapped or abducted. Apprehended implies some kind of legality, whereas his capture was against Italian and international law. I would ask the IPs to please stop and discuss before changing this again. Joshdboz (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on the Cambodian Bombing

I can't believe this is not mentioned in this article. It is by far one of the most important stories of his career. For those who don't know Hersh is the person who first reported the bombing of Cambodia in the 1970's. I can't seem to find the original article online. Obviously google comes up with many secondary sources. I thought this bio piece in Salon was good but would like to find the original story if possible http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2000/01/18/hersh/print.html

He also had original and very influential reporting on the CIA's involvement in Chile and Watergate97.91.190.78 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheney -- Assassination ring?

...why oh why is there no mention of it in the article (let alone in the Talk page?) I mean it's not whether the claims are true or not, it is clear that Hersh is MAKING those claims... noteable, isn't it? Someone with Wiki editing experience please mention what you think is needed. If this is "news" to you, just search Youtube and watch some interviews: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=Hersh+Cheney+Assassinatio&aq=f 199.214.28.34 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PS -- Dennis Kucinich requested an investigation into the claims, back in MARCH of 2009 http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_requests_investigation_into_executive_assassination_0316.html again no mention of this on the Kucinich article? Weird... 199.214.28.34 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Seymour Hersh denies it but the artical should include something about it because the Hairi accusation comes out a day after Der Spigel claims Hezbhollah did it Hersh seems to want to influence events HE IS A MANIAC! I hate Cheney but come on no way he killed Bhutto.---- Nate Riley 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links

wp:ELPOINTS advises us to "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." and i believe that this article is in violation of that rule. As such, I am going to begin culling the EL section to a manageable few. Please use this section for discussion of same. Bonewah (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation of critical opinion

I've noticed that, with the exception of general complaints and the whole Camelot debacle, there is little specific coverage of the criticism on Hersh or his stories. With his frequent episodes of "misspeaking" and history of stories blowing up in his face I know its not for a lack of material; a significant slice of both the journalistic and academic world have big problems with the way he operates. I have some material and cites on the Cheney/JSOC, Omar compound and Abu Ghraib "rape videos" ordeals as well as accusations of blackmail, passing hypothetical scenarios as fact, admissions of lying and biased coverage, etc. I'm always hesitant to start a "criticism" section or add to one because they inevitably act as magnets for agenda editing and usual skew articles. With that in mind I'm looking for input on how or where to tie them into individual sections on his specific pieces, starting a new section or even just going ahead and adding to the criticism section. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given it about a week and as I haven't got any feedback yet I'll begin incorporation of the material into the criticism section. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraq section's relevance to Seymour Hersh

It leads one to believe someone is using Sy Hersh's coverage of the Iraq war as a launching platform to stand on a soapbox and express their POV on US Iraq policy. It's so obvious unless someone wants to clean it up to what is relevant to Mr. Hersh it's probably appropriate to delete most or all of the section beginning with the Scott Ritter passages. Scott Ritter is not a US foreign policy analyst, he is a weapons expert. I'll give it a week or two before I do.Batvette (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with this article is that many of the folks who have been guarding it - Americans, mostly - can't or won't separate theiur assessment of Hersh's working methods or conclusions from their assessment of the stuff he is commenting on or his overall stature as a political figure. He's so much a hero to some people (and a villain to others) that for political reasons some supporters will just say in blanco that everything he writes is Holy Writ. User:83.254.158.105 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Mention of the MEK training in the U.S.?Johnvr4 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation # 13: KAL-007 incorrect

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this, but the current link for that citation (https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/coldwar/source.htm#HEADING1-12) leads to a 404. The new link should read (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm). Should I just change it, or is there an administrator for this page or something like that?--Aelathikvan (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it would clearly improve the article, you should feel free to boldly change it yourself. Someone seems to have done it for you in this case.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Claim needs citation

"In taking out one terrorist, long past his prime, the US and Pakistan could have inadvertently endangered the public health of thousands."

Does this assertion come from Hersh? If it does, it needs a citation, along with the rest of the wholly-unreferenced paragraph that proceeds it.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

BIn Laden section

Far too long and not NPOV. Could be summarised in a paragraph. Not enough weight given to WH position.Oxr033 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Having mention of criticism in the lead

I've reverted the well sourced criticism of Hersh to the lead.

This isn't a minor aspect that can be presented in a subsection, but rather something that shapes the entirety of the person and his life's work. Someone who glances at the lead to gain some idea about who the person is, should see basic biographical info, that he is an investigative reporter with some of his most prominent work, and that he has had sustained criticism for decades. Anything less is a skewed presentation of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.49.165 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "skewed representation". Everyone has their critics, but it is nothing to do with who Hersh is that he has people who don't like his anonymous sources (a ridiculous complaint, anyway). The media use them all the time, for gawd's sake. The lead is there to give an indicator of who the guy is, not what his critics say. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead section is there to summeerize the article. When criticism is a significant part of the notability or the content of the article, it can be mentioned in the lead. DES ^(talk) 04:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

As per WP:DOB (a section of the WP:BLP policy) I have removed the uncited exact date of birth from the article. It should not be restored unless it is not only cited, but cited to a source which makes it clear that the date has been widely published, or else published with the subject's approval. The day and month of birth of a living person are of little encyclopedic value, while making them public can contribute to identity theft and other problems. The year suffices to place the subject in chronological context. DES ^(talk) 04:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The exact DOB has been restoted, with a cite to Journalistic Advocates and Muckrakers: Three Centuries of Crusading Writers by Edd Applegate ISBN 9780786403653. While this surely looks like a relaible source, I am not at all sure that it constitutes being "{xt|...widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object...}}" as required by WP:DOB. Rich Farmbrough as you restored the date, can you indicate why this source fulfills the requiremtns of WP:DOB remembering that this is a WP:BLP issue? DES ^(talk) 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also in Britannica, The Guardian's profile of Pulitzer Prize winners and numerous other places. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC).
23:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seymour Hersh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081214144136/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901651,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901651,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

UN report on Syrian chemical weapons?

IIUC the UN report on the chemical weapons incident indicated that the weapons used to deliver them were of a kind used by the Syrian armed forces and not other forces in the area, and that they were launched from areas under control of hte Syrian armed forces. This article makes it appear that these claims are only those of a debunked blogger.

Ricardianman (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added references and updated the section to make it appear more neutral, but would welcome additions to this section. 92.110.3.225 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)