Talk:Lara Logan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Added the word "sexual" to account of Logan's assault

I've added the word "sexual" to the article for the following reasons:

  1. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. Addition of the word "sexually" to the account of the incident in Tahrir Square, so the passage reads "beaten and sexually assaulted," meets the three core content policies of WP:BLP.
  2. In its earlier state, the article considered it worthy of mention that Logan's rescuers were women and soldiers, that she returned to her hotel after the incident, and that the jet she left Egypt on was chartered by CBS. Yet the article did not consider it worthy of mention that Logan's assault was sexual in nature or that her attackers were men. This hierarchy of priorities is exceedingly puzzling. It implies that the identity of Logan's rescuers, where she went after she was attacked and what kind of jet flew her out of the country are somehow more integral to her biography than the fact that the nature of her assault was sexual and that the people who attacked her were men.
  3. Among other notable personas to address Logan's assault in Egypt, Pulitzer Prize winner Leonard Pitts Jr. has now chimed in on the incident (I am with you). His identity is not that important here, but his message is certainly applicable to this situation: Lara Logan was sexually assaulted. She is a real person. To bowldlerize her trauma as though it were an abstraction unworthy of mention is unfair to her as a victim and as a person.
  4. The last reason is circumstantial but it still merits contemplation: It has been demonstrated that Wikipedia's overwhelmingly male-dominated contributor base is not without its consequences (Wikipedia Ponders Its Gender-Skewed Contributions). It behooves us (male editors here, that is) to endeavor a more sensitive approach where our male-chauvinist biases would otherwise affect our attitudes.—Biosketch (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Lara Logan rally" in Cairo

Parking this in the Discussion as it's rather poorly sourced. Perhaps it's time to split this incident off into its own article, though, to avoid the BLP constraints. Lara Logan awareness rally met with anger (5 March 2011)—Biosketch (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A new proposal

This has been going round and round for quite some time.

Here's a suggestion - count the votes of editors who have not engaged in spurious arguments, been banned, warred, called each other names, made arguments unrelated to the issue at hand.

If that's not enough, then stop the circular arguments of "You said...I said", etc and let less angry editors get a word in.

The tone of the discussion is often childish, one editor included "boxers or briefs...pistachio ice cream" in his argument when asked a question. Hardy the standard of discourse of an individual whose primary interest is the article.

p.s. If all you have is a childish response, just pretend you said rather than contributing it here.Clearwaterbehind (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Requested here. Someone might want to get the undisputed content back in before it happens. I'm not going to edit war and tried to explain to Mindbunny that he/she should be careful to only remove the disputed "Jew! Jew!" stuff. †TE†Talk 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Too late †TE†Talk 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No, when content is disputed, it is best to leave it out of the article until consensus is reached to include it. Especially when dealing with something perceived as a potential BLP vio. But I too was going to make the request as soon as I responded above ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the other content and sources that were deleted. The disputed material isn't all that Mindbunny removed. †TE†Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything I removed has been disputed. The main problem is the use of anonymous sources from a sensationalist tabloid for discussing sexual assault in a BLP. A secondary problem is due weight and encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a twitter feed for current events. It is not encyclopedic that she's currently at home. Both these aspects of the recent additions have been disputed by several people. All of it is an addition to the article made in the last week, and as such requires consensus before it can be added. A requirement you have repeatedly violated. It is not for you to decide that consensus doesn't matter, because your opinion is right. See the "BLP summary" I posted above. Mindbunny (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hospitalization and length of stay is encyclopedic. Didn't you claim that part of the story will be proven "false?" Back to the point -- you could've edited out that "currently" bit whenever you wanted. Try to make the additions more encyclopedic instead of claiming BLP violations and deleting content. †TE†Talk 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Towards a better article

I'm going to take each major point and break it down. Let's see where we stand and if we can reach some consensus here, I'll put the topic. And then ask 2 questions: 1) Are the sources reliable and 2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence about afraid to take to local hospitals

Sentence involved: She reportedly wasn't taken to a local hospital because the "network didn't trust local security there" and didn't report the assault to Egyptian authorities because they "couldn't trust them, either."[1]

1) Are the sources reliable?

    1. Here, I'd say yes. The Post is a reliable source, but it errs when it comes sensationalism. Making a claim about anti-semitism in the opening paragraph/title is sensationalistic. Makes for a good read, but is it factual? Here we are dealing with not trusting a Government/System that is in the midst of open rebellion. With people who are already on edge having just been attacked. Thus, it isn't a commentary about Muslims/Arabs/Egyptians, but rather a country in rebellion. To that end, I'd accept this as a source.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. Of course not. This is part of a story on a sexual assault in a BLP. It also has racial overtones. The highest quality sources are required. An anonymous source in a tabloid is a low quality source. Does Encarta relies on tabloids? Mindbunny (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

If it is, it needs clear attribution. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. Possibly, not 100% sold on it, but not opposed to it either.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. No. It would not be a significant part of her life, even if it could be sourced reliably.Mindbunny (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic Slurs

Sentence involved: A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.

1) Are the sources reliable?

    1. Not really. The main source for the claim is from the Daily Post, which has a reputation for sensationalism and accuracy. The claims that the crowd was chanting "Jew Jew" is clearly an incendiary device that makes their story a little more sensational. That being said, other sources are starting to report on the Posts article and they are accepting the Posts reporting as factual. This reduces my concerns about the source, but it doesn't negate them.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. No, for the same reasons given above.Mindbunny (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. I'm not sold here, but don't really care. MY main concern is that if it is included that we need strong sourcing for the statement.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is confirmation of this or this section of the New York Post's claim is verified in any way we should add it, without secondary verification it is wrong to repeat such unconfirmed allegations from a source they are not able to even identify.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. No, for reasons given above. Mindbunny (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's been sourced up the wazoo;

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1317384 http://nation.foxnews.com/lara-logan/2011/02/16/egyptians-yelled-jew-jew-while-sexually-assaulting-cbs-reporter-lara-logan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358944/Lara-Logan-attack-Stripped-punched-whipped-flag-poles.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://nation.foxnews.com/lara-logan/2011/02/21/stripped-punched-and-whipped-flag-poles-full-horror-lara-logans-attack-emerges http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/flagpole_flog_E61HRINd1PS48FsgQKaHuO http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110216/pl_dailycaller/egyptianattackersshoutedjewjewwhilesexuallyassaultingcbsreporterlaralogan_1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357485/Lara-Logan-assault-Former-GMTV-reporter-suffers-sex-attack-covering-Egypt-uprising.html

  • keeping it out is censorship at this point. V7-sport (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, as it is undue in the context of an article about Lara Logan. How is Logan's biography related to the actual or perceived mindset of a group of unknown individuals in Egypt?  Cs32en Talk to me  03:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Admitted to a hospital

Sentence involved: Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery.[2][3][4][1]

1) Are the sources reliable?

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. Yes, the fact that she was admitted to a hospital speaks to the severity of the assault.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discharge

Sentence involved: Logan was discharged from the hospital after forty eight hours and is recuperating at home with her family. She vows to return to work within weeks.[5]

1) Are the sources reliable?

She was in hospital less than two days, so was not badly injured. She walked away and was not in need of immediate treatment from a hospital, seems to rebuke the claims of severe attack baldy beaten for a lengthy period. IMO the whole section would benefit from a small trim of the drama reporting, we are supposed to write content in an uninvolved manner, not like a tabloid report. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. Not sold on it. Her length of stay isn't necessary. That being said, I don't feel that strongly here.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Rape

Sentence involved: A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape."[6] WSJ Source

1) Are the sources reliable?

    1. Yes. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source.Erikeltic (Talk) 12:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. Yes. The WSJ is known for it's fact checking. It is one of the more reliable sources out there. That combined with the USA Today citing the WSJ and I'm comfortable with the sources.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    3. No. The source isn't the WSJ. The Journal doesn't claim she wasn't raped. It claims a person "familiar with the matter" (not a representative of the WSJ) says that. "A person familiar with the matter" is an anonymous source. This is an anonymous source being used in a story about a sexual assault in a BLP. It is not the highes quality source, in a context that requires the highest quality sources. Mindbunny (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. Currently the article reads as though Logan was raped and that would seem to violate the WP:BLP more than the inclusion of material clearly stating her sexual assault was not rape. To leave this information out, while including the rest of it, is irresponsible and detrimental to both Logan and the article. Erikeltic (Talk) 12:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. Agree with Erikeltic. The initial reports gave the impression that she was raped. I think leaving that impression is not good. I do, however, think it needs to A) be within quote "not raped" and B) would have no problem requiring attribution "According to the WSJ Logan was 'not raped.'"---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything about rape. The content that is there in the article presently is a bit excessive a portrayal imo, tabloid-esq. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. . Obviously not. What Logan has apparently authorized is that she was sexually assaulted. It is gross to satiate public curiousity to know the details of how she was sexually assaulted. It is nobody's business. Read the damn guidelines on BLP. We don't speculate on the details of somebody's sexual assault. Mindbunny (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not? Maybe to you. The innuendo here is that Ms. Logan was raped. That is far more of a BLP violation that quoating a reliable source that stated very clearly that her sexual assault was not rape. It needs to go back in immediately. You can do it or I will, but within 24 hours it's going to be there. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
1. There is no such innuendo. 2. If there were such an innuendo, it would be authorized--for the time being--by the victim. The wording chosen by CBS was "sexual assault" and CBS is presumably the only one not relying on anonymous sources. 3. You are just repeting what has already been rejected. There is no reliable source saying she wasn't rped. There is a reliable source (WSJ) saying an anonymous source "familiar with the matter" says she wasn't raped. 4. Speculating about the details of someone's sexual asault is offensive and a violation of BLP guidelines. Rrelying on anonymous sources in a BLP--and a sexual asault--violates guidelines. Thi has been said already. Mindbunny (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sexual assault != rape. Saying she was sexually assaulted does not in any way imply that she was raped. I have no opinion on whether or not it is appropriate to spell out that she wasn't raped, but anyone reading that into a statement that she was sexually assaulted is mistaken. --B (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source despite what you may believe. (period) This has been established and if you have an issue with it, I suggest you take it up with WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Reliable sources of any kind do not violate BLP. Again, if you have an issue with this take it up elsewhere. 2. The statement was "rejected" by you & you alone. Make no mistake, I can go back to the exact moment you removed the edit. Your opinion has been noted, repeatedly. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
WSJ is reliable, but not everything in a reliable source should automatically be printed. Is WSJ citing an "anonymous source" reliable? That's much more iffy. --B (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for BLP's

  • Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity
  • Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives,
  • The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material
  • Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Ask yourself whethe ... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
  • Be wary of sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources.
  • Presumption in favor of privacy
  • Avoid victimization. ...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Note, these aren't principles of describing a sexual assault. You'd have to ratchet up the strictness even more... Mindbunny (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoid victimization. ...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization -- Then why aren't you doing your best to get all of this assault stuff removed? It has absolutely no bearing on her contribution to her role as a journalist. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just my opinion. No consensus:

  • WP:BLP requires scrupulous and ultimately reliable sourcing, and as far as I'm concerned, this second-hand, unqualified, reporting, just doesn't cut it. We shouldn't just treat it cautiously; we should remove it, with extreme prejudice.
  • We should not be propagating sections of the press's weak titillating claims like we are a online volunteer Reuters- notnews is clear about this imo
  • I don't think we should have anything about her being sexually assaulted unless she comes out to ask for it to be reported. It can't help with the healing process to have sordid things like that all over the internet. This has nothing to do with whether there are WP:RS available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#BLP_violations.3F_Anonymous_sources_in_report_of_sexual_assault.

  • I have some strong doubts about the relevance of the entire final paragraph. [the paragraph disussing the sexual assault]
  • A morass of material which needs far stronger sourcing than has been given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan. When Logan chooses to reveal details, we can discuss whether the details are appropriate and encycloepdic. In the meantime, it should not even be on the table. Mindbunny (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical treatment following attack.

I just read the article, and am rather surprised that there is no mention of immediate treatment at the hotel following the attack (which included sedation), or hospitalisation in the US following repatriation. [7]

This ommision seems to give the impression that the assault was trivial. Is there agreement that the treatment can be included in the article? Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe some editors here have remarked that the Daily Mail engages in tabloid journalism and isn't a credible source for the reports on Logan's attack – which is why the page at this point doesn't provide any details beyond simply stating that Logan was "sexually assaulted."—Biosketch (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Almost all UK papers are now tabloids, in order to fit onto the London Underground: the Times (the UK paper of record), the Daily Mail, the Guardian (although the Guardian uses a bespoke size called "Berliner" to cloud matters. In the sense of being sensationalist (like the Sun, say), the Daily Mail is a reliable newspaper rather than an old-fashioned tabloid. Slowjoe17 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Then you're encouraged to formulate a passage to be added to the text, or a rewording that accommodates the hospitalization reports, using the {{editprotected}} template. Perhaps you'll have more success persuading the Admins where others have failed. (This observation is beside the point, but why did the Daily Mail article have to end with such a blatant grammatical error as "Miss Logan had been held...on suspicion of being foreign spies"? To say the least, it's not helping the newspaper's image.)—Biosketch (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you can get that it was "trivial" out of "beaten and sexually assaulted." The details such as hospitalization don't strike me as encyclopedic. Those are details you might expect to find in a breaking news story, not a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. A lot of what people are trying to put in this article belong in a breaking news story (or nowhere at all), not an encyclopedia. They are different. Mindbunny (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree, and I can find at least one example where medical treatment is included in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch#Return_home. Of course, I'd welcome other opinions here, since I accept I may be in a minority. Slowjoe17 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
While I wouldn't object to include information about the treatment, the general assumption is that Logan would have received medical attention. It would rather be noteworthy if that would not have been the case.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Kindly explain what you mean by that. How is not receiving medical attention noteworthy?—Biosketch (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the logical and general assumption was that she would have gotten medical attention immediately after she was rescued. Based on Archived Talk however, that did not seem the case and she apparently rushed back Stateside before getting decent medical attention, which makes this particular detail exceptional. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical treatment following attack.

I just read the article, and am rather surprised that there is no mention of immediate treatment at the hotel following the attack (which included sedation), or hospitalisation in the US following repatriation. [8]

This ommision seems to give the impression that the assault was trivial. Is there agreement that the treatment can be included in the article? Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe some editors here have remarked that the Daily Mail engages in tabloid journalism and isn't a credible source for the reports on Logan's attack – which is why the page at this point doesn't provide any details beyond simply stating that Logan was "sexually assaulted."—Biosketch (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Almost all UK papers are now tabloids, in order to fit onto the London Underground: the Times (the UK paper of record), the Daily Mail, the Guardian (although the Guardian uses a bespoke size called "Berliner" to cloud matters. In the sense of being sensationalist (like the Sun, say), the Daily Mail is a reliable newspaper rather than an old-fashioned tabloid. Slowjoe17 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Then you're encouraged to formulate a passage to be added to the text, or a rewording that accommodates the hospitalization reports, using the {{editprotected}} template. Perhaps you'll have more success persuading the Admins where others have failed. (This observation is beside the point, but why did the Daily Mail article have to end with such a blatant grammatical error as "Miss Logan had been held...on suspicion of being foreign spies"? To say the least, it's not helping the newspaper's image.)—Biosketch (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how you can get that it was "trivial" out of "beaten and sexually assaulted." The details such as hospitalization don't strike me as encyclopedic. Those are details you might expect to find in a breaking news story, not a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. A lot of what people are trying to put in this article belong in a breaking news story (or nowhere at all), not an encyclopedia. They are different. Mindbunny (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree, and I can find at least one example where medical treatment is included in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch#Return_home. Of course, I'd welcome other opinions here, since I accept I may be in a minority. Slowjoe17 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
While I wouldn't object to include information about the treatment, the general assumption is that Logan would have received medical attention. It would rather be noteworthy if that would not have been the case.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Kindly explain what you mean by that. How is not receiving medical attention noteworthy?—Biosketch (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the logical and general assumption was that she would have gotten medical attention immediately after she was rescued. Based on Archived Talk however, that did not seem the case and she apparently rushed back Stateside before getting decent medical attention, which makes this particular detail exceptional. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Mindbunny has made this edit with this edit summary: "undo BLP violation without consensus". What is the "BLP violation"? Can Mindbunny or anyone else present the case that there is a WP:BLP violation in including the material involved in the edit referred to? Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The case has already been presented repeatedly. You are being tendentious. There is no consensus in Talk, and there has been none when the subject was presented to the wider community. You know all this. The article has been full-protected three times over this material. How are you contributing to anything but protecting it a 4th time? Mindbunny (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—you say, "How are you contributing to anything but protecting it a 4th time?" That is only an expression of confidence that the article will be "protected" "a 4th time". But there is an issue that I would like to address—is there or is there not a WP:BLP concern involving the material that you have removed from the article, providing the edit summary that it was a "BLP violation"? I would like to discuss that. That is why I started this section of the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You have no interest in discussing, as evidenced by your word-games and tendentiousness the other 10 times we've had this discussion (now mostly found in the archives). Mindbunny (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Times of London Source

I've added back a properly sourced contrib from another user. That makes two of us so far that thinks it belongs. Mindbunny reverted saying it lacked consensus and to see talk. What exactly was that user supposed to look at?

  • Keep as it is properly sourced and from a reliable source.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just because someone said it, even someone reliable, doesn't mean we have to include it. As a BLP, I think it warrants some thought about exactly how many details are appropriate to include. Have other news outlets reported the same information? How many? Kate (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, other news outlets have reported similar information. Here's a few;1234567V7-sport (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is only one source, and it is anonymous. It is a "network source", which seems to mean a CBS source, even though CBS hasn't reported anything about anti-Semitism. There is one report based on that anonymous source, which has been repeated by a number of News Corp publications such as the New York Post and The Times. These newspapers are just reprinting the same story, which is based on an anonymous source. An anonymous source for details of a sexual assault in a BLP is not unacceptable. It is doubly unacceptable for making accusations of racism.

The first link in V7's list is an op-ed/blog and not a reliable source for anything. The 2nd is a Fox News (owned by News Corp) spot directly linking to the New York Post article. The third is a report in Daily Mail (a tabloid) directly citing the The Times. The 4th link in V7's list is virtually identical to the 2nd. The 5th is just the New York Post again, citing the The Times. It is one report, based on an anonymous source, and being reported mainly by one company--News Corp.

Nobody who has spent 60 seconds looking at this Talk page could think there is a consensus to add the material about anti-Semitism. To answer Berean's question, "where exactly was that user supposed to look"...you are supposed look at the sections of this page called "The Anti-Semitic dimension" [1] which is very long and heated and plainly shows no consensus. Or, you could look at the section called "Being mistaken for a Jew a BLP problem?" which is also very long and heated and shows nonconsensus, and is obviously about the material in question. [2]. Or, you ould look at the ANI discussion which also showed no consensus [3]. Or you could look at the BLP Noticeboard discussion, which also showed no consensus [4]. Or, you could also notice that the page has been fully protected twice in the last two weeks, strongly suggesting a lack of consensus. Mindbunny (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of sourcing The Post, The Times, Fox, the Wall St. Journal, etc are considered to be separate sources. It doesn't matter what what corporate affiliations they have and you don't have access their sourcing information. It's just speculation on your part. These papers have been used as reliable sources over and over on Wikipedia. The fact that it has been dragged to all over wikipedia is evidence of forum shopping. It looks to me that there are more editors in favor of it's inclusion then against it. V7-sport (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus does not and cannot overrule BLP. When Michael Jackson died, after the first couple of hours, every news website ran the story. However, nearly all of them, ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the Chicago Sun-Times to the Podunk Daily Gazette all said "According to the popular internet website TMZ.com, Michael Jackson has...". We didn't include that information in Jackson's article, for good reason. Now, I understand that this situation is different. But wording is important, and we have to be clear who has said what and not simply assert rumors or sensational accounts as The Truth. NW (Talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The Times, Fox News, The New York Post, etc. are most certainly not separate sources when their stories say things like "According to a story in The Times..." and "The New York Post is reporting....." and that is what all your (V7's) links do. There is one basic report that some other outlets (mostly owned by News Corp) have picked up. And, it is sourced anonymously. The anonymous source is alleged to be a CBS crew member who was there, even though CBS is not reporting any of the alleged CBS source's claims. Mindbunny (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
RE:NuclearWarfare "Consensus does not and cannot overrule BLP". Sure but there is ample sourcing for the inclusion of that material. I find it interesting how the argument shifts from consensus to sourcing and then back when the conditions of one are established. We have independent reports from CBS, the New York Post and the The Sunday Times, even by the most stringent interpretation this passes BLP. Again, it's exclusion is arbitrary censorship and pulling it off is just rewarding what has become disruptive editing. Protecting this for 10 days is just gratuitous. V7-sport (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You have no such thing. CBS is not reporting anything about chants of "Jew," that I have seen (and CBS is the only real authority on what happened to the CBS crew.) The reports in the New York Post and the Times are the same report: two different publications running the same story. A story that is anonymously sourced. Mindbunny (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Amazing. No, we have different publications running a similar story. Guess what, all you need here is one. If you want to argue that the London Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article2915652.ece isn't a reliable source, good luck. According to the NY post, CBS was the source for their story. Repeating the same thing over and over again has gotten REALLY old. V7-sport (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Please support the statement that CBS is reporting chants of "Jew" and details like welts. Mindbunny (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:"60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday,1 There you go.V7-sport (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You were asked for a CBS report, not a Fox News summary of a New York Post report. Also, learn the meaning of "and." Information attributed to "CBS and sources" doesn't tell us what is attributable to CBS. You are being tendentious. Quit playing games. Mindbunny (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Break for consensus

The proper way to get a consensus is use consensus format. Bunny's tactics are to distract & mire everyone in discussions that will go nowhere. Bunny has already stated the intention to hijack this page ("My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.") in the current ANI thread and revealed true intentions to control this article ("We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts."). If several editors use the consensus format (i.e. Keep or Delete) then editors may get somewhere in making something clear in terms of consensus. Then when Bunny reverts that it will clearly be in violation.

  • Keep
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - every source V7 provided is reliable. It is well-established that blogs that are part of reputable news sources are reliable, and The Boston Herald is a well-established reputable newspaper. WP:POINTY declarations of intent to edit war are pointy. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per. Berean Hunter/The Bushranger V7-sport (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, but stick to reporting events and not commentary. There are enough reliable sources to conclude that LL was called "Israeli" and "Jew." But to attribute the mob's behavior to antisemitism is crossing into the domain of commentary and doesn't belong in WP:BLP.—Biosketch (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial keep - I don't think there's a problem with including the allegations of antisemitic abuse. But I would prefer to keep the other details of the sexual assault introduced in this edit[5] out of the article. (The 'stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles' stuff.) That material just seems excessively intrusive and unnecessary, given that we're dealing with a living person here. Robofish (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    BTW, on the subject of the alleged antisemitic abuse, a similar recent discussion on the article Aaron Porter might be relevant. There, there were some sources stating that he had been the victim of antisemitic abuse, which were disputed by others; the solution reached was to state the allegations, but only by saying 'the Daily Mail reported that...' rather than stating them as undisputed fact. A similar approach seems best here. Robofish (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some key differences. 1. The Daily Mail story is based on the observation of a Daily Mail reporter who was there. The New York Post didn't have a reporter on the scene of Logan's assault. It is based on an anonymous "network source", i.e. a CBS employee, even though CBS has reported none of this material. 2. It looks like there are multiple witnesses and independent reports of the Aaron Porter story, although it's hard to be sure. Despite claims to the contrary, there is one report of the "Jew" incident here (being reported in several places, almost all of them owned by the same media company). 3. The anti-Semitic dimension is already in this section once, and in earlier versions of the article was mentioned three times in just two paragraphs. That's way out of proportion, and obviously an agenda of certain editors. Currently, in the first paragraph it is sourced to Lara Logan and that seems like enough. 4. The Aaron Porter story is not describing the circumstances of a sexual assault, which requires extra sensitivity. Mindbunny (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Mindbunny, this is worthy of additional BLP consideration, I see it as coatracking here anyways and see no benefit to report all the unconfirmed claims and titillations. As for the Aaron Porter anti semitic claim from the daily mail unnamed photographer , it was basically refuted and denied by everyone and in the end Porter said he didn't hear any anti semitic claims either. That was similar in this case that it was single unnamed source and that the extreme unconfirmed claim was then repeated by many although not all other media outlets. I fully intend at some point in the near future to remove the detail of the false press report from Porters BLP. "And an unnamed press source said he heard anti semitic chanting" - yea, right - the fact that it was repeated and can be found in other press reports adds no extra value to the claim either. I don't support such coat-racking onto this BLP either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Aaron Porter apparently changed his story concerning what chanting of a racial or antisemitic nature he heard. That point is made here: "This may prove controversial for Porter, who in the aftermath of the protest made several statements to the media that gave the impression he had heard the abuse himself. In an email to NUS members printed in a Financial Times article he said: “Just before the march started, I was surrounded by a particularly vicious minority of protesters more intent on shouting threatening and racist abuse at me rather than focusing on the issues.” On January 30 he sent a tweet that read: “Will not back down to intimidation, and certainly not to racial abuse”, and in a Times article on January 31st he wrote of the protest: “However, before I was able to speak to the rally of thousands, a small group of people started to chant abuse to try to intimidate me, and there were audible anti-Semitic comments.”" Despite efforts to compare that incident involving Aaron Porter and this incident involving Lara Logan there are significant differences. Concerning the chanting of "Jew" and "Israeli" at the time of the Lara Logan assault, no other source is in any way disagreeing that there was such chanting. No source has subsequently denied, contradicted, or in any way cast any doubt on the chanting that took place in Tahrir Square as Lara Logan was being assaulted. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Porter let the dice roll, he never heard any Jew chants but he must of been thinking it might assist his position but unnamed press titillation or not, there were many people there that knew there were on such chants and he had to finally admit it also. Is there some reason you create massive links to whole sections of discussion like that? I find it quite obtrusive indeed. The similarity between Porter and Logan is the need to report conservatively and to err on the side of caution and to realize - unnamed contentious claims are exactly that.Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Far too vague, "we heard that someone said..." How many people in the crowd shouted "Jew"? How many times? Were the shouters involved in her attack? Were they facing Logan or in some other direction? Are we sure of the word that was shouted? Which language was it shouted in? Was the translation done correctly? How close to the attack was the alleged source? The source is not just anonymous, they are unquotable. THERE IS NO SOURCE THAT CAN ANSWER EVEN ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS (you'll forgive my capitals as I have not "wared" or insulted anyone in this discussion.)Whatdoyoucallitagain (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)— Whatdoyoucallitagain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - I checked the list of sources provided by v7 above, and they all seem to be based on an article from the New York Post which cited an anonymous CBS source. The New York Post is a barely credible tabloid that according to its own article, has been attacked for its "sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias" and is rated the least credible newspaper in NY. It would be a dubious source for any article, let alone a BLP. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Proper attribution of the source was made and stated. Not all news articles state their sources, yet are accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia, as we can reasonably assume that these sources do their factchecking. A blanket-statement that all the sources are unreliable just because a few were known for srnsationalusm just because they say the same thing just seems too much like Wikilawyering to make an exception for POV pushing to me. Zhanzhao (talk)
  • Delete The request confuses user conduct issues and article content. We don't need to decide whether a specific user is in the wrong or not, and the description of the proposed content is far too vague.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I have searched for sources other than the NY post and can fine not that stand on their own. Not reliable. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, the fact that the assault occurred is encyclopedic. The details of the assault are not. Details of the attack such as "stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles" are sensationalist and would appear to violate the presumptions of privacy and "do no harm" of our biographies of living people policy. Details about the name-calling don't help our understanding of the subject of this article. If details about the name-calling belong in a Wikipedia article, they belong in the article about the protests at which the attack occurred, not the article about the victim. There they would shed light on actions and attitudes expressed by the participants at that event. They would only be relevant to this article if the subject were actually Jewish or Israeli. In other words, this material should not be included because it would give undue weight to offtopic content. Yworo (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - as I don't seem to have specifically added my position, as per Yworo's well expressed comments. Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mindbunny (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request proposed wordings

I would appreciate it if those who are requesting that further information be added to the article propose specific wordings, so the rest of us can tell what you actually want "kept". NW (Talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would help a lot, currently it is unclear what content and desired addition users are commenting on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Language that the crowd were chanting "Jew, Jew" and mention that the assault was sexual in nature should be included.V7-sport (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you point to two sources (the best two you can find) that state such a thing? NW (Talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
NY Post here and the Sunday Times here. If you are locked out of the Times the Daily Mail recounts the story. here.V7-sport (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Both the Post and the Times are News Corporation subsidiaries. Those are almost certainly the same story, which has been repeated in a variety of News Corporation outlets. The "Jew" part is based on an unnamed "network source", evidently a CBS source although CBS isn't reporting it. At some point, Logan may very well confirm the reports. We can wait. It's prudent and respectful. Mindbunny (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—who are you advocating we be "respectful" of? The shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" were produced by a crowd of 200 men. Are you suggesting we be "respectful" of an anonymous crowd? It is reliably sourced that the crowd chanted "Jew" and "Israeli". I don't think the more stringent reporting requirements in accordance with WP:BLP would be specifically applicable to what is primarily background information: the shouting of "Jew" and "Israeli" has little direct reflection on Lara Logan. Reliable sources characterize her ordeal as "physical" and/or "sexual". It is called an "assault" and it is also called "abuse". But no source makes any reference to a "verbal assault" or to "verbal abuse". We of course would be immediately setting the record straight and reporting that in fact Logan is not Jewish and is not Israeli. Reliable sources deem this important and we should be following suit. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
How many people in the crowd shouted "Jew"? How many times? Were the shouters involved in her attack? Were they facing Logan or in some other direction? Are we sure of the word that was shouted? Which language was it shouted in? Was the translation done correctly? DO WE HAVE A SOURCE THAT CAN ANSWER EVEN ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS? Whatdoyoucallitagain (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No. We also do not know at this time how many siblings they had, if any of them were lefties, if they wore boxers or briefs, and if any of them liked pistachio ice cream. We will of course add any information once it becomes available.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"No" is your answer. BTW, a mature, responsible editor does not write with the tone you did. I think other genuine editors should take note of this type of nonsense response. Whatdoyoucallitagain (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As concerns "proposed wording", the following was already in the article and would not in my opinion be far off the mark:
"A network source told the New York Post that she was 'attacked for 20 to 30 minutes' in which her assailants were screaming 'Jew! Jew!' during the assault; Logan is not Jewish."
It includes the language that, "A network source told the New York Post..." Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Both the Post and the Times are News Corporation subsidiaries. Those are almost certainly the same story, which has been repeated in a variety of News Corporation outlets." Thanks again fr the "I didn't hear that". V7-sport (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact-set speaks for itself:

  • A "best quality source" put forth is the New York Post
  • The New York Post, in its Wikipedia article, is described thus: "Murdoch imported the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of many of his Australian and British newspapers, such as The Sun (the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK). This style was typified by Post's famous headlines such as “Headless body in topless bar” (shown on the right)....The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias.....According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[34]"
  • BLP requires the highest quality sources. Does a tabloid known for sensationalism and a lack of credibility meets Wikipedia's "highest quality source" standards or not? Mindbunny (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—this isn't a biography of the living persons comprising the crowd that is reported as having chanted "Jew". How do you see the more stringent sourcing requirements of WP:BLP as being applicable? The crowd's chanting of "Jew" does not constitute a WP:BLP concern. For normal (non—BLP) sourcing requirements the sources available are adequate. Logan is not understood to be defamed by being labeled a "Jew" by an anonymous crowd of indeterminate number. This route of argumentation is a contrivance. You (Mindbunny) said, "It's prudent and respectful," but when I asked you who it was "prudent and respectful" of you did not answer. Can you tell me now how omitting the chanting by the crowd of "Jew" bears any relation to "respect" for Logan? I believe you are misapplying WP:BLP, which would not be particularly applicable to describing the background to the events that definitely would be subject to WP:BLP concerns. There is a distinction between what happened to Logan and what was shouted by the crowd, and we should be taking cognizance of that. No source is to be found referring to the "verbal assault" on Logan. No source is to be found referring to the "verbal abuse" that Logan was subject to. Sources do not construe the shouting of the mob as an assault on Logan. You are mischaracterizing what took place. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but part of WP:BLP and good editorial practice is to avoid sensationalism or tabloid-style writing. More importantly though, I still completely fail to see any proposed wordings. NW (Talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It is prudent and respectful of everyone. It is respectful of Logan to get the relevant facts of her sexual assault right. If the chanting is relevant, we should have high-quality sources for it. If it's not relevant (which I'm also inclined to believe), it doesn't belong. Note, the problem with sensationalism isn't necessarily that it fabricates stories. It's that the facts are distorted. For example, maybe some yells of "spy" were heard, and that is reported as a mob of 200 men chanting it. It seems unlikely that whatever source there was can actually say with high confidence how many men said it, how many times, whether it was truly a "chant" or just a shout that could be heard, etc. Inititally, many outlets similar in style to the Post reported that she was gang-raped. Then it was reported that she wasn't. If we had relied on tabloids for that detail, we would have made a big mistake. It's simply unacceptable to rely a sensationstic tabloid using an anonymous source to clarfiy such details. And it's not necessary. We can wait for something more authoratative. And if that never arises, we can leave it out. Another problem is proportionality. I read that the state-run TV was announcing that many foreign reporters were spies. The agenda of the gov.--according to Logan--was to stop filming. The state didn't actually think they were spies. So there was some government propaganda, based on cultural anti-Semitiism, going on. That's part of the larger context, and if this section is going to mention cultural anti-Semitism more than once, the background should be given. But, this is a BLP, not an article on the uprisings. The background belongs in a different article, and so does any repeated discusssion of whatever apparent anti-Semitism there may have been. Another group we should be respectful to is the Egyptian people--let's avoid exploiting this event to perpetuate stereotypes. Mindbunny (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Calling your bluff on this, because a search on Google News for the terms "lara logan" and "gang raped" shoued only commentary style articles or sources that would not have been categorised as news in the first place, not news reports, Zhanzhao (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—please don't misconstrue the issue. No editor suggested characterizing the enunciations of the crowd as "antisemitic". You are arguing against a straw man. We adhere to sources. That is standard operating procedure. Do sources characterize the enunciations as being "antisemitic"? No, they do not. Therefore it follows that we do not characterize those enunciations as being "antisemitic". You say, "…if this section is going to mention cultural anti-Semitism more than once". In point of fact there are no mentions of "anti-Semitism" in the Logan article. No editor has ever suggested mentioning "anti-Semitism". You are setting up a straw man to argue against. Adherence to sources translates into wording similar to what was already in the article before it was removed: "A network source told the New York Post that she was 'attacked for 20 to 30 minutes' in which her assailants were screaming 'Jew! Jew!' during the assault; Logan is not Jewish." To allay the concerns of editors such as yourself, that language also makes clear that it is "a network source" that is "telling the Post". Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Quit playing games. I didn't say the article uses the word "anti-Semitism." We are implying anti-Semitism when we say a mob chanted "Jew" as it assaulted someone. I see you have been twice indefinitely banned for issues related to Judaism. [6]. I see V7-sport has a pattern of anti-Islamic sentiment [7] and disruption [8]. I see BrewCrewer and v7-sport have a history of edit-warring together on related matters [9]. I wonder how many genuine editors there are here. Mindbunny (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
And you too for edit warring in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Though the ban was revoked, it came with a warning against future edit-war like behaviour [10]. As was I, back when I was a fresh editor. We all learn from experience. But the warning Magog the Ogre left you was just one month ago. Please take advantage of the warning and benefit of doubt given to you back then. Wikipedia is a community, not an arena. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just post a proposed wording instead of arguing back and forth. It's not that difficult. NW (Talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
NW—I have already suggested twice, in this section, what the wording could be. It is up to others to either build on it, or say why it is unacceptable, or to offer alternate wording. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
"I still completely fail to see any proposed wordings." Both Bus Stop and I have given you proposed wording and I have given you sources to back it. V7-sport (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The quote as mentioned by the 2 editors above are as follows.
"A network source told the New York Post that she was 'attacked for 20 to 30 minutes' in which her assailants were screaming 'Jew! Jew!' during the assault; Logan is not Jewish."
I would like to add to the point that many other news outlets including CBS itself, Fox news, AOLnews, ABC news, Wall Street Journal, Telegrapf (UK), Tononto Star, Even technorati [11] are using words like ""it was widely reported that"". Seeing that other news outlets are "validating" the report, that validation itself should count or something. On my part its mostly trying to suggest wordings and explain why they were used and why they should be acceptable, and why reasons given to invalidate it were themselves invalid. Barring replies made to an editor who was more interested in other editors contrubution histories (which unfortunately drew my attention :p ) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see any "validation" in your google search. "It was widely reported that" is actually a classic WP:WEASEL phrase itself. I still don't see any compelling reason to add this factoid to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you misread my statement. The phrase "it was widely reported" or words to that effect was used in most of the news articles themselves, not originated by any editor here, which would not make it Weasel wording as we are merely quoting the reports verbatim. Pick any of the link at random from the google search I provided to see for yourself. But if you think the news sources are guilty of weasel wording, then........ Zhanzhao (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL is a principle that applies just as well to media outlets as it does to Wikipedians. Whoever employs a phrase like "it was widely reported" is still employing weasel language. Apart from which, I did have a look at a few of the links from your google search, and most of the credible ones seemed to be actually repudiating the notion that this factoid is in any way significant, rather than endorsing it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thatsl subjective. The point that so many agencies are reporting that it was widely reported would arguably make it significant - there is widespread reporting of a widely reported news :p Zhanzhao (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that so many journalistic outlets are reporting that there were certain epithets enunciated by the crowd at the time that Logan was assaulted indicates that those news organizations consider that information both reliable and significant. Every one of those news organizations has a reputation to protect. And every one of those news organizations wants to provide the material that is relevant. None of them wants to omit a key point. We are supposed to be taking our cue from sources. Every one of them is a source. They all lend credence to the veracity of the report and they all attest to the significance of this information. This information is actually conspicuously absent from our article on Lara Logan. Many reputable news organizations are stating that shouting from the crowd indicated Logan was a Jew, when in fact she is not a Jew. Most of these sources first say that the crowd shouted "Jew". Then they follow that statement with their own comment that in fact Logan is not a Jew. That is a well established format by this point. Wikipedia should be following the same well-worn format. It is only by a convoluted misapplication of WP:BLP that the argument has been sustained that we will somehow be maligning Logan if we repeat what is being reported by so many other reliable sources. It is hardly a slight against Logan that a crowd chose to call her a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
So many journalistic outlets? What might they be? Zhang's google search turned up barely more than 100 hits - most of those, it seems, to agenda driven blogs or chat forums. V7's list of sources posted above was remarkably unpersuasive, and waving a hand at unspecified "journalistic outlets" is even less so. Gatoclass (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass, sorry to point out what was obvious to me, but you are mislead by the "search result" figure just below the text box. That figure is actually the number of consolidated GROUP of results that google found for that search. I.e from my end, the first result points to 285 similar articles ("see all 285 articles"), the second to 2815 other related articles, and so on. Thats more than 3000 results from the first two listed groups alone. So yeah, I should think that this is pretty significant
Gatoclasst—the Wall Street Journal, in an opinion piece, says "As a crowd of 200 men attacked her, it was widely reported that they screamed "Jew, Jew, Jew." (Ms. Logan is not Jewish.)" Yes, it is an opinion piece. But the Wall Street Journal is acknowledging the same information being reported in so many other places. Many of those other places are not mentioning this in opinion pieces. The sum total is I think a sizable representation of news organizations recognizing both the validity and the importance of the story that the New York Post reports. The New York Post story is for our purposes a reliable source. Bolstering the New York Post's reputability in regard to this story are the many other news organizations that choose to repeat this story. But all that our article need convey is something to the effect that ""A network source told the New York Post …" That is the wording that was already in the article. It is linked to above. Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Re Bus stop and V7: I misread you guys; I thought you had been quoting, not proposing. Anyway, talk amongst yourselves. My only goal was to try to get the process moving and stop the edit warring. NW (Talk) 04:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well then, how about unlocking the article so we can restore that sourced language? V7-sport (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting the process moving doesn't entail getting us to talk amongst ourselves. The archive and this page contains many extremely long threads of these editors talking amongst themselves. The problem is listening and, frankly, honesty. There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV. Brewcrewer, V7-Sport, Bus Stop, Biosketch, and Jujistuguy have similar histories, and overlappping articles. It's a rather remarkable coincidence that they are all here on this one article, seemingly only caring about this one point. Mindbunny (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A check of the vast and extensive contribution histories of the editors you mentioned show that they have worked on a wide variety of articles, and Judaism and Middle East issues are just some of the stuff they worked on. Whereas you have only work on this article plus the Women's rights in Saudi Arabia article. I hate to be the one stating the obvious, but the only one I see with a super-narrow focus seems to be you. Pot calling kettle black and Boomerang much? And the only reason they are all stuck here, if they are like me, is that we all see an article that needs help, and want to get this matter resolved before moving on to our regular editing activities on other articles.
And for the record, i would want to see it mentioned somewhere that the news is widely reported, not just because it is widely reported, but also because ithe point that it is widely reported is the exact phrase that is being used by the many news outlets following and covering this. If so many news outlets deem it fit to mention and phrase it that way, our avoidance of mentioning it is negative censorship. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And "widely reported" is still a weasel phrase. Widely reported in what? Reliable sources? Or on blogs and chat forums? Just because something gets "widely reported" doesn't mean it's suitable content for an encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass, do note that the Manual of Style (words to watch) page on which WP:WEASEL is a subset of specifically mentions in the lead that "The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources". As mentioned above, many news reports are written without specifically stating their sources, as it is reasonable to assume that the writers for authoritative publications have done their fact checking, or feel that the content is valid enough to stake their reputation on to include it. It is understandable for you to think that the point was not widely covered in many sources, as I already pointed out to you, and pretty obvious from your reply pre iously, that you were apparently seriously underestimated number of search hits. The 3000 plus search results actually on the page minus 100 you claim to saw means there were aLOT of links you accidentally dismissed. But I digress. Again, WP:WEASEL does not cover faithfully produced quotations. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The news is not widely reported. It is widely gossiped about. Nobody has produced any high quality sources reporting it at all. When asked for the best possible source, what was produced was the New York Post, rated the least credible publication in New York City. When asked for sources, the result is invariably dishonest. Editors produce blogs and opinion pieces from reputable publications and call that reporting. Or they produce a page of google search hits. Editors claim that a CBS source says so, even though CBS isn't reporting it. Avoidance of the fact that every high quality source has reported the basic event of the assault--New York Times, Washington Post, etc.,--yet none of those is reporting chants of "Jew." The discussion is characterized by wikilawyering, distortion of what has been said, avoidance of points, and flat out dishonesty. There is an observable agenda among a large number of editors with a documented track record of edit warring on Judaism-related issues. Again: produce sources reporting chants of Jew that are high quality and not just picking up a story that has run elsewhere. Independent reporting resulting in the same set of facts. Mindbunny (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—this is a reliable source. In that we read: ""60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday." Do you find other sources that contradict or cast doubt on that source? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That source is the New York Post: ""Murdoch imported the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of many of his Australian and British newspapers, such as The Sun (the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK). This style was typified by Post's famous headlines such as “Headless body in topless bar” (shown on the right)....The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias.....According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[34]" CBS is not reporting shouts of "Jew." So, what you have is a tabloid known for sensationalism and rated "not credible" reporting that "sources say....," and you want to put in a bipgraphy article describing someone's sexual assault. THese points have been made to you a dozen times. Mindbunny (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Post has been criticized, true. But it remains a reliable source according to our policies. Virtually every newspaper has been criticized for some misstep or another. Even the New York Times has admitted to at least one case of outright fabricating stories. But that remains a reliable source too. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—you do not find any sources contradicting or serving to cast doubt on the source that you and I are discussing. And what we do find are other sources using that source in their own news reports. The further use of that source by other news outlets only further reinforces its authority. Bear in mind that every news outlet has its reputation to protect: no journalistic enterprise wants to tarnish their reputation for reliability. The source—New York Post—is a good quality source in-and-of-itself. Its stature in this particular instance is only enhanced by the further use of its report in other publications. And again—you are not finding any news reports taking issue with the New York Post news report on this incident. You are unable to produce for this Talk page any source expressing doubt about the New York Post news report. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Please find sources contradicting this story: "ALIEN ORB EXAMINED MY BABY GIRL -- AND THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO!" [12] Mindbunny (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Question: Other than the New York Post, the Times of London and FOX News – and disregarding opinion pieces, which aren't journalism in the strict sense of the word – do we have reliable sources for the Israeli/Jew calls?—Biosketch (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is one source: the NY Post, which isn't reliable. The others are merely reporting what the NY Post reported. Mindbunny (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of this womans life, what was being shouted (or not) as she was assaulted is hardly going to be remembered or remarked upon. The important thing is to say that she was attacked, beaten, while working in Cairo during the rebellion/uprising/revolt of 2011. If this was an article about the uprising, it might be worth mentioning the views of some Egyptians towards Israel, or maybe not. If this was an article about the attack on her, its inclusion would be debatable, but it's not.

Striving, fighting and re-framing to get it included in a biography smacks of point scoring, particularly when, after four weeks, there is but one poor source.

There is no consensus, how much more lack of consensus is needed to bring this to a close? Overandout2011 (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is, obviously, more then 1 source, Post, Fox, The London Times, etc.. Pretending otherwise is not going to exclude this. V7-sport (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Pretending to misunderstand my statement that there is no consensus amongst editors is not constructive. Overandout2011 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That comment wasn't addressed to you Overandout2011, It was addressed Mindbunny who has been deliberately obtuse in order to disrupt another article. V7-sport (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad you don't challenge Overandout's assertion that there is obviously no consensus, then. Mindbunny (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The above vote was 7 to 4, it looks like consensus to me. V7-sport (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but you should change "Feb. 11" to "11 February" for uniformity with the rest of the article.—Biosketch (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, Done Biosketch. V7-sport (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The "above vote" is not adequate as a sole indicator. For example, I didn't vote and neither did off2riorob, even though we have both made our opinions clear. There is ample discussion in the recently archived material, the BLP noticeboard, and the ANI to indicate that there is no consensus to add that material. In additipn, the material you have decided to re-edit-war over is not the same as what was proposed here for discussion. Mindbunny (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You also seem to be counting the "partial keep" as a "keep", even though you are adding precisely the material that editor objected to.Mindbunny (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, why bother discussing when NW is going to do whatever he wants anyway? V7-sport (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

From wikipedia articles on voting - "Wikipedia is not a democracy"; "votes are not binding"; "polling is discouraged"; "no straw poll may ever be used to force minority opinion editors to accept a majority opinion".Clearwaterbehind (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User conduct and article content

We should not confuse discussions related to user conduct with discussions related to the article's content. However, this seems to be what is happening in the section ("Break for consensus") above.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cs32en—you say, "We should not confuse discussions related to user conduct with discussions related to the article's content," but "user conduct" becomes relevant when discussion is stymied by responses such as this: "I've told you about 10 times, including my very last comment. If you don't see the answer to your question there, you're not going to see it here. I'm not going to repeat it an 11th time." Responses such as that make it difficult for me to participate in the dialogue that should take place here between editors. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have pointed out that Mindbunny has WP:OWN issues with this article, as have many others. It seems that he believes consensus is when everyone agrees with him. Erikeltic (Talk) 23:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is intended to be used for discussions related to the improvement of the article Lara Logan. User conduct issues should be discussed elsewhere.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of her title.

Hello. Her title in the lead should be lower-cased, as Lara Logan, chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News. See Wikipedia:MOS#Titles_of_people. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Lowercased it.—Biosketch (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's get something clear

[13]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for material of this nature, added 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC). AOLnews saying "According to The Daily Mail" is not a reliable source. Nature saying "According to The Daily Mail" is not a reliable source. NW (Talk) 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So how is it that you can be acting as an administrator here when you are clearly advocating a point of view. Isn't that a conflict of interest? V7-sport (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Enforcing BLP != advocating a point of view. NW (Talk) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You have advocated for the informations exclusion, you have closed editing several times because various editors have included it. What's the point of having all these little votes and "discussing it" to death when you are going to do whatever you want? V7-sport (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No need to answer the peasants?V7-sport (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee whiz. Just report that The Daily Mail said it and let the reader make up his or her mind if that's a reliable source or not. Last I heard, Fleet Street journalists were all journalists and Fleet Street newspaper editors were all newspaper editors.
Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a description of your behavior. You proposed one "best quality" source that is accessible (the New York Post), and discussed wording only regarding accusations of "spy." Then you added material not about "spy", and didn't use your one "best quality" source. The New York Post, according to its own Wikipedia article, was voted the least credible newspaper in New York, and has a reputation for sensationalism. The Sunday Times article is almost certainly based on the New York Post, but you do nothing but sneer and "do whatever you want" when this is pointed out. Despite repeated protestations from a wide variety of editors in a variety of forums, you have insist there is a consensus and "do whatever you want." The article has been full-protected 3 times, and yet your immediate reflex was to revert to the pre-protection version as soon as possible. As for "just reporting that the Daily Mail said it...." that would license infinite gossip into Wikipedia; it is not how an encyclopedia works, and certainly not how a biography of a living person is supposed to work. Mindbunny (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Times of London (founded in 1785 for gods sake, not some fly by night pamphlet) the NY post and I would wager the Daily Mail have been used all over this encyclopedia. All of which are stating a similar story. Declaring them to be not worthy of BLP is ARBITRARY and WITHOUT CONSENSUS. The reasoning here isn't WP:BLP, it's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, closing this article down is irresponsible.V7-sport (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:BLPN is always there if you disagree with me, and there are other administrators who regularly review that board. Right now, I'm seeing no good reason to change my decision. NW (Talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Another frigging noticeboard. Like I wrote, why bother? If you are willing declare that the Times of London isn't a reliable source, to play the impartial administrator while reverting consensus and stopping the editing and post whatever end-product you decide on, why bother chasing our tails? You have already decided for us. V7-sport (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, did you notice how I left The Sunday Times in the article? I removed two sources—Daily Mail and AOLNews citing The Daily Mail—and the sentence associated with them. NW (Talk) 02:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Err, The Sunday times also references the "jew, Jew" portion of what you cut out. What about NY Post?V7-sport (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Consensus is required to change the article, not to leave it as it was: " The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." [14]. The article is not protected because of a difference of pinion, it is protected because the immediate action up[on deprotecting was to edit war over the exact same material that got it protected the first time.
  • The material specifying details of how she was assaulted, sourced to the Sunday Times, doesn't really belong there either. Exactly how a woman was sexually assaulted is a private detail that has no encyclopedic value. At this time, Logan hasn't chosen to reveal those details. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims" [15] In the vote and discussion, there has been even less support for such details than for the anti-Semitic element. Mindbunny (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So NW? The Sunday times also references the "jew, Jew" portion of what you cut out. As does the NY Post.V7-sport (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Sunday Times does not reference the "Jew, Jew" portion. The Sunday Times refers to shouts of "Israeli." The sources for the Sunday Times article are an unnamed "friend" of Logan and unnamed "US sources...." That simply does not meet strcit standards of sourcing required for a) a BLP, b) a description of the circumstances of someone's sexual assault that is a month old. What is so damn hard about being patient and waiting for Logan to clarify what she regards as private? Mindbunny (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't like jews very much, do you mindbunny? You have speculated here:
“after looking at the contribs of Bus stop and brewcrewer and finding them dominated by Jewish politics.”
"In the future, it's best not to rely on "The Jewish Week" for unbiased information on a a topic overlapping with Jewish politics.
"There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV. Brewcrewer, V7-Sport, Bus Stop, Biosketch, and Jujistuguy have similar histories, and overlappping articles. It's a rather remarkable coincidence that they are all here on this one article, seemingly only caring about this one point."
It kind of makes a fellow wonder. V7-sport (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
RE.NW. If the daily mail, and the Sunday Times as well as the AOLNews fail your BLP how about Fox? Here NW or the NY PostMore to your liking NW?, It's already in the article? or the Boston Harold, This OK NW? Because yours is the only opinion that counts..... or maybe, Gasp... The Jewish Week.... or do you agree with mindbunny on that? V7-sport (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Calm down, will you? A number of things are wrong with your statement: Your statement about The Sunday Times containing that quote is factually incorrect—"Jew" is mentioned nowhere in that article, well, at least not in the LexisNexis edition of it. In addition, our purpose isn't to sensationalize, like the Post is doing. Arguments for why the Post is a poor source have been given above. The Fox News article literally is a copy/paste of the first two paragraphs of the Post article. And I can't view the Herald article for some reason, but I can see from the title that it has "opinion" and "op_ed" in the URL. Yeah, that's not an acceptable source...

I'm done here. WP:BLPN or WP:ANI are there for your posting. NW (Talk) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not FOX is posting the same/similar article as the Post is irrelevant, they have their name on it. "I'm done here. WP:BLPN or WP:ANI are there for your posting. " So in other words the article is whatever the hell you say it is. Thanks. You should have stated that from the onset. V7-sport (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not just whatever NW says, it's what a lot of us say. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You haven't had anything to say here other then the "childish tone" non sequitur above. Even if you did post something relevant, NW is an administrator and needn't give a damn what it was. V7-sport (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If your going to make a comment, at least let it have some relevance to the discussion at hand - many other editors agree with the view of NW.
Regarding my earlier posting, your opinion is irrelevant. And of course you you ignored the issue I raised and try to present it in a simplistic manner, common to your style throughout the discussion.
If you are going to respond, do make it relevant and handle the issues I have raised rather than some posting some throwaway remark or attacking a strawman. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You might try following your own advice about relevance. A relevant comment would have been a contribution to the consensus effort earlier instead of having one of your first contributions to Wikipedia be finger wagging about the process. Then again, since nothing here other then NW's opinion is relevant, you might as well post whatever you want. V7-sport (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Has Lara Logan given any interviews since her attack? If she does corroborate the details, will the editors who have taken ownership of this article allow them to be added? 99.0.37.134 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two broad issues. One is the sourcing. The other is due weight. If Logan clearly confirms something, there is no reliability issue. There is still a due weight issue. Mindbunny (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It will be unfortunate if this were to get locked yet again. User:Mindbunny, would you have any BLP- or otherwise-based objections to creating an article on the 2011 Sexual assault of Lara Logan in Egypt? As far as notability and everything goes, it meets all the criteria. It sparked a debate in the U.S. about women journalists in conflict zones and there have been comparisons of LL's incident to similar incidents where other female journalists were involved. There was also a Lara Logan rally in Egypt. Hmm?—Biosketch (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a POV fork. It is gossip. It is not encyclopedic. Let's get something clear: there is no public right to know the specific details of someone's sexual assault. It serves no public interest. There is nothing there. The interest is prurient and pathetic and disgusting. There is strong odor of anti-Islamic prejudice in the editing of several of the editors here. Mindbunny (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The public interest argument is weak considering how much media attention the incident got and, judging by Google/Bing/Yahoo News, is still getting. But the ramifications of the story also make it encyclopedic – again, the debate concerning women in conflict zones, the disturbing pattern of women journalists being sexually assaulted in Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and probably elsewhere in recent months, and the way that women's rights groups in Egypt have been dealing with the problem of sexual abuse in their country. Anti-Islamic? None of the reports attributed the assault to Islam, so there'd be nothing to rely on even if an editor wanted to grind an anti-Islamic axe. There are valid reasons for creating a separate article to deal with this incident away from the BLP restrictions, and the anti-Islam argument just doesn't seem like a compelling counterargument in this case. But if there's going to be opposition to it there as there is here, it'll be wasted energy.—Biosketch (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Even a separate article on 2011 Sexual assault of Lara Logan in Egypt would be subject to BLP restrictions. And it would still be inappropriate to include any intimate details of the sexual assault. It may well be appropriate to have an article dealing with the assault and the responses and aftermath within the confines of BLP, RS and other policies. But I am not sure it would not be more appropriate to include any appropriate material within this article. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Rlendog. And, we seem to be discussing different things. I'm talking about publishing details of someone's sexual assault (that she hasn't currently chosen to reveal). Was she naked? How naked? Was she beaten and pinched and poked?? How was she beaten (with flagpoles!) and pinched and poked? Was she raped???? The fact that Google/Bing/Yahoo news reveal a lot of gossipy interest about these matters has nothing to do with whether they belong in Wikipedia. Mindbunny (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not just that she was sexually assaulted that is at issue, it's the mindset of the creeps who could behave like such savages. Interesting to see how vigorously they get defended. Regardless, Wikipedia is not censored. V7-sport (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The "mindset of the creeps who could behave like such savages" is offtopic for the article. Furthermore, claiming that other editors are defending said creeps is a complete red-herring. I don't think anyone here is defending anyone. They are making a judgment call on what amount of detail is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, and your comment about the "mindset of the creeps" makes it clear that that is your motivation here, which is inappropriate.
I also agree with those opposed to publishing details of a sexual assault. These details are newsworthy, and as such they are published in news sources. But they are not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia serves a different function than a newspaper. It cannot digress into every miniscule detail, but rather gives broad outlines and provides references and further reading for those interested in those details. This is the essence of the undue weight guideline:
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
Yworo (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you claim she was given a bouquet of flowers for her trouble instead of brutally assaulted if you are going to censor sourced information? In terms of weight, it has already been censored to the point of being a footnote, despite earlier consensus. Seriously, if you are just going to purge what happened you might as well go all the way and take out the whole section. V7-sport (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The fact that the attack occurred is certainly encyclopedic. The consensus is clearly against you on the amount of detail needed in an encyclopedia article. Yworo (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was against me? Well no, no it wasn't. If you look up through the talk page the consensus was to include some of the details here before a bunch of editors got sick of the latent antisemitism and being overridden. Now you have it nearly entirely purged, even though it's sourced. Whitewashed. V7-sport (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add the material currently in question. If you are referring to the vote, which is of dubious value, there was a tie (6-6) regarding the "stripped and beaten" bits. However, several editors who had made it clear they opposed the additions didn't bother voting (e.g. me and off2riorob), and the discussions at the BLP noticeboard and ANI made a lack of consensus clear. As I reminder, I'll point out that consensus is a not majority; for example, 12-10 vote would not be a consensus. Furthermore, the burden of obtaining consensus is on those who are changing the article, and the burden is very high in a BLP. Also, admins have lately been threatening to block people for accusations of anti-whatever..... Mindbunny (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Quit with your "whitewashed" accusations. Wikipedia is not a news source. It's an encyclopedia. Take a look at the suggestion in WP:RECENTISM. Are these details really going to appear relevant ten years from now? Please consider contributing to the Wikinews sister-project, where detailed news reporting would be more appropriate. Yworo (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Re Yworo. Indeed, it's an encyclopedia and as such it's supposed to have some sort of correspondence to the actual event in question. Right? Now it's a tale of the brave "group of women and Egyptian soldiers" and how "Logan returned to her hotel after the assault and was flown out of the country within hours on a chartered network jet". Nothing RECENTISM about any of that, right? Yes, whitewashed. V7-sport (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge, nobody has objected to removing that sentence. Go for it. Mindbunny (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Tell me, do you think Encyclopedia Britannica would report in any more detail? No, it wouldn't. In any case, your characterization is inaccurate, the article reports that "Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted while covering the celebrations". That's the event and the sordid details will be of no interest to anyone in a year, much less ten. Go ahead, show me an article, any article, in any other reputable encyclopedia, which gives the details of a sexual assault, rather than just reports that a sexual assault occurred. Yworo (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The motivation of her attackers, some mention of how many were involved and some mention that there was sustained violence are worthy of inclusion. Indeed, there have been many editors who have stated so. Personally I don't think there is anything particularly "sordid" about the crowd chanting "Jew Jew" or Israeli. Or that this was a "crowd" or "mob". Getting beaten by a mob with flag polls over a sustained period of time, or even stripped, well, none of that speaks to --her-- character. Obviously.
Look at the reversions on this and look at where it is now.[16](The first one is my favorite, notice the edit summary: "this isn't encyclopedic; will be false in a matter of days")[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
Then scan the above for talk page to see how editors obsessed with "Jewish politics" are conspiring to include various details that are deemed sordid if they reflect poorly on the creeps who did this.
The only possible conclusion is that disruptive editing works. You good with that Yworo?V7-sport (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yadda, yadda, yadda. I take it you can't provide an example of another encyclopedia going into such detail. If you'd bothered to look, you'd realize that Encyclopedia Britannia doesn't even consider Lara Logan to be notable enough for an article, so it doesn't even report the assault, much less go into detail. This isn't at all disruptive editing. The repeated insertion of the material, especially your repeated reversion of the legitimately motivated removal of the material, is what's disruptive. Yworo (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
"Yadda, yadda, yadda." Awesome, If you aren't going to address what I wrote what's the point? Is this "Encyclopedia Britannia"? Can I go around purging whatever isn't in Encyclopedia Britannia now? V7-sport (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You're the one missing the point. You don't have a consensus to include the material and you require one to do so. The issue is what amount of detail is appropriate for an encyclopedia rather than for a news story, and the article is about Lara Logan, the journalist, and not about the assumed motivations of her attackers. If you think you can get support for an article titled Mindset of the attackers of Lara Logan, feel free to go for it. End of story. Yworo (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And again, there was consensus to include more details on the assault but that has been effectively short circuited. Hilariously ironic how you can unilaterally declare "end of story"as you speak about consensus.V7-sport (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me like there was ever a consensus. And consensus can change. New editors entering the discussion are opposed to inclusion, so even if there was such a consensus, there is no longer. Yworo (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
{ec} And it obviously isn't just about the "motivations of her attackers". As it stands now the article is missing important/notable and verifiable information because there are editors who have disrupted the process to get people to walk away in disgust. V7-sport (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to stop beating the dead horse anytime. You claimed a vote of 7-4 represented a consensus: it doesn't, especially when you misrepresented opinions to get that count. Mindbunny's count of 6-6 is a more accurate portrayal. In any case, consensus isn't a majority vote and even 7-4 is not necessarily a consensus when adding disputed material to a biography of a living person. People who remove the material but don't vote or comment are also part of the consensus. Even assuming 7-4 was correct, you have to count myself and Bbb23 as opposed, which would now make the count 7-6, hardly something you could call a consensus. Oh, and you have to count off2riorob and mindbunny as opposed, even though they didn't vote, which makes it 7-8, with a slight majority opposing. Please show me your claimed consensus now. Yworo (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
{ec} LOL, What's the point in working for consensus if it's just going to be whatever you declare it to be? By your metric is there a consensus for exclusion? And no, I haven't misrepresented anything, thank you. You seem to want to claim some authority here posting whatever you want, "end of story," "stop beating the dead horse", etc. Shows you are really interested in the whole consensus thing. V7-sport (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
{EC} Yeah read the support, oppose thing above. That's the way it's counted, not you divining the motivations of whomever according to whatever you want to claim in order to tell someone to "stop beating the dead horse". V7-sport (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "divining" anything. The partial keep vote says, "I would prefer to keep the other details of the sexual assault introduced in this edit[5] out of the article. (The 'stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles' stuff.) That material just seems excessively intrusive and unnecessary, given that we're dealing with a living person here." Taking that into account clearly made the !vote 6-6. In any case, such a poll is never closed, and I've just added my !vote. I suggest that mindbunny also add their !vote and the lack of consensus will be crystal clear to those who understand what the word means, which you appear not to understand. Consensus requires at least a two-thirds or better majority, which 7-4 ain't. Yworo (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And again, as a result of subjecting people to thinly veiled antisemitism, a cowboy admin, disruptive editing [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Edit warring, Forum shopping, whiny allegations of being anti-islam 2 ANI's and interpretation of consensus that is elastic enough to be meaningless we now have the polished turd that has been whitewashed of pertinent information. Heck of a job, Like I wrote, why bother saying anything happened to her at all? V7-sport (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ever considered that you might be wrong? Do you know what's considered a consensus in a !vote. No, you don't. See WP:CONSENSUS, which clearly states "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes." In other words, a supermajority is needed. You don't have a supermajority and never did. In my view, you are the one being disruptive, and you are the one with article ownership issues. Sorry, but I just got here, I've thoroughly read the page, and that's what I see. Yworo (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict){You can stop revising any time now}Thanks for telling me what I know and what I don't know. OK, so "It's a done deal", "beating a dead horse" and I "don't know what consensus means". Ever consider that you come across as imperious and condescending? Wait, didn't you just write "a majority decision"? Guess I did have some idea. "major changes"? We weren't talking about rewriting the article, just a couple of sentences. V7-sport (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, you still don't get it do you? Adding material to a BLP has to follow WP:BLP, which is extremely conservative, stating that there is a "Presumption of privacy" and that "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The "major change" being discussed here is overriding the spirit of our BLP policy, not adding a couple sentences. Yworo (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and you have another misconception. This is a BLP, there does not need to be a consensus for removal. If there is not a conseneus for inclusion, the material doesn't get included. Even if there had been a consensus for inclusion, which there wasn't, the moment that consensus fails to obtain, the material must be removed. Yworo (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Yup, you still don't get it do you"...So what you are saying is that you didn't bother to look up "imperious". -Whether or not she was beaten and sexually assaulted isn't even in question.- The edit wars were over whether or not she was called a Jew or an Israeli (which was sourced) Whether or not it was a mob or large group (sourced) and whether or not she was treated at the local hospital or hit with the flag polls.(sourced) None of which would have "overridden the spirit of our BLP policy". It appears that you have waded into this without a clear idea as to what you are arguing for. So when was there a consensus asked for your last edit? There wasn't, you just did it and pronounced it a done deal. V7-sport (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm here to ensure that our BLP policy is followed, nothing more. Exposing details of an assault, even if they've been reported in the papers, violates our "do no harm" policy. Mindbunny clearly understands our BLP policy, you don't. I agree with mindbunny's analysis of the issue. Enforcing the BLP policy is exempt from 3RR - it's not considered edit warring to remove material that violates BLP, and it cannot be overridden by any consensus. As for your insults, you only need look in a mirror to see such qualities closer to hand. Yworo (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
So how is being called a Jew a BLP issue? Never got a good answer to that. Or an Israeli? That a big "sordid detail"? Does that do a lot of harm to Lara Logan? Again, the fact that she was sexually assaulted is not even contested. You are tossing "BLP" at me as if being called a Jew or an Israeli is a bigger "sordid detail" then getting sexually assaulted. (Someone say agreement with mindbunny?) It wasn't my objective to insult you by the way, just to point out that the tone was patronizing. V7-sport (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Your questions have nothing to do with the material I removed. That seems to be an argument you lost with someone else. Perhaps you should take that up with whoever removed that material. However, since you've brought it up, my opinion on the Jew/Israeli name-calling is that it doesn't shed any light on Lara Logan, her character or career, and she is after all the subject of this article. It perhaps could/should be included in an article about the protests at which it occurred, because it is a part and parcel of what happened at that event, but it in no way informs us about the character and career of the subject of this article. It's simply offtopic and thus giving undue weight to the actions of others not in any way caused by the subject of this article. All I have to say further is that you were given a big clue stick by an admin over 12 days ago, and you seems to have completely ignored it. Takes two to tango and you've been just as argumentative, disruptive, owning, etc. on the issue as you perceive mindbunny to have been. Yworo (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"seems to be an argument you lost with someone else. " So when you said you had read the talk page that was just for show... "but it in no way informs us about the character and career of the subject of this article. It informs you about the event which happened to the subject."All I have to say further is that you were given a big clue stick by an admin over 12 days ago," And that has what to do with this? Funny how you looked through my history instead of the history of the argument you are commenting on. Going to bedV7-sport (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't looked at your history, it's the comments at the top of this section to which I'm referring. If you got handed some other clue stick on your talk page or elsewhere, that should be even more of a clue for you. Yworo (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that "clue stick" was arbitrary, against the consensus at the time and inconsistent with other pages on Wikipedia and has resulted in an article that devotes more space to the "Michael Hastings controversy" and the utterances Glenn Greenwald and "Matt Taibbi (who) wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"... So the idea that there isn't a sliding scale of what is encyclopedic is laughable.V7-sport (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There has never been a consensus, something which has been pointed out to you dozens of times. There is no objection to lengthening the section on Egypt. There is not even an objection to lengthening to the section on the assault. There is an objection to providing details of exactly HOW someone was sexually assaulted, details which have not been confirmed by the victim and which seem to be anonymous in origin. It's not like anything is set in stone. The assault is a month old. Who is harmed by waiting until Logan decides to clarify what happened? Mindbunny (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Including information on the racial and political overtones of the assault and that it was done by a mob or group is not "providing details of exactly HOW someone was sexually assaulted"... Which has "been pointed out to you dozens of times." And yes, if she comes out and denies these reports it can be stricken from the encyclopedia. V7-sport (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, those details have nothing to do with the subject of this article. They are offtopic. Please work to get them integrated into the article about the Egyptian revolution of 2011, where they would have some pertinence. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, I and others here disagree. As has been pointed out, there is a sliding scale here for "on topic". V7-sport (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, but the "official" "consensus" is now 8 against, 6 for (go ahead and count). So until you bring in a lot of new blood, you're still beating that dead horse. May I suggest an RFC? Yworo (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I count 7 to 7, you must be using University of Washington math.{I kid} I'm Mulling over a content dispute flag. There is clearly more weight given to things that have had much less impact on her and her career and there is clearly information that many editors think ought to be included. V7-sport (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's 8 to 6 9 to 6 against for the details of the assault due to the conditions of the "partial keep", it's 7-7 8-7 against for the Jew/Israeli name-calling. That's still insufficient to add disputed material to a BLP. You started the !vote, you need to honor the outcome even if it's not what you expected. Yworo (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not discussing racial overtones. We're discussing whether the red marks on her stripped body were due to biting or pinching. Oh, what an urgent thing for the public to know! We condemn the world to the eternal darkness of ignorance if we don't publish those juicy tidbits! We are discussing whether such juiciness is encyclopedic, and whether it meets the BLP requirements for sensitivity and privacy. And, we are discussing sourcing. The juicy details have not, actually, been confirmed by the victim. Mindbunny (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Re Yworo, Adding a dispute tag isn't "dishonoring" any outcome that Berean–Hunter initiated, it is an accurate reflection of the status of this debate.
Re mindbunny, Again, you lost me with the antisemitism, the anti-islam whining and the vow to "edit war". I can't realistically assume good faith in your actions anymore. V7-sport (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a dispute tag is appropriate, since it's been discussed at great length, a poll was started, and the outcome is clear. I'll remove such a tag if it's added. The "dispute" is pretty much over and you lost. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't have the authority to remove a dispute tag. Nor to declare debate over. Here, I'll do it for you: ImperiousV7-sport (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course I do. Any editor can revert a WP:POINT-violating tag. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Had I wanted to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point I wouldn't have been debating this on the talk page and elsewhere for weeks. Seriously, you are overstepping yourself. V7-sport (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding such a tag to the article is not the proper way to get more input given that there has already been a poll and the article is currently implementing the majority outcome of that poll. Starting an RFC is the correct course if you think that getting input from the broader population of Wikipedia will turn the tide for you. I'm dubious about that: I think it will actually go more and more against you. So please do pursue the correct action and open an RFC. Yworo (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's improper/incorrect according to whom? Your own personal flow chart?WP:NOT#DEM and while we are at it, have a look at WP:WIN for the whole "you lost", "end of story," "stop beating the dead horse" meme. What, specific problem would you have with a dispute tag? Are you claiming that the content of that passage isn't being disputed?V7-sport (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently, only one person appears to be disputing it, you. Funny, you seemed to assume the !vote was a democracy (majority vote rather than quality of arguments) when the !vote appeared to agree with you, only now do you bring this up when the !vote turns against you. And "not dem" means we evaluate the arguments. And the arguments have to do with WP:BLP, and the trend on WP:BLPN is to agree that the inclusion would violate WP:BLP, specifically the presumption of victim privacy. That is, that the against !votes are more in line with policy than the for !votes. You seem to be the only one that isn't getting that. Perhaps you should just ask Jimbo what he thinks? Yworo (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The vote was a gauge of consensus, which was over ridden at the time. So your specific objection to the tag is that "Currently, only one person appears to be disputing it,"... Even if that were the case that would be enough. Do you think I couldn't get more by soliciting opinions from the above editors?V7-sport (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, one person is not sufficient. And WP:CANVASS doesn't permit you to go solicit those opinions which you know to agree with you, unless you also solicit the opinions potentially opposed to you, as an RFC would do. Bringing those editors back wouldn't change the !vote, unless an editor changes their mind and !vote. Bringing new opinions is the only way forward. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"No, one person is not sufficient." Where does it say that? V7-sport (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:3RR, I'd say, if there are even two editors who disagree with the placement of the tag. Yworo (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
So your solution to the disagreement is to make up rules and promise to edit war. (and to wikihound) Funny how you reveal yourself when things become inconvenient. V7-sport (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if you leave out the "salacious details" of her assault, I see no reason to exclude the anti-semitic aspects of the attack. It gives context to the event. Articles about the civil rights movement would definitely be neutered if you purge them of the racial overtones that led up to those events. 152.133.13.2 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan will give her first in-depth interview since the attack on 60 Minutes on 1 May, 2012. I'm sure that will qualify as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes. 99.0.37.134 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate

Is there a specific reason why her birthdate (March 29, 1971) isn't included in the article? All the other wikipedias (ar, de, tr, cn) are showing it. 109.192.71.32 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the DOB began here. Do you have a reliable source for the date?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
We couldn't find a WP:RS for her date of birth as I remember, if one is available that would be great. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Almost every biography of her cites this date (e.g. NNDB, which appears under External Links in the article), but I'm afraid that most of them were based on the old wikipedia article. So: No reliable source yet, I'll keep looking. 109.192.71.32 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I had a look previously and couldn't find one but there likely is a reliable one out there somewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
At least the day of birth (March 29) seems to be correct, according to her Facebook page (which most likely is authentic). That leaves the year of birth. 109.192.71.32 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a degree of authenticity to that face-book page, comments in the third person etc and would not support a date of birth claim linked from that address, although there are a lot of what looks like personal photographs which gives weight to reliable. Is there a comment from her where she has verified that is her facebook page? Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all her wall posts are written in first person. The photo collections are quite extensive, and not something you would find on a news page. Take the fact that Logan's facebook page is 'liked' by the pages of 60 Minutes or Katie Couric (which itself seems more than authentic, since it offers a free chapter of Couric's book), and there is little doubt left. Of course a 'Verified' badge like on twitter would be nice, but I'm already convinced. Lara Logan doesn't have a homepage, blog or twitter, so a verified comment by her saying the facebook page is legit could be hard to find... The next step would be contacting someone at CBS, right? 109.192.71.32 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough I will take your word for those issues and if your convinced then we could use the day and month from there, then we would just need the year.. contacting CBS would likely not yield any results but it must be out there in a WP:RS somewhere.Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Lara Logan was born on March 29, 1971 in the South African beach-resort city of Durban, sometimes called by its Zulu name, eThekwini." Thompson, Clifford (2007). Current Biography Yearbook 2006. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company. ISBN 978-0-8242-1074-8.
I found it via a snippet on Google Books - reliable source? 109.192.71.32 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say - yes, without a good reason to believe differently or some differing dates, yes. Well done, you should go ahead and add it perhaps as a book citation with a link to the snippet. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's well done, but the article is semi-protected, so the IP can't add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Requested here. Someone might want to get the undisputed content back in before it happens. I'm not going to edit war and tried to explain to Mindbunny that he/she should be careful to only remove the disputed "Jew! Jew!" stuff. †TE†Talk 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Too late †TE†Talk 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No, when content is disputed, it is best to leave it out of the article until consensus is reached to include it. Especially when dealing with something perceived as a potential BLP vio. But I too was going to make the request as soon as I responded above ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the other content and sources that were deleted. The disputed material isn't all that Mindbunny removed. †TE†Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything I removed has been disputed. The main problem is the use of anonymous sources from a sensationalist tabloid for discussing sexual assault in a BLP. A secondary problem is due weight and encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a twitter feed for current events. It is not encyclopedic that she's currently at home. Both these aspects of the recent additions have been disputed by several people. All of it is an addition to the article made in the last week, and as such requires consensus before it can be added. A requirement you have repeatedly violated. It is not for you to decide that consensus doesn't matter, because your opinion is right. See the "BLP summary" I posted above. Mindbunny (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hospitalization and length of stay is encyclopedic. Didn't you claim that part of the story will be proven "false?" Back to the point -- you could've edited out that "currently" bit whenever you wanted. Try to make the additions more encyclopedic instead of claiming BLP violations and deleting content. †TE†Talk 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Towards a better article

I'm going to take each major point and break it down. Let's see where we stand and if we can reach some consensus here, I'll put the topic. And then ask 2 questions: 1) Are the sources reliable and 2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence about afraid to take to local hospitals

Sentence involved: She reportedly wasn't taken to a local hospital because the "network didn't trust local security there" and didn't report the assault to Egyptian authorities because they "couldn't trust them, either."[1]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference NYPost was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "CBS News's Lara Logan suffered 'brutal' attack in Tahrir Square". Guardian. 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2011-02-16. The Guardian, Richard Adams, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 February 2011
  3. ^ CBS News' Lara Logan recovering after 'brutal' attack
  4. ^ "CBS Reporter Targeted in Sexual Assault". Wall Street Journal. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
  5. ^ "Ex-GMTV reporter Lara Logan leaves hospital". Daily Mail. 2011-02-17. Retrieved 2011-02-17.
  6. ^ "CBS Reporter Targeted in Sexual Assault". Wall Street Journal. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
  7. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358944/Lara-Logan-attack-Stripped-punched-whipped-flag-poles.html
  8. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358944/Lara-Logan-attack-Stripped-punched-whipped-flag-poles.html

1) Are the sources reliable?

    1. Here, I'd say yes. The Post is a reliable source, but it errs when it comes sensationalism. Making a claim about anti-semitism in the opening paragraph/title is sensationalistic. Makes for a good read, but is it factual? Here we are dealing with not trusting a Government/System that is in the midst of open rebellion. With people who are already on edge having just been attacked. Thus, it isn't a commentary about Muslims/Arabs/Egyptians, but rather a country in rebellion. To that end, I'd accept this as a source.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. Of course not. This is part of a story on a sexual assault in a BLP. It also has racial overtones. The highest quality sources are required. An anonymous source in a tabloid is a low quality source. Does Encarta relies on tabloids? Mindbunny (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    3. Per my comments elsewhere, the New York Post is a reliable source under our policies. Rlendog (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

If it is, it needs clear attribution. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. Possibly, not 100% sold on it, but not opposed to it either.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. No. It would not be a significant part of her life, even if it could be sourced reliably.Mindbunny (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    3. Not sure. The part about the network not trusting security at the hospital seems somewhat ancillary. But that the assault was not reported immediately and the reasons for it may be more directly linked. Rlendog (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic Slurs

Sentence involved: A network source later stated that her attackers were screaming, "Jew! Jew!" during the assault.

1) Are the sources reliable?

    1. Not really. The main source for the claim is from the Daily Post, which has a reputation for sensationalism and accuracy. The claims that the crowd was chanting "Jew Jew" is clearly an incendiary device that makes their story a little more sensational. That being said, other sources are starting to report on the Posts article and they are accepting the Posts reporting as factual. This reduces my concerns about the source, but it doesn't negate them.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. No, for the same reasons given above.Mindbunny (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    3. Yes. The New York Post qualifies under our guidelines as a WP:RS, despite some editors' opinions about its approach. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. I'm not sold here, but don't really care. MY main concern is that if it is included that we need strong sourcing for the statement.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is confirmation of this or this section of the New York Post's claim is verified in any way we should add it, without secondary verification it is wrong to repeat such unconfirmed allegations from a source they are not able to even identify.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. No, for reasons given above. Mindbunny (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's been sourced up the wazoo;

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1317384 http://nation.foxnews.com/lara-logan/2011/02/16/egyptians-yelled-jew-jew-while-sexually-assaulting-cbs-reporter-lara-logan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358944/Lara-Logan-attack-Stripped-punched-whipped-flag-poles.html?ito=feeds-newsxml http://nation.foxnews.com/lara-logan/2011/02/21/stripped-punched-and-whipped-flag-poles-full-horror-lara-logans-attack-emerges http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/flagpole_flog_E61HRINd1PS48FsgQKaHuO http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110216/pl_dailycaller/egyptianattackersshoutedjewjewwhilesexuallyassaultingcbsreporterlaralogan_1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357485/Lara-Logan-assault-Former-GMTV-reporter-suffers-sex-attack-covering-Egypt-uprising.html

  • keeping it out is censorship at this point. V7-sport (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, as it is undue in the context of an article about Lara Logan. How is Logan's biography related to the actual or perceived mindset of a group of unknown individuals in Egypt?  Cs32en Talk to me  03:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure. It was part of the event that was significant to the subject, so I am not sure there is any valid reason suppress certain details that are hardly private. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Admitted to a hospital

Sentence involved: Upon returning to the United States, Logan was admitted into a hospital for recovery.[1][2][3][4]

  1. ^ "CBS News's Lara Logan suffered 'brutal' attack in Tahrir Square". Guardian. 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2011-02-16. The Guardian, Richard Adams, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 February 2011
  2. ^ CBS News' Lara Logan recovering after 'brutal' attack
  3. ^ "CBS Reporter Targeted in Sexual Assault". Wall Street Journal. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-16.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYPost was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

1) Are the sources reliable?

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. Yes, the fact that she was admitted to a hospital speaks to the severity of the assault.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discharge

Sentence involved: Logan was discharged from the hospital after forty eight hours and is recuperating at home with her family. She vows to return to work within weeks.[1]

  1. ^ "Ex-GMTV reporter Lara Logan leaves hospital". Daily Mail. 2011-02-17. Retrieved 2011-02-17.

1) Are the sources reliable?

She was in hospital less than two days, so was not badly injured. She walked away and was not in need of immediate treatment from a hospital, seems to rebuke the claims of severe attack baldy beaten for a lengthy period. IMO the whole section would benefit from a small trim of the drama reporting, we are supposed to write content in an uninvolved manner, not like a tabloid report. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. Not sold on it. Her length of stay isn't necessary. That being said, I don't feel that strongly here.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Rape

Sentence involved: A person familiar with the incident told the Wall Street Journal that the assault "was not rape."[1] WSJ Source

  1. ^ "CBS Reporter Targeted in Sexual Assault". Wall Street Journal. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-16.

1) Are the sources reliable?

    1. Yes. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source.Erikeltic (Talk) 12:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. Yes. The WSJ is known for it's fact checking. It is one of the more reliable sources out there. That combined with the USA Today citing the WSJ and I'm comfortable with the sources.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    3. No. The source isn't the WSJ. The Journal doesn't claim she wasn't raped. It claims a person "familiar with the matter" (not a representative of the WSJ) says that. "A person familiar with the matter" is an anonymous source. This is an anonymous source being used in a story about a sexual assault in a BLP. It is not the highes quality source, in a context that requires the highest quality sources. Mindbunny (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    4. Yes. The WSJ is a WP:RS. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

2) Should this be included in an article on Lara Logan?

    1. Currently the article reads as though Logan was raped and that would seem to violate the WP:BLP more than the inclusion of material clearly stating her sexual assault was not rape. To leave this information out, while including the rest of it, is irresponsible and detrimental to both Logan and the article. Erikeltic (Talk) 12:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    2. Agree with Erikeltic. The initial reports gave the impression that she was raped. I think leaving that impression is not good. I do, however, think it needs to A) be within quote "not raped" and B) would have no problem requiring attribution "According to the WSJ Logan was 'not raped.'"---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything about rape. The content that is there in the article presently is a bit excessive a portrayal imo, tabloid-esq. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. . Obviously not. What Logan has apparently authorized is that she was sexually assaulted. It is gross to satiate public curiousity to know the details of how she was sexually assaulted. It is nobody's business. Read the damn guidelines on BLP. We don't speculate on the details of somebody's sexual assault. Mindbunny (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not? Maybe to you. The innuendo here is that Ms. Logan was raped. That is far more of a BLP violation that quoating a reliable source that stated very clearly that her sexual assault was not rape. It needs to go back in immediately. You can do it or I will, but within 24 hours it's going to be there. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
1. There is no such innuendo. 2. If there were such an innuendo, it would be authorized--for the time being--by the victim. The wording chosen by CBS was "sexual assault" and CBS is presumably the only one not relying on anonymous sources. 3. You are just repeting what has already been rejected. There is no reliable source saying she wasn't rped. There is a reliable source (WSJ) saying an anonymous source "familiar with the matter" says she wasn't raped. 4. Speculating about the details of someone's sexual asault is offensive and a violation of BLP guidelines. Rrelying on anonymous sources in a BLP--and a sexual asault--violates guidelines. Thi has been said already. Mindbunny (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sexual assault != rape. Saying she was sexually assaulted does not in any way imply that she was raped. I have no opinion on whether or not it is appropriate to spell out that she wasn't raped, but anyone reading that into a statement that she was sexually assaulted is mistaken. --B (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
1. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source despite what you may believe. (period) This has been established and if you have an issue with it, I suggest you take it up with WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Reliable sources of any kind do not violate BLP. Again, if you have an issue with this take it up elsewhere. 2. The statement was "rejected" by you & you alone. Make no mistake, I can go back to the exact moment you removed the edit. Your opinion has been noted, repeatedly. Erikeltic (Talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
WSJ is reliable, but not everything in a reliable source should automatically be printed. Is WSJ citing an "anonymous source" reliable? That's much more iffy. --B (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably not. If it was not a rape then it would be a BLP violation to leave the impression that it was (which sexual assualt does, even if that is not 100% accurate). But an anonymous person claiming that it was not rape isn't worth mentioning. Any person can say anything, that doesn't make it so. If there was a quote from a policeman or a doctor that it was "not a rape", that may be worth including, but an anonymous comment, no. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for BLP's

  • Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity
  • Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives,
  • The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material
  • Avoid gossip and feedback loops. Ask yourself whethe ... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
  • Be wary of sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources.
  • Presumption in favor of privacy
  • Avoid victimization. ...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Note, these aren't principles of describing a sexual assault. You'd have to ratchet up the strictness even more... Mindbunny (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoid victimization. ...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization -- Then why aren't you doing your best to get all of this assault stuff removed? It has absolutely no bearing on her contribution to her role as a journalist. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just my opinion. No consensus:

  • WP:BLP requires scrupulous and ultimately reliable sourcing, and as far as I'm concerned, this second-hand, unqualified, reporting, just doesn't cut it. We shouldn't just treat it cautiously; we should remove it, with extreme prejudice.
  • We should not be propagating sections of the press's weak titillating claims like we are a online volunteer Reuters- notnews is clear about this imo
  • I don't think we should have anything about her being sexually assaulted unless she comes out to ask for it to be reported. It can't help with the healing process to have sordid things like that all over the internet. This has nothing to do with whether there are WP:RS available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#BLP_violations.3F_Anonymous_sources_in_report_of_sexual_assault.

  • I have some strong doubts about the relevance of the entire final paragraph. [the paragraph disussing the sexual assault]
  • A morass of material which needs far stronger sourcing than has been given.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109#Lara_Logan. When Logan chooses to reveal details, we can discuss whether the details are appropriate and encycloepdic. In the meantime, it should not even be on the table. Mindbunny (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was "rape," the perpetrators were Muslims. That fact, and the deafening silence about that fact coupled with active efforts to suppress that information, is relevant and well sourced, while presented in a neutral and balanced manner.Jwbaumann (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Why is it relevant, notable or even just of interest that the perpetrators are Muslim? (2) What evidence is there that they were Muslim other than it was in a majority muslim country (although they could have been Copts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Muslim meme

I'd be surprised to see reports on the Duke lacrosse rape case noting that the accused were ethnically Christians. But there is a conservative agenda to make prominent the presumed religion of Logan's attackers.[50]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

60 Minutes interview

I've updated the paragraph on the sexual assault, with details from the 60 Minutes interview. For the record, let's note the the tabloid claims that the entire mob was chanting "Jew! Jew" has been reduced, by Logan herself, to a single individual. The interesting portions, from a biographical perspective (which is what this is), are her interpretations and applications to her own life. The role her children played in her mental/emotional survival, and the value of being "out" about it to the careers of women journalists. The prurient detials and Middle-Eastern politics/baiting are less important. Mindbunny (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It had already been updated, Mindbunny. I've left in one of the quotes you added, but I think summarizing is more appropriate than adding lots of quotes. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny, please do not continue to remove that material. That is what she said, and she told a very reliable source. There is no way Wikipedia should be censoring that, and absolutely no reason to do so. We published the same kind of detail in the Iman Obeidi article, and for the same reason. Reliable sources, notable story. Here you said we should wait until she clarified the details herself. Well, she has done that now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I added quite a bit more material that is "what she said"--and you removed it. So, invoking "what she said" can't be the final determiner in what goes in the article. There is no consensus on how to update the material, so please stop edit warring until there is a consensus. The civil approach is to propose wordings here, and discuss them. In the meantime, please leave the older version in the article. No newer version currently has consensus. I would apppreaciate it if you would revert your revert. Mindbunny (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Looking over the history of the article and talk page, it appears that there has been an on-going and concerted attempt by you to omit or delete any mention of the rather crucial information regarding the crowds initial pretext for attacking her. Of course not every detail is important, but it would be a rather serious omission to have the article simply state the crowd attacked her without out stating what sparked the attack. Please don't remove it again, as your doing so makes the article less informative in a significant way. I'm restoring the superior version. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(to Mindbunny) You added repetition in the form of quotes, but removed key details. If you want to restore your quotes, by all means do, and we can discuss whether they're appropriate. But removing details that others have added, and that Logan herself has offered, is clearly inappropriate. Can you explain why you're doing it? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wordings

I propose the following. I prefer it to the other version because it provides insight into Lara Logan--her thoughts, motivations, etc.--which is what this article is supposed to provide. The other version is mostly gory details.

In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. She said the attack involved 200–300 men, that they tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, and "[f]or an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands." The more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. The attack continued for about 25 minutes. She said she believed she was going to die, but that she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "...when I thought I am going to die here, my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Eventually, an Egyptian woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers, alerted by her crew, arrived and beat back the crowd with batons. Logan has said she does not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs.[19][20]

women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do

I certainly don't object to summarizing rather than quoting--that's a style question rather than a content one. Mindbunny (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a good version, because it leaves out the crowd's pretext for initially attacking her. As it stands, your paragraph implies this was simply random mob violence, which is highly misleading. This version is clearly superior - please don't remove this crucial information again until you have consensus to do so. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The article cannot omit the fact that she was attacked because the mob thought she was an Israeli/Jew. Based on the interview, this is a critical detail. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this second interview from her clearly makes the a critical detail and as it was it seemed to be well written and not undue at all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to say though that we do seem ot be quoting her opinion s a bit much give here opinions a bit of a soapbox and although a quote the comments seems as if facts. Cound we cut that quote a bit , rewrite it .. all this She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs: "Women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, 'Well women shouldn't be out there.' But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me—they are committed to what they do." - Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Mindbuggy's version removed the pretext, which CBS called the gasoline on the fire, and also minimized the severity of the assault. We must approach this article as we did the article about Iman Obeidi, where we published the details of the attack that she offered via reliable sources.
Off2riorob, the last quote was added by Mindbuggy. I think it just repeats what we already summarize, so I'd have no problem removing that part. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool, a bit less is gonna be more it that situation - but mindbunny needs to back off now about this crucial detail from the second interview about the spark that started the attack. It seems there is a strong consensus to include and that its important, so mindbunny, please stop removing that.. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Side by side

SV MB
On 15 February, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. She was flown out of the country the day after the assault.[1]

On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[2]

She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs.[2]

  1. ^ Stelter, Brian. "CBS Says Lara Logan Suffered ‘Brutal’ Attack in Cairo", The New York Times, 15 February 2011.
  2. ^ a b "Lara Logan breaks her silence", CBS 60 Minutes, May 1, 2011.
In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. She said the attack involved 200–300 men, that they tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, and "[f]or an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands." The more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. The attack continued for about 25 minutes. She said she believed she was going to die, but that she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "...when I thought I am going to die here, my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Eventually, an Egyptian woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers, alerted by her crew, arrived and beat back the crowd with batons. Logan has said she does not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs.[1][2]

women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference CBSMay1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests". CBS News. 2011-02-15.
  • Support for the edit SV has made as above. - now supporting my write. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for SV's edit. More comprehensive, superior version. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for MB's edit but with the addition of the Jew/gasoline comment and without the final quote. The wording of the SV edit reads like a newspaper/tabloid story; the MB wording is more encyclopedic and conveys the important facts (with the exception of the Jew/gasoline comment) more succintly. However, the final quote is allowing Logan to editorialise/soapbox the article. Less is more. Now support Off2riorob version. DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is her soapboxing and should/could also be removed - "She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs." - None of that is really educational information about her notability and I support its removal. Sexual assault is prevalent all over the world her opinion is tainted because she was attacked in Egypt, the other bit is her soapboxing, we don't really need to know why she wants to say what she has said. Off2riorob (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. With that change too, the MB version looks like an encyclopedia entry, which the SV version doesn't. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I prefer the SV version. Although I think the "tearing at her scalp" sentence has an inappropriate tone and should probably be deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very important part of it, Gatoclass. When did we as a project start censoring women's own descriptions of their rapes? We didn't do it at Iman Obeidi. Why are some people trying to do it here? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Off2riorob.s fluff trimmed version. I now support my version (naturally) - Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On 11 February 2011 Logan was attacked and beaten and sexually assaulted whilst reporting from Tahir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation. She was flown out of the country the next day.[7]. In an interview with CBS sixty minutes on May 1 Logan reported that the attack had involved 200-300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. Logan said one of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. The crowd tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her and "raped her with their hands." and took photographs of her with their cellphones. She was rescued by a group of women who closed ranks around her and some men with the women threw water at the crowd. At this point a group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[8] Logan said she planned to return to reporting from trouble spots and did not want the assault to define her.[8] Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't endorse that version because it implies that just by shouting "Jew!" you can turn a crowd of Egyptians into a mob of frenzied rapists. Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hm, could you word that bit a little clearer..I don't want to assert anything unduy...thoughts. I removed the frenzy.. feel free to tweak the content if you feel you can improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Not meaning to interject here, but having just cast my eye over this I have to say that the current wording seems like grossly gratuitous narration.
Here are some particular sentences that I have problems with -
She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became - This is obviously a "narration" voice, and a poorly written one at that.
she said, and "[f]or an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands," from the front and the back - Seems a little gratuitous. Can anyone point to an example elsewhere that we have such a graphic description of a rape?
continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. - Narration, gratuitous, and surely not verifiable... I mean, do we have RS which actually explicitly calling out each of these details?
We've really got to have a rewrite here, to bring things back to more reasonable, encyclopedic tone.
Perhaps the following?
Any takers? I realize I'm probably wading naively into some kind of crap storm here, but the current wording really strikes me as way, way out of balance. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
She doesn't say she was attacked because the mob thought she was a Jew. Please keep this tiresome yet tireless political agenda out of the article. First we had incessant edit wars from editors trying to get the claim that the entire mob screamed Jew! as it attacked her, which Logan has now corrected to one person who said "Jew" after the attack had already begun. She doesn't say that is why they attacked her. We can certainly have something about "Jew" in there, but any attempt to dredge up the distorted New York Post claim that the entire mob was chanting "Jew! Jew!" is just more dishonest agenda-driven editing. Mindbunny (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware there was some debate on this before. I personally haven't delved into it, and don't have an opinion. The wording I proposed tries to vague replicate what's already there. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Philosophically, I'd like to advocate for my version, although I'm certainly not wedded to the exact wording I used--it was a rough draft. To me, what makes the incident mostly relevant to this BLP is whatever insight it can provide into Lara Logan. That is why I added the information about her thoughts about her children during the attack, and her thoughts about female reporters in dangerous situations. Calling her thoughts on those matters "soapboxing" seems frivolous and slanted. It's really the main thing that makes the event more than just the usual sensationalistic violence the media exploits. I strongly object to "from the front and the back" which I removed once, because it is needlessly graphic. I'm ambivalent about the "Jew" bit, but can compromise as long as it doesn't become an implication of mass anti-Semitism (as some editors are wont to make it). Mindbunny (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think your version still has some gratuitous narrating in it (though perhaps a bit less). NickCT (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I just took the previous version, removed the parts that seemed most gratuitous ("from the front and the back" and the "Jew" stuff). Then I added what seemed to actually give insight into Logan's worldview. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Nick - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Can you imagine a professional tertiary source including details like: She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." ... As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued tearing at her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. I can't imagine a professional encyclopedia adopting this kind of tone. The minimalist approach is the best one, I think, especially in an article as brief as this, per WP:UNDUE and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"can't imagine a professional encyclopedia adopting this kind of tone" - Exactly the point. Agree 100%. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Propose some text, please. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
NickCT's comment was exactly right - and was essentially the point I made earlier and which is why I preferred Mindbunny's version over SlimVirgin's and then Off2riorob's over Mindbunny's. I think some variant of Off2riorob's is on the right lines - I think that's the best starting point. Minimalist. DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this (as a starting point):

In February 2011, Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. In an interview with 60 Minutes (for whom she worked), Logan estimated the attack involved 200–300 men. She said the mob beat her, and "raped me with their hands." Logan said she continued fighting for the sake of her children: "... my next thought was I can't believe I just let them kill me, that that was as much fight as I had. That I just gave in and I gave up on my children so easily, how could you do that?". Logan said she was willing to do just one interview on the attack mainly because female reporters are often reluctant to report sexual assault, out of fear of being prevented from reporting in dangerous areas. [8][9] Mindbunny (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

An outsiders perspective - This is my first post ever to anything on Wikipedia: I have watched the debate on this discussion page for weeks, and its content has been essentially between, A. people who said that reliable sources reported that the mob assualting Lara Logan were chanting: "Jew! Jew!", versus B. people who insisted that the reports were from "unreliable sources" and thus this insight into the motivation of the assaulters should not be included. On Sunday May 1, 2011 CBS News 60 minutes journalist Scott Pelley confirmed explicitely and unambiguously that the groping mob became a savage frenzy of brutal sexual assault after the "spark" "igniting the gasoline" of chants of "she is a Jew" occured. Now the content of this discussion has shifted. The sources disparaged here were actually accurate, and, perhaps most amazingly (to the discredit of Wikipedia) we viewers are now witnessing a parade of people openly admitting that whatever "we do", we can't "let" this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters. At least you people admit that agendas drive your "encyclopedia". The agenda in this case being, agruing ad-infinitum to purge the truth (that the mob was motivated by antiJewish hatred of Jews) from the encyclopedia. God forbid anyone should be able to use wikipedia to find out the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.221.93 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - we don't report anyones alleged claimed opinionated truth here Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the truth here specifically. I do admire Wikipedia's excellence on non-controversial subjects. Back to this specific truth, I refer you to the editor above who wrote: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters".

There should be no removal of pertinent information that she herself volunteered. That the trigger appeared to be someone shouting that she was a Jew is clearly relevant, as is that they were tearing at her scalp, apparently trying to tear chunks of it off. She gained the impression that she was being killed by being torn apart. There should be no censorship of this. Just as we gave the details of Iman Obeidi's sexual assault (the details she offered), we have to tell this one too. I can't even imagine why any Wikipedian would want to censor this. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is the version in the article, and this interview with Logan is the source:

On 15 February, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day. She was flown out of the country the day after the assault.[1]

On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. She suddenly felt hands touching her, and the more she screamed for them to stop, the worse it became. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They tore at her clothes, groped, and beat her, she said, and raped her with their hands, from the front and the back. As her clothes were torn off, she saw them take photographs of her with their cellphones. The crowd continued pulling her body in different directions, tearing at her muscles, and pulling at her hair, apparently trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[2]

She said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, because she does not want the assault to define her, and that she plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are often reluctant to report, in case it prevents them from continuing to do their jobs.[2]

  1. ^ Stelter, Brian. "CBS Says Lara Logan Suffered ‘Brutal’ Attack in Cairo", The New York Times, 15 February 2011.
  2. ^ a b "Lara Logan breaks her silence", CBS 60 Minutes, May 1, 2011.
SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking about censorship? As far as I can see the debate is about journalistic style v. encyclopedic style. What's that got to do with censorship? DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no censorship at all - we have no responsibilty to report what she reports, wikipedia BLP articles are not the place to report all the subjects commentary - we simply report the notable details with as little personal claims and quotes as possible to keep it independent ...well - notably npov. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
A woman describing a very public rape isn't an issue of POV or NPOV. She explains what she saw, felt, and heard happen. She explains how she felt. She explains why she spoke out. She did this via a very reliable source. There's no reason on earth to censor this (or whatever word you prefer to use). Anyone wanting to do that must explain why we are treating her differently from Iman Obeidi, also recently gang-raped, where we published every detail she offered. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
She was not raped she was sexually assaulted (in the manner of stripped and touched) you are buying into the story as involved - your reporting the issue in an undue manner.note I did not click on and am not willing to compare one article against another. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
She wasn't simply "stripped and touched"; please watch the interview. Anyway, this isn't an appropriate discussion; she gave her interview, we should report what she said; and leave it there. Wikipedia is not part of the wall of silence she talked about. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that SlimVirgin deleted material Logan provided, that SlimVirgin felt was unnecessary--including why Logan spoke out--it's pretty damn odd that SlimVirgin is now insisting on "no censorship" and that we publish "every detail she offered." We certainly should not publish every detail she offered. The transcript of the interview is four pages long. Mindbunny (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
That's an argument to include the details which SV's version doesn't have, not an argument to not include other details. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/ SlimVirgin that critical details from the interview be included. What she said in her interview should be reported and is encyclopedic. What seems to be coming from many editors is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact remains, the Egyptian mob behaved the way it did and one of the key catalysts was her being labeled a Jew/Israeli. Whitewashing any of it would be unencyclopedic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"That the trigger appeared to be someone shouting that she was a Jew is clearly relevant," That was not a "trigger", more like fuel added to an already raging fire, as Logan makes clear. All of this, from her interview, comes before the shout that she was Israeli: And I'm screaming, thinking if I scream, if they know, they're gonna stop, you know. Someone's gonna stop them. Or they're gonna stop themselves. Because this is wrong. And it was the opposite. Because the more I screamed, it turned them into a frenzy. Then: Someone in the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. Neither is true. But, to the mob, it was a match to gasoline. The savage assault turned into a murderous fury. Parsing the text makes it clear that the shout of "Israeli" came after the ("savage") assault had begun. Things that exacerbated the assault may be relevant, but it is not "censorship" to question how encyclopedic such details really are, and I don't appreciate people edit-warring and threatening over it (and getting the facts wrong). The version that should be in the article now is the older, pre-interview version, until some consensus can be reached on an update. Mindbunny (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But it is censorship to edit with the rationale: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters", as was accurately quoted from this comment page, by the unsigned user above. Whoever had put that in their argument has obviously now realized they exposed their own violation of Wikipedia rules in their motivation for censoring out mention of the antiJew "fuel on the fire", and removed it, so that their case for hiding the hatred of Jews among the assaulters is hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.50.200 (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I call "bullshit". No such comment has been made on this page. Mindbunny (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(grumble) I feel like we're getting away from the point here. There are really two issues developing - 1) The gratuitous narrative nature of the wording, 2) the Jewish thing. The latter seems to be squelching discussion of the former. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in the 2 issue. Can I re-propose my wording, which I feel attempts to put things in a more scholarly tone, and ask whether anyone feels it's worse than the current wording?


If not, can I add it? NickCT (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe it's important and encyclopedic to provide a quote of part of Logan's narrative of the incident. To not do so, is to not give complete picture of what happened. Additionally, I think it's important to report that the claims that she was Jewish was the "match to gasoline" in the intensity of the sexual assault. Without these details, we are not providing an accurate picture of what actually happened. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
NickCT, absolutely right - good job. That is a piece of writing suitable for an encyclopedia. However, I doubt it will be accepted. There seems to be agendas on this page that mean it's not worth spending much time here. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
@Plot Spoiler - "it's important and encyclopedic" - Really? Could you really ever imagine this kind of thing making it into Britinanica? I think you have a funny definition of "encyclopedic".
re "match to gasoline" - This seems both like both speculation and unecessary narrative. Isn't it enough to just mention that anti-semetic slurs were reportidly shouted?
@DeCausa - "I doubt it will be accepted. There seems to be agendas" - Alas... so true... but, don't let that stop you pushing for what you think it best. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
For months, this issue has been dominated by a group of editors who care about a single thing: getting something about "Jew" into the article. V7-sport, Bus Stop, various IPs, brewcrewer, jujitsuguy...the list of single-puprose editors is endless, and now we can add Plot Spoiler. And when one checks their Talk pages, one finds multiple blocks and ArbCom sanctions for issues related to Jewish/Middle eastern politics. I would be much more content to add the "Jew" comment if I could believe it was wanted by editors acting in good faith, i.e. with open-mindedness rather than a political agenda. Typically, they distort the truth, as the IP does above, completely fabricating a comment allegedly made on this Talk page, which in fact, nobody made. Or claiming the entire mob was chanting "Jew" as it assaulted her. Now we have a less sensational (and more reliable) claim that "someone" said "Jew", that it may have been a factor in what happened, but was not a trigger. I am abstaining from whether it is important to include it (but disgusted by the obvious agendas involved). However, I'd like to see the description of Logan's mindset during the assault, and her reasons for publicly descrining it. That is the part that actually gives insight into Lara Logan. The prupose of this article is to bring about understanding of Lara Logan. Mindbunny (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
@Mindbunny - re "dominated by a group of....single-puprose editors....obvious agendas involved" - LOL..... welcome to the Israel-Palestine debate. I used to get frustrated too, then I became numb to nonsense. You can't let it bring you down. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Jewishness was mentioned is in reliable sources. I don't see any reason to not include it. The fact that some users who have POV also want to mention it is not a reason to not include it. We have a lot of reliable material about this, and there's been no coherent explanation for why they shouldn't be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason not to include it is that, at best, it gives insight into the mob, but this article is for giving insight into Lara Logan. Mindbunny (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Do we have another article Mob that attacked Lara Logan? No. Is this a natural issue to understand why they would attack? Yes. By this logic I have to wonder if we shouldn't discuss in the article on Leo Frank why he was lynched or discuss racism in the attempted lynching of Dick Rowland. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Those cases aren't comparable. She was already being attacked. No reliable source says she was attacked mainly because of a belief she was Jewish. The claim is that during a mob attack--already in progress--somebody yelled "Israeli" (I daresay people yell a lot of things during mob attacks). Absolutely no reliable source has claimed that the main reason she was attacked was her perceived ethnicity. Mindbunny (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a difference in degree, not a difference in kind since that perception was relevant to the nature and severity of the assault. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Leo Frank was convicted of murder, and the anti-Semitism was considerably better established than a person yelling "Israeli" during an already-in-progress assault. Mindbunny (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Calling something ridiculous is not a useful argument. So is what matters now how strong we think anti-Semitism was involved should matter? That seems like that essentially comes down to our own POV and original research. Why not just go with what the reliable sources say? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading this thread one can not help but notice the unfortunate agenda-driven nature of some people involved in this edit war. I am compelled to pop in here myself to note that I too very definitely saw the: "we can't 'let' this story include any possible suggestion that antisemitism was in any way a motive of these assaulters" quote, exactly as cited earlier by two different people, written on this comment page above, before it was removed (by someone who must have wised up that it hurt their cause) sometime after four p.m. yesterday May 4. To the subject at hand, clearly all who check the reliable source, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, can see that this attack was indeed intensified by irrational hatred of all Jews (as noted by Pelley, Logan isn't even Jewish, but the fact that the mob thought she was, was "gasoline" that made them assault her more). The only reason to hide that fact, now that it is confirmed, is to protect the agenda of people who don't want included, relevant facts about this event, on the irrational hatred of Jews, that had the effect of pouring "gasoline" on this intense assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.178.114 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the IP above appears to be a sock of two others that have previously commented here (see here, here, & here). I'm a bit perplexed as to why this subject is accruing so much sock-puppeting and tag-teaming. This topic doesn't strike me as all that important. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if you're not attune to the undertow of the various agendas kicking around here (which I'm not particularly) the whole discussion seems bizarre and incomprehensible. I'm sure it makes sense if you have one of the POVs to push. I think the most accurate comment on this page is your last one: this isn't all that important. (BTW, just checked the edit history and I can't see what the IP sock is talking about, but maybe I missed it.) DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"For the record", I was the anonymous 96.224.50.200 VERIZON DSL user (today the Verizon pool apparantly gave me 96.224.61.87), but unless I have an undiagnosed multiple personality disorder that I am unaware of, I am very definitely not the person at 129.98.221.93 Albert Einstein College who posted earlier yesterday, or the other Verizon DSL customer, 108.14.178.114, who posted today. No need to apologize though. Though I did just look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) and confirmed what I suspected: that I've just been called deceptive and false without merit or reason. I can only assume that you must have good reason for calling the other two (or one) people "socks". Or is what they say about wikipedia being, by default, hostile to outsiders (Google: "wikipedia hostility to outsiders") really more true than it should be. And, yes the reaction to my one single comment (gee, he must be those other guys too) is kind of annoying. Particularly when also taking the time and space to add a comment that also complains that there is too much irrelevant arguing here! (kind of ironic) Brings me back to the old days of Usenet in the 80s when we used to endure long threads arguing that long threads arguing about long threads wasted bandwith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.61.87 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"deceptive and false without merit or reason" - Poor you. You have been abused haven't you? For the record, it's highly unusual for several IPs from the same geographic regions to start commenting on the same talk page, with the same opinion, in a short period of time. You were duly suspected.
Look. If you're going to comment here regularly, could I make a friendly suggestion that you register an account? NickCT (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on track

The 60 Minutes interview added the following information to what was already known:

  1. According to the 60 minutes interviewer, after the "savage assault" had already begun, someone called Logan an Israeli, and that intensified the assault.
  2. According to Logan, she continued to fight, when she thought she was going to die, because her children were counting on her.
  3. According to Logan, it is important to talk about the assault, to show that sexual assault should not deter or impede the careers of female reporters.

The purpose of the article is to increase understanding of Lara Logan. I advocate inclusion of the latter two points because they contribute to an understanding of Lara Logan. The first point may or may not advance understanding of that particular mob and/or Egyptian culture. I don't see how it advances understanding of Lara Logan. So I mildly, but not strongly, object to it. Mindbunny (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with the "Jew" comment is due weight. In the transcript of Logan's interview, it takes up about one line, out of a four page transcript. We are giving it the same space, in a single paragraph accounting. Mindbunny (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The third point informs the reader about something that is directly related to her job. (Logan is prominent for her job, not for other aspects of her life.) The second point is of no particular encyclopedic value: whether she did not want to die because of her children, or for any other reasons, is not relevant, after all, Logan did not die. The first point is obviously undue, the person who called Logan a Jew or an Israeli is neither known nor prominent.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the argument is really about. After reading the entire (long) exchange, I have not seen a single compelling reason why not to include the call that she was (supposedly) a Jew as a catalyst for the intensifying of the attack. This is not undue weight, and the fact that the transcript is 4 pages long as nothing to do with it—you'll notice that much of the transcript deals with details that are non-encyclopedia, and you yourself didn't want to include for that reason. On the other hand, not including this important line is called selective hearing / selective use of sources, and is a violation of WP:NPOV. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about perceived violations of WP:NPOV at this article, why don't you continue to work on Operation Death to the Invader?  Cs32en Talk to me  23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If editors want to decide that a rape victim's own testimony, which appeared via a mainstream, reliable source, should be omitted even though fully compliant with the policies, please open an article RfC for further comment, rather than continuing to remove it against consensus. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus for your preferred version.
  • The victim's testimony is four pages long. Of course we are going to omit some of it.
  • I am mostly trying to include part of her testimony--which you deleted. You are the one wanting to omit something.
  • The other issue is the tone of the narrative, which isn't very encyclopedic. Again, nothing to do with omitting. Mindbunny (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You arrived to remove key details from that section, including what CBS identified as a trigger (the "match to the gasoline"); details showing the severity of the assault; and part of the reason she chose to speak out. [51] There was an immediate objection to the removal, because the source is reliable and appropriate, and your edit was therefore reverted within minutes.
The way to proceed is to try to gain consensus for the removal. If that fails—and it has so far—then open an article RfC to ask for wider input. But don't keep removing it, please. It's fully policy compliant, so the onus is on you to justify removing it and to gain consensus for that. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact is, your preferred version has no consensus. I am not the only person to object to it in Talk. I am not the only person to object to it in the editing of the article. You are factually wrong when you say I removed anything having to do with why she spoke out. I added considerably to that part, and have said repeatedly that it is the most important of the new information. I don't have to gain consensus to remove your changes. You have to gain consensus for changes--which you have failed to do. Period. Mindbunny (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Please revert your revert. Mindbunny (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that while there is no consensus on some of the details, there is clear consensus about others, such as the inclusion of the call "Jew, Israeli" as being a cause for intensifying the attack on Logan. As far as I can tell, at least 6 editors are in favor of this, with 2 opposed. It also concerns me that Cs32en is making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the merits of the arguments presented. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A thought experiment

Imagine this. An Egyptian woman journalist arrived in central London to report on a political demonstration. Things were fine until her camera battery died. Suddenly she felt hands on her. Then she heard someone shout, "She's a Muslim!" At that point she was dragged off into a crowd of over 200 British men, who tore off her clothes, photographed her, and raped her with their hands—to the point where she suffered internal injuries—over a period of 25 minutes. They appeared to try to pull her apart, and tear parts of her scalp off. The attack stopped only when a group of British women surrounded her, and the police arrived to disperse the crowd.

Our source is an interview the woman herself gave to a major Egyptian television network, and there is footage of the attack beginning, so we have independent evidence that something happened. Would we be trying to omit the details that she offered, calling them unjustified and prurient? Would we want to censor that a trigger for the attack was someone shouting, "She's a Muslim"? Would we try to remove details showing the severity of the assault?

We all know that we would not be censoring, or in any way minimizing, that reporting. So please, someone explain to me what the essential difference is. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference, but it's not the point. The article shouldn't be written either as a tabloid piece or as an airport paperback. It's not "censorship" it's called being encyclopedic. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a compromise - based on SV's edit but with a reduction in the overall tone:

On May 1, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting in the square for an hour without incident. The attack, involving a mob estimated at 200 to 300, and lasting around 25 minutes, began when the CBS camera battery failed. Logan stated that she suddenly felt hands touching her, and in spite of her protests, the touching quickly grew worse. At one point, somebody shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, and according to CBS, this claim, though false, was a "match to gasoline." The crowd tore at her clothes and hair, groped, beat and digitally raped her. As her clothes were torn off, she saw some onlookers taking pictures of her with their cellphones. The mob continued violently pulling her body in different directions, to the point she feared she was going to die. Eventually, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the other women closed ranks around her. Some men who were with the women started throwing water at the crowd, and pouring water on Logan, who at that point was having difficulty breathing. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, and were able to beat back the crowd with batons.[8] Gatoclass (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This version seems acceptable to me, although some fine points might need to be changed if other editors oppose. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not sure it's the right approach myself. One particular concern I have with it is that it still implies the attack was mostly generated by the fact that someone "shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew" when that is at most a matter of opinion and IMO a rather dubious one. So I need more time to think about it. At the very least I think it could with some additional tweaks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin - regarding your proposed "thought experiment" - I would be upset about this style of writing if the victim were Egyptian, Turkish, Italian, American, Mexican, Russian, Brazilian, Indian, Chinese or Martian. It's just not encyclopedic... Period. Not encyclopedic. It would be nice if you'd acknowledge that people making the unencyclopedic argument might have some real concerns about style.
@Gatoclass - I think your version is a step in the right direction, but I think we could do a lot more. Here are a few specific objections.
" she was an Israeli, a Jew," - This tone is still far too novelistic. I think the correct language would be "she was an Israeli and Jewish"
"digitally raped" - (chuckle).. This is a funny term. I realize your good intent in trying to formalize the language, but I think we have to switch this out. When I think "digital rape" the first thing that comes to mind is ANI.
"match to gasoline." - I think this could be clarified. Perhaps "match to gasoline" which enraged the crowd.
I'd still prefer the version I'd offered above, but if make a few corrections to Gato's version I could live with it.... NickCT (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Nick about the preferred wording being "she was an Israeli and Jewish" which is more grammatical, and replacing "match to gasoline" to "which enraged the crowd" which gets the point across without using a cliched metaphor. Other than that, this version looks reasonable to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
"Enraged the crowd" places even more emphasis on this issue when as I already stated I think it is overemphasized. "She was an Israeli and Jewish" sounds too formal to me for the context: "I say chaps, did you know the young lady you are in the process of manhandling is both Israeli and Jewish?" I doubt that will work. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Israeli+ Jew, formal neutral language is something we should favor, and the other version is grammatically suspect. Regarding "Enraged the crowd" would "further enraged the crowd" be better? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
re "match to gasoline." - Hey Gato - My initial concern was that "match to gasoline" could be difficult to interpret. I was trying to clarify what the analogy actually meant. NickCT (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well perhaps I'm wrong about that. But "enraged" seems Or-ish to me in any case. "Match to gasoline" has the advantage of being less specific, not to mention being an actual quote IIRC, which prevents the possibility of misinterpretation. My main concern right now is not to overemphasize the "Israeli-Jewish" thing, and the safest way to do that IMO might be to stick closely to the source. But on reflection, I probably should have worked harder on an alternative version before making a proposal, as it now seems to have led to a discussion that might otherwise have been avoided. My apologies for that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What the 60 Minutes interview actually says, very clearly, is that she was already being "savagely assaulted" by the mob, already having her clothes torn off, prior to "someone" saying she was Israeli. This is the fourth time, I believe, that I have pointed this out. I have repeatedly quoted the relevant portion of the interview. SlimVirgin's analogy is factually distorted. The proposed wording above is factually distorted. 60 Minutes described it as a "savage assault" PRIOR to any mention of anti-Semitism, and attributes the anti-Semitic remark to a single individual. Get the facts straight. Mindbunny (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

All of this, from her interview, comes before the shout that she was Israeli: And I'm screaming, thinking if I scream, if they know, they're gonna stop, you know. Someone's gonna stop them. Or they're gonna stop themselves. Because this is wrong. And it was the opposite. Because the more I screamed, it turned them into a frenzy. Then: Someone in the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. Neither is true. But, to the mob, it was a match to gasoline. The savage assault turned into a murderous fury. It is already a "frenzy" and a "savage assault" That is the entirety of the discussion of the anti-Semitic remark, in the four page transcript of the interview. It is obviously not something that Logan considered critical. She makes no extended comment about it, doesn't dwell on it at all, devotes little time to it. As a matter of due weight, I wonder why we are giving it, proportionately, about 20 times as much weight as Logan did. (My estimate is that the interview is about 20 times longer than our section, and that we are giving it the same word count as the interview.) Mindbunny (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
So to make sure I understand, you think that something that caused something to turn into a "murderous fury" is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope, you don't understand. Big surprise. Mindbunny (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
So please expand your logic. Or restate your position using a different set of words so I can get what you mean. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
@User:Mindbunny - I mostly agree with your POV, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not sure all your debating is going anywhere. I think you basically have two options here - 1) Follow WP:DR and initiate and RfC, or 2) continue knocking your head against the wall. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with opening an RFC on this while the disputed, unencyclopedic content is still in the article is that, should there be no clear consensus to remove the content, it may be stay in the article as the perceived "default" version, or status quo ante. We already have a number of near single-purpose (or single topic) accounts here, who may just blur the debate enough to achieve a "no consensus" situation.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I offer the following distillation and summary of the long discussion above: There seem to be four basic opinions on the - "Jew" hatred sparking the crowd - issue here: 1. Agenda driven people with a fairly obvious prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, who are arguing to censor out any mention that a very public assault on a very public person was in fact intensified by anyone in the mob thinking she's a Jew and hating Jews. 2. Agenda driven people on the other side who insist on using this incident to prove that antisemitism is everywhere. 3. Legitimate opinions of wikipedians to leave the current text as it currently is: "One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew. CBS said this claim, though false, was a 'match to gasoline.'", because, clearly, that is what CBS News (a reliable source) reported. 4. Legitimate opinions of wikipedians who want to massage the wording so that it is more encyclopedic. I would offer the suggestion that those (1. and 2. above) who want to debate whether what happened to Lara Logan is proof or is not proof that the mob assaulting Lara Logan was a bunch of bigoted antisemites or not, do so on an antisemitism talk page. But clearly, (as 3. and 4. type commentators have eloquently and accurately explained) the CBS broadcast did clear and dispel (at least by Wikipedia standards) any earlier doubts whether those antisemitism related shouts (Israeli,Jew) were a real part of this mob attack. They were. Period. For those of you scratching their heads and wondering why the agenda driven people are so drawn to this specific article (Lara Logan), consider the fact that something like 10 or 11 million people watched that "Lara Logan attack" broadcast, so both sides (1. and 2.) are driven to prove that the broadcast proves their side's point. But the fact that the "Israeli, Jew" was shouted is now verified, and the fact that CBS News reported that this shout was a 'match to gasoline.' of the attack on Lara Logan, is also accurate, relevant, and from a reliable source, so it should stay in, in some form. But please keep the debate about what this means about Egyptian society on the Egyptian society page, and what this means about antisemitism on the antisemitism page. And let those sites reference the accurate quote they should be able to find here, on the Lara Logan page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.51.27 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article gives about 10 times more weight to the "Israeli" incident than Lara Logan does. Her interview is almost 14 minutes long, and about 13 seconds of it concerns the "Israeli" comment (I timed it). Let me repeat that: thirteen seconds. That's about 1%. If we kept our coverage in proportion to the victim's, I could feel more confident about due weight concerns. Mindbunny (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous user from New York. Please register. Don't sock. NickCT (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just took the time to actually read the transcript of the CBS interview (something I obviously should have done earlier) and a number of things became apparent. Firstly, I didn't realize this assault took place on a night of wild celebrations after Mubarak's resignation - I think that point needs to be made clearer in the article. Secondly, the story mentions the possibility that Mubarak agents may have been behind the assault - a point that I think is probably worth mentioning.

In relation to the issues already under discussion - Logan herself does not even mention the "Israeli/Jew" angle. It is only briefly mentioned by the voiceover, and the comment is obviously hyperbolic. It reinforces my view that there is little point in including this in the article. There are also one or two additional points that may be worth mentioning. For example, the initial comment from someone in the crowd: "Let's take her pants off" gives an insight, I think, into how the assault began which the narrative here currently lacks. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late, but actually the point about Israeli/Jew is incorrect. Logan does talk about it, but the 60 Minutes editing team makes her voice quieter while the narrator emphasizes this point, therefore it might not appear in the transcript. Watch the actual video to see this part. I think it actually puts more notability on this angle. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit

I've tidied this some more to take Gatoclass's points into account, though whether she herself mentioned the shout of "Jew" during the interview is irrelevant; CBS did, and I don't know what's meant by calling it hyberbole. It was at that point that the attack became more frenzied, according to the reporter, so it's clearly relevant.

I added the initial sexual comment, which Logan hadn't heard or understood at the time. And I added the point about no one knowing whether these were people from the regime, or just a criminal mob. So that section now reads: [52]

On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation that day.[1]

On 1 May, CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan. She said she had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident. The attack, involving 200–300 men and lasting around 25 minutes, began when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later the crowd had made inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard in the report shouting "stop," just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline." They began to tear off her clothes and rape her with their hands, while taking photographs of her with their cellphones. They pulled her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of Egyptian women were camping. One woman, wearing a chador, put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of Egyptian soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in hospital.[2] She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home.[3]

CBS said it remained unclear whether the attackers were from the regime targeting a reporter, or whether it was simply a criminal mob. Logan said she did not intend to give further interviews about it, to avoid being defined by the assault, and plans to return to reporting in trouble spots. She said she had spoken out in part because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and also to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters experience, but are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs.[2]

Notes
  1. ^ Stelter, Brian. "CBS Says Lara Logan Suffered ‘Brutal’ Attack in Cairo", The New York Times, 15 February 2011.
  2. ^ a b "Lara Logan breaks her silence", CBS 60 Minutes, 1 May 2011; transcript.
  3. ^ "CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests", CBS News, 15 February 2011.
Well thankyou for taking note of some of my concerns, but there are obviously a number of users who have already expressed concerns about this basic version, some of which at least I share, so we are still looking for a solution. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a good edit, and it appears to have taken into consideration all legitimate concerns raised. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Guys, there are comments on this page that are inappropriate and offensive; for example, the chuckle, and the "I say, chaps," and talk of "manhandling." A sexual assault shouldn't be discussed like this on a Wikipedia public page, and editors—including women editors—shouldn't be expected to deal with light-hearted comments about it. If we were discussing a black person (male or female) being pulled into a crowd of white men, and assaulted to the point where he believed they were trying to scalp him, there wouldn't be a single joke about it on this page.

If only for reasons of BLP, could I ask that people modify the tone, and keep the discussion to the minimum necessary to get through this? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has been plagued with persistent attempts to minimize or downplay the seriousness of what happened to Logan, and it's reflected on this Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
We can describe the incident as a serious assault without recounting all the details. Let's not conflate the issue of how much space we want to devote to this incident in relation to other events in Logan's life with the issue of how to properly describe the incident. I find it disturbing that this Wikipedia page currently contributes to define Logan's public image by the sexual assault in Cairo, and everyone who cares about our principles related to biographies of living people should think about whether giving this incident undue weight could actually be justified by the seriousness of the assault or not.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a very valid point to make IMO, that by giving so much weight to this sexual assault we are actually doing Logan a disservice, in that it has the effect of reducing her life and career to this one (admittedly horrific) experience. That is especially problematic, I think, given that Logan herself has effectively stated that she's determined not to make this the defining moment of her life. That's actually a pretty strong argument, I think, for reducing the overall proportion of the bio devoted to this incident. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The unfortunate fact is that this is probably the most famous "incident" in her life; in any event, she was quite clear that she wanted these details to be known. We don't include every single thing that she's said about it, but a single paragraph covering the critical details (which is what we currently have) is in no way WP:UNDUE. The article has, for example, three paragraphs covering the "Michael Hastings controversy", which seems fairly trivial (and fairly poorly written), yet we haven't seen concerted attempts to remove that paragraph. It's only the information about the sexual assault that editors (one in particular) have assiduously tried to downplay. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Jayjg. This is eminently reasonable and to deny that this incident merits even a single paragraph is frankly absurd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Slim, but that is a total misinterpretation of my comments. I don't for a moment dispute that this was an appalling assault. My point was simply that we should employ appropriate language to describe it. What I suggested was that the phrase "Someone shouted that she was an Israeli and Jewish" sounds too considered in this context. People who are trying to incite others to violence don't yell things out like "She's an Israeli and Jewish!", they just yell "Israel!" or "Jew!" I tried to underline the point with a touch of satire, but the object of that satirical aside was quite clearly the proposed phraseology, it most definitely wasn't the assault itself. Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's your comment so others can judge it for themselves:

"Enraged the crowd" places even more emphasis on this issue when as I already stated I think it is overemphasized. "She was an Israeli and Jewish" sounds too formal to me for the context: "I say chaps, did you know the young lady you are in the process of manhandling is both Israeli and Jewish?" I doubt that will work. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC) [53]

That followed:

... "digitally raped" - (chuckle).. This is a funny term. I realize your good intent in trying to formalize the language, but I think we have to switch this out. When I think "digital rape" the first thing that comes to mind is ANI. ... NickCT (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC) [54]

If you can't see the problem with writing like this, I don't know what to say.
Mindbunny/Noloop has used every excuse under the sun for months to downplay what happened. When it went to the BLP noticeboard in March, the argument was that we ought not to say anything until Logan herself had decided how much to reveal. This, though the source was Marie Colvin, a very experienced war correspondent, in The Sunday Times on February 21 (behind a paywall; courtesy link):

... The "information" is omitted because the one company originating it (various News Corp companies) ultimately has not named any sources, because it is not confirmed by the victim, because it is about something deeply sensitive and private, and BLP requirement stipulate high quality sources and sensitivity. Mindbunny (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC) [55]

... At some point, Logan may very well confirm the reports. We can wait. It's prudent and respectful. Mindbunny (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [56]

Fast forward to May 1, when Logan herself confirmed it in a 60 Minutes interview, and still the details are being removed or tagged. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] So this is not about quality of sourcing. This is about something else; I don't know what. Combined with the jokes on talk, it's something very unpleasant, and I think it ought to stop now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is attempting to minimize or downplay what happened to Lara Logan. There is disagreement about tone, and due weight. There are also concerns about agenda-driven single-purpose accounts. The page has been plagued by editors with long histories of disruption involving Israeli/Palestinian issues. Plot Spoiler has been sanctioned for the issue. Bus Stop, a previous disruptor here, was permanently banned (he doesn't seem very "permanently" banned)--for such issues. There are a number of anon IP's here now, all of them advocating the same view. What a coincidence! Brewcrewer, who recently reverted me, is in the same camp. These editors have shown interest in just one thing: getting an anti-Semitic allegation into the article. Regardless of source quality. Regardless of BLP concerns. Regardless of the results of discussion on noticeboards. Regardless of reason.
Meanwhile, there has been little substantive discussion of the actual topic. Points have been made and ignored.
  • The 60 Minutes interview is the authorative source on the matter. It devotes 12-13 seconds to the matter of ethnicity. In a nearly 14-minute interview, it gets 12 seconds. Lara Logan doesn't even mention it. It mentioned in passing by the voiceover. Those who know the context, the atmosphere, the intangibles of the incident don't think it merits more than passing mention.
  • The purpose of the article is to increase understanding of Lara Logan. What Lara Logan thought during and after the assault relates to that. Lara Logan gives more weight to those matters than to "someone" yelling "Israeli." Mindbunny (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Nobody is attempting to minimize or downplay what happened to Lara Logan"? That's all you've ever done at this article. We can't have good faith discussions if you don't make accurate statements. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I suppose I never will, since you have done nothing but make personal attacks. Above, some basic REASONING is provided. The REASONING behind the view that we are overweighting the "Israeli" incident is 1) The source mentions it only briefly in passing--12 seconds in a 14-minute interview, 2) It doesn't advance understanding of Lara Logan, which is the purpose of the article. Why don't you address the REASONING of those who disagree with you, rather just complaining, attacking, making personal remarks, and never actually addressing the REASONS that are given? Mindbunny (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. You have attacked various other editors here as "agenda-driven single-purpose accounts", describing them as "editors with long histories of disruption involving Israeli/Palestinian issues". If any editor here deserves the description "agenda-driven single-purpose account", it would be one who has essentially edited only two articles in his entire edit history, this one, where his entire purpose for editing is to minimize/downplay the attack on Logan, and Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Now, stop discussing other editors, and start making accurate Talk: page statements. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Accurate Talk page statement: Lara Logan never mentions anti-Semitism. The interviewer devotes 12 seconds to the topic, out of a 14-minute interview. Accurate Talk page statement: This article is for advancing an understanding of Lara Logan. That someone yelled "Israeli" doesn't tell us about Lara Logan. Accurate Talk page statement: It is your assumption that "what happened to Lara Logan" is equivalent to anti-Semitism. An assumption questioned by several editors other than myself. An assumption Lara Logan gives no sign of making. Accurate Talk page statement: I've made all these accurate Talk page statements before. Mindbunny (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Including the "Jew/Israeli" reference is, I think, non-controversial except to Mindbunny (as far as I can remember, although I really can't be bothered to check). SlimVirgin/Jayjg/BusStop/PlotSpoiler may well latch on to it as evidence of Arab "anti-Semitism" and want to highlight it but I think all neutrals (A) don't have a problem with its inclusion (B) realize that readers will see it for what it is: one individual says it in the crowd and, given Arab (or even Egyptian)/Israeli history, it's not that surprising it's inflammatory; it's pretty much like someone in a mob in Tehran shouting that a reporter is American, or someone in a mob in Delhi shouting a reporter is Pakistani or similar epithets in dozens of situations across the globe. So, my advice to Mindbunny (unlikely to be taken) is drop the stick it's not that big a deal, and it won't be taken as the POV-pushers think it will. What is a much bigger deal is the third-rate tabloid/pulp paperback style of the text that's currently in place which has no place in an encyclopedia. It's nothing to do with "censorship" or covering up anti-semitism (as a certain part of the blogosphere has it) but everything to do with appropriate style and tone for an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
DeCausa, I have no interest in emphasizing anything to demonstrate Arab antisemitism, or anything else, and I'd appreciate it if you'd withdraw that implication. My concern here is that Wikipedia not become part of the "wall of silence" that Logan herself mentioned, whereby professional women in certain situations are for some reason not supposed to mention when they've been sexually assaulted, or aren't supposed to go into detail. Mindbunny has been repeatedly removing details of the assault (not simply the shouting of "Jew"), first of all claiming that Logan herself hadn't offered them, then removing them anyway once she had. I can't understand why anyone would do this, but here it is, it's happening, accompanied by jokes about it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin's comment is, simply, a lie. I added some details and removed others. The main details I added, in fact, had to do with the "wall of silence."It is so important I added an entire direct quote of Logan's on the matter. SlimVirgin deleted it. I added details about what Logan was thinking and feeling as she was being assaulted. SlimVirgin deleted that. Combined with adding some details, I removed others. The needlessly graphic details that she was raped "from the front and the back," for instance." Others, such as Cs32en removed details, and still others have objected to the current version for being too detailed and taking a poor tone. The only "repeated" editing of mine has been to revert to the older, consensus vertsion which is what you are supposed to do when there is a dispute. I don't prefer the consensus version; it simply what policy says should be in the article until a new version is agreed upon. It is what would be in the article if SlimVirgin and others acted in good faith. SV's claim that s/he can't understand why I'd remove the "Israeli" bit is inexplicable, since I've said why three times, right here in Talk. Mindbunny (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep responding to this. All I can see is you repeatedly removing details of the assault that Logan herself has offered (not the Jew/Israeli issue), and—as Noloop—extensively editing Bitch (insult) (131 edits), including adding, [65] [66] then repeatedly restoring [67] [68] [69] a photograph of a dog, with the caption: "Its original use as an insult was based on a comparison of a woman to a dog in heat." I don't know what it means, if anything—and I apologize if I'm lifting material out of context—but it doesn't conjure up a happy image. I'm done here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about whatsoever about antisemitism. In fact, the only person who keeps bringing it up in this discussion is Mindbunny; he's raised the issue in at least a half-dozen of his comments. Also, it's quite inaccurate to divide the editors here into SlimVirgin/Jayjg/BusStop/PlotSpoiler and "neutrals" - please strike that contrast from your comments, or remove my name from it. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No? When have I brought up antisemitism (as opposed to Mindbunny or even you)? Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin/Jayjg/BusStop/PlotSpoiler is wrong, BusStop/Jayjg/JoshuaZ/PlotSpoiler/V7-sport/Ynhockey is correct.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It does? When have I brought up antisemitism here? Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
In reply to the request from SlimVirgin to withdraw the "implication" from my earlier post, my response is the same as it was to Jayjg: no. The strident concern to include this minor point is as transparent as the strident concern to remove it. Meanwhile, the text in the article remains poorly written Jackie Collins-esque pulp. DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin asked me on my talk page to address concerns she raised with respect to comments on this page about Lara Logan that she believes are inappropriate. Wikipedia (including talk pages) is not censored against material that makes others feel uncomfortable, including material that is insensitive or in bad taste, as long as our policies against incivility (as concerns editors) and biographies of living persons (as concerns article subjects) are adhered to. Nonetheless, I ask the people who made these remarks not to repeat them (or similar remarks) as a matter of courtesy and collegiality, as it is clear that they cause distress to a fellow editor without contributing anything to the development of the article. This deteriorates the editing environment and distracts from productive discussion focused on improving the article. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My take on Sandstein's gentle guidance and advice: Insensitivity and bad taste material on talk pages is not enough for an admin to bring down the hammer, but it would be better if there was less of it. So I called her "hot" and "fine" (which, besides being indisputable to those with eyesight, was in relation to a matter having nothing to do with Logan's alleged sexual assault - a topic I have no interest in since I sensed humorless and puritanical views (just sayin'). Sandstein has suggested that it's allowed per WP, but has gently, requested, without a demanding and scolding tone, that it may be distracting. Now, days ago someone else besides the Virgin kindly asked me to stop, and I promptly said I would oblige. (That oughta point out that moralistic berating which tries to shame others is less than persuasive.) I wonder why it's being drawn into the rape discussion; it seems to be a little bit of a gaming and misleading conflation. I now almost anticipate my documenting, with good sources, Logan's less-than-virtuous shoddy, corrupted and corrupting journalistic standards might be also made issue of where it was not intended to apply. Again, in regards to the rape discussion, which I had completley ignored until being dragged into it: My name is Bennet, and I ain't in it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking for myself: No. SlimVirgin's main approach to this disagreement has been to attack, usuaully by distorting the comments of others. The summary she left on your Talk page is a good example. The context of the "manhandled" comment was a discussion of the tone of the writing. All the other quotes are out of context too. Rarely has she addressed any of the many reasons that other editors have given for objecting to what she wants. It's just "my way or the highway." Your request is just impossible for me to take seriously because: 1) the editor whose distress we are supposed to avoid is extremely belligerent, 2) you don't appear to have carefully reviewed this page for yourself, 3) your previous block of me for edit-warring, at SlimVirgin's request, was completely bizzarro--coming when I had a grand total of 3 edits in the preceding 4 days--so I have to wonder about your impartiality. If you addressed your comments equally to SlimVirgin, I might be able to get on board. Mindbunny (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking that the sexist comments stop, and if they continue I'll ask for further action, because this is unacceptable. We've had comments that she's hot, [70] that her career advanced because she's attractive, [71] a chuckle about using the term "digital rape," [72] and comparing what happened to her as "manhandling." [73] It doesn't matter what the context is, and it doesn't matter what the disputes are, these responses are unacceptable, and it has to stop. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the first half of MB's comment. The examples given on Sandstein's Talk page are taken out of context (and to be clear, I haven't made any of the allegedly "inapropriate comments AFAIK). A good example is the "digital rape" comment. Clearly the "chuckle" was directed at the weirdness of the phrase - nothing more. I won't speculate on SlimVirgin's motivation for raising this as an issue in the context of her defence of a contentious piece of text she's written, but I'll AGF and say it's down to gross over-sensitivity. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You're completely out of order. I've provided diffs to the comments, and there is no context that could justify them. No one would be joking, not even slightly, if a black person had been dragged into a white crowd and been subjected to an assault like that. But sexism, unlike racism, is still allowed so long as it's in some kind of context? I'm sorry, I completely reject that. The Foundation has made it a priority to make Wikipedia a more friendly place for women editors, and this is exactly the kind of atmosphere that puts people off.
I am seriously asking myself why I'm involved with this project having witnessed the comments about Logan on this page and elsewhere. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You know full well that no one has been "joking" about the assault. It's looking increasingly like a smoke-screen to assist you in keeping in your edit. Frankly, you are the one to have done most to have cheapened the seriousness of the assault by your tabloid-style edit. DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
How could you possibly say "no one has been joking about the assault" given the examples SlimVirgin gave? The comments are sexist, offensive, and ought to be removed. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ditto that. I'm not weighing in on the content issue because I know it's been going on for a while and I don't have the necessary background, but "digital rape (chuckle)," for example, is clearly inappropriate. Yes, I suppose it might have slipped past without a double-take on the original user's part if they were running on very little sleep or were in too much of a hurry to think "Hey, that's really offensive." That's an extreme assumption of good faith. However, once it's been pointed out as offensive, there is simply no reason not to redact it. Consider the analogy: I tread on your toe. It was an accident, but it still hurts, so you ask me to remove my foot. I say "I didn't mean to hurt you" and grind my foot down. After all, I didn't mean it! (Likewise, the comment that she only received such "attention" because she's attractive is way over the line. Etc., etc.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we please get something straight here. Neither Nick or I were mocking the assault, and quite frankly I find the charge offensive. The "chuckle" comment from Nick was not mocking the assault, it was mocking my use of language, and he did that quite effectively. If anyone should be offended by the comment, it should surely be the person it was directed to, but I didn't find it at all offensive, although I'm still not sure what is wrong with "digital rape" as a phrase as I thought its usage was common and meaning well understood. Apparently not. Likewise with my use of "manhandling". It ought to be quite clear from the context that I employed that as an example of inappropriate use of language, to emphasize my sense that another proposed phrase was inappropriate. But Slim has repeatedly attacked me for the use of that word, as if I were not aware of its inappropriateness. The inappropriateness of such language was precisely the point I was trying to make. Why is that so hard for Slim (and apparently some others at this page) to understand?
Moreover, if Slim had just said something like: "Guys, I feel uncomfortable with you joking in the context of this debate, would you please refrain from doing so", I would almost certainly have responded positively to such a request. However, as I've tried to point out on several occasions now, she went further than that in that she effectively accused Nick and I of mocking the assault itself, and now others are repeating the charge. That's what I take issue with, because it amounts to a personal attack on the editors concerned with no credible evidence in support. That's obviously not in accordance with policy, and once again I appeal to editors to refrain from making such attacks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there's some canvassing going on here to build up momentum. It's nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, I have now struck the offending comment. Though I obviously repudiate any suggestion that the remark was intended to make light of the horrific assault on Logan, I accept that it was a clumsy comment that was open to misinterpretation. Hopefully now we can put this unfortunate misunderstanding behind us. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(how do you do that "outdent" thingee?)

The idea that the context doesn't matter is absurd. This is a discussion about what was meant, and context determines what is meant. It's as if two friends were horsing around and one them said, "I'm gonna kill you!", Sandstein and SV would, apparently, insist there is no excuse for threatening murder and demand an arrest. The whole approach to this problem deepens the problem. SV is accusing everyone else of being antagonstic and trying to control them, without any recognition of her own antagonism and refusal to work cooperatively. Sandstein either has a bias in favor of SV (I suspect this, after my gratuitous block), or just didn't bother researching the context before making his/her comment. Mindbunny (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit note) By using {{outdent}} or {{od}} which I've done per your request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Socking, blocking, and an RFC/U

Sandstein blocked The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous for 48 hours. This is so over the top, I've requested an RFC/U (Administrator) on Sandstein: [74]. Possibly, anybody targeted by Sandstein's recent comment here can certify it (not sure).

The user, OpinionAreLikeAHoles is almost certainly a sockpuppet: [75] Mindbunny (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Logan's reason for speaking of the details of the attack at Tahrir Square

A sentence I composed and inserted was reverted here. The sentence was supposed to be based on a part of the CBS 60 Minutes interview found below:

That night, her attackers faded away in the crowd. It's not likely anyone involved will be brought to justice. We may never know with certainty whether the regime was targeting a reporter or whether it was simply - and savagely - a criminal mob. It is true, in Egypt in particular, that sexual harassment and violence are common.

Logan: I had no idea how endemic that it is so rife, so widespread, that so many Egyptian men admit to sexual harassing women and think it's completely acceptable. In fact, blame the women for it.

Pelley: Why are you telling this story now?

Logan: One thing that I am extremely proud of that I didn't intend is when my female colleagues stood up and said that I'd broken the silence on what all of us have experienced but never talk about.

Pelley: What did they mean by that?

Logan: That women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do. They are not adrenaline junkies you know, they're not glory hounds, they do it because they believe in being journalists.

I'm not sure in what way my wording strayed from that which was conveyed by Logan in the interview. The video interview is found here. The exerpt above is found near the end. The transcript of that interview is found here. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you banned (twice, as I recall) from articles related to Israel/Palestine issues? Mindbunny (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny—this question is posed to Logan: "Why are you telling this story now?" We are writing a sentence in the article telling the reader why Logan is "telling this story now". You have made this edit here referring to "job opportunities". Logan says this, in that interview, of female reporters: "…they do it because they believe in being journalists." The phrase "believe in" implies more than just "job opportunities". Logan is not merely referring to any job that may provide income, but rather the particular calling of journalists. I have composed this sentence to paraphrase what Logan says in the above excerpt from the interview:
"She said in that interview that she was speaking out to break the silence about the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, especially as concerns its potential to prevent women reporters from doing their job."
Cs32en has reverted my above wording, so I am asking Cs32en or Mindbunny to please explain what fault either of you may find with the above wording that I have suggested, or please suggest alternative wording. If you suggest alternative wording I will try my best to give you feedback on it. Anybody else is obviously also welcome to provide suggestions on the best wording for this sentence.
I think this is an important sentence. Logan is here articulating the importance as she sees it of women reporters in countries where sexual harassment of women is widespread. She says: "I had no idea how endemic that it is so rife, so widespread, that so many Egyptian men admit to sexual harassing women and think it's completely acceptable. In fact, blame the women for it."
I'm hoping Mindbunny will use this Talk page in accordance with guidelines provided here such as: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Obviously I'm not "banned" from editing and Mindbunny should not be suggesting that I am banned from editing. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think Logan actually says why she is speaking out. The line on the prevalence on sexual harassment and assault in Egypt was something that she say took her by surprise, not that it was a cause for her to tell her story. The line on others being proud of her for breaking the silence on what happens to female reporters but is untold for fear of being unable to perform their jobs was something she said was unintended. I dont see what in the transcript actually answers the question as to why she spoke out. But as far as saying she spoke out to "break the silence" on sexual harassment in Egypt, that is just wrong. There hasnt been silence on that issue, in either the English or Arabic press. That is well documented and well known, at least to those who pay attention to Egypt. nableezy - 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

nableezy—you say, "as far as saying she spoke out to "break the silence" on sexual harassment in Egypt, that is just wrong. There hasnt been silence on that issue, in either the English or Arabic press."
It doesn't matter if others have known. Logan says, "I had no idea how endemic that it is so rife, so widespread…"
We are reporting Logan's reasons as given by Logan for why she is telling this story in this "CBS 60 Minutes" interview. What matters are Logan's perceptions, and indeed Logan's perceptions may be more "correct" than most.
Logan says that "women never complain". She says that she is "extremely proud". What is she extremely proud of? She is "extremely proud that she has...broken the silence."
She says that, "I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job…"
She is clearly expressing the sentiment that she is proud of speaking out about her experience of sexual harassment. She expresses that she is surprised that sexual harassment is as prevalent in Egypt as it is. She is clearly saying that women reporters do their jobs because they "believe in" the role that journalists play.
These are her opinions and they are spoken in conversation with an interviewer. They aren't stated in legal terms. You are expecting too much if you are expecting the 100% absence of ambiguity that you might find in for instance a carefully drawn-up legal document.
One of our jobs as editors is to paraphrase. To do that we must comprehend English well on a conversational level. And we must speak English well. We only go astray when we embellish upon what was said by the speaker, or when we make assertions on someone's behalf that they never made. Again, this is my suggested sentence:
"She said in that interview that she was speaking out to break the silence about the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, especially as concerns its potential to prevent women reporters from doing their job."
I believe Logan touches upon all these points in her conversation with the interviewer.
An alternative approach is to quote Logan. I think several quotes would be necessary to capture the full range of the sentiments she expresses in the interview. This is because she is not making a succinct statement. She is speaking on a subject. Her conversation ranges from the state of Egyptian society vis-a-vis women and the importance of journalism as a profession. She says that it makes her proud to be speaking out about her experience at the intersection of women's rights and journalism so that other women reporters not be intimidated into abandoning that as a career. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem I see is that you are assigning a cause for her speaking out where she does not give one. The line on her not knowing how widespread sexual harassment is in Egypt came before she was asked why she came forward. The line on her being proud is explicitly given as something that she "didn't intend". To say she meant to do something where she explicitly says that was not her intention is just wrong. To draw an intention of her seeking to "break the silence" about sexual harassment in Egypt where she does not say that was her intention is also wrong. nableezy - 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
nableezy—can you please tell me what you think Logan is expressing pride in? Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
She says pretty clearly what that is. But she also clearly says that was not her intention. To assign intention to what she specifically says was not intended is incorrect. nableezy - 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
nableezy—what was not her intention? She is here speaking in the present to the interviewer, named Pelly: her "…female colleagues stood up and said that I'd broken the silence on what all of us have experienced but never talk about." That instilled pride in her. Let me paraphrase: her feelings of pride welled up inside her when her "…female colleagues stood up and said that I'd broken the silence on what all of us have experienced but never talk about." She is saying that it never occurred to her that when she first expressed an intention to speak out about her experience, that others would bestow honor upon her for being so strong as to go public with such a difficult-to-talk-about subject. It doesn't matter in the least that her pride comes as a surprise to her. Her pride-in-self and the honor-bestowed-upon-her-by-others are to an extent a product of interpersonal relations: when her female colleagues expressed appreciation, she (Logan) experienced pride. But most importantly this interpersonal relationship between her and her colleagues is not taking place at the time of the Pelly interview. It took place at a point in the past.
Again, this is spoken of by Logan in conversational terms. We are not going to find the equivalent of a legal document nailing down each and every point. We have to make an effort to understand what is being said by logan—which is not that hard to do. This is a conversation. The interviewer moves on to the next point after he has received a satisfactory response. The speaker, in this case Logan, choses to reveal what she wishes to reveal. She isn't mentioning the points which she is mentioning for no reason at all. We as editors are permitted to stitch together the points she's making into one sentence as long as we don't misconstrue in any way her assertions.
Are her "colleagues" standing up before her as she is speaking with Pelly? If her colleagues are not standing up before her at the present moment that she is speaking with Pelly, then she is speaking about a past point at which her colleagues (figuratively speaking) "stood up" and said to her that she'd "broken the silence". But in the present, in her interview with Pelly, she is speaking of pride that she takes in deciding to go public with this. There is no contradiction between something not originally being her "intention", as you argue, and her present reason for conducting the "CBS 60 Minutes" interview. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
How about this, how about you tell me where exactly Logan says why she spoke out. Because she does not say why anywhere in the above quoted excerpt from the interview. The article currently says that Logan spoke out about the details because of this supposed silence over sexual harassment in Egypt and because she wanted to speak out over what women reporters face but do not talk about for fear of being unable to perform their jobs. Where does Logan say that this is why she spoke out? It is not in that interview. The line on her being surprised by the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt happened before the question of why she spoke out was even asked. How exactly is it that the article is attributing cause for her going public when she gives no such cause? She does not say that she spoke out for either of these reasons. The article makes claims for her that she herself does not make. nableezy - 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
nableezy, you say, "How exactly is it that the article is attributing cause for her going public when she gives no such cause?"
Again, this is my proposed sentence:
"She said in that interview that she was speaking out to break the silence about the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, especially as concerns its potential to prevent women reporters from doing their job."
Logan is asked in the interview: "Why are you telling this story now?"
Logan's response: "One thing that I am extremely proud of that I didn't intend is when my female colleagues stood up and said that I'd broken the silence on what all of us have experienced but never talk about."
She is speaking out because she thinks it's the right thing to speak out. This is part and parcel with taking pride in speaking out. While she might not have anticipated that her decision to speak about her ordeal would have received such a favorable reception from her colleagues, she is now proud of her decision to do so, and her understanding of the importance of "breaking the silence" is deepened by the response of other female reporters, some of whom probably try to practice journalism in Egypt.
Pelly asks her in his next question: "What did they mean by that?"
Logan's response is that, "…women never complain about incidents of sexual violence because you don't want someone to say, "Well women shouldn't be out there." But I think there are a lot of women who experience these kinds of things as journalists and they don't want it to stop their job because they do it for the same reasons as me - they are committed to what they do. They are not adrenaline junkies you know, they're not glory hounds, they do it because they believe in being journalists."
Logan is expressing in the above that there is a problem here. The problem is that women hesitate to speak out about, or complain, about sexual harassment, because the countercharge may be that they should not be women journalists in the first place.
We are allowed to paraphrase. You say, "The article makes claims for her that she herself does not make." In point of fact she clearly expresses that a reason for her speaking out is to provide support for other female reporters especially those in Egypt. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Where does she say that she is speaking out "to break the silence about the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt"? If you are saying that she when she says she was surprised at the prevalence of sexual harassment in Egypt that this means she is speaking out because of that then you are just flat out wrong. That line is not even in response to a question on why she was speaking out. Can you say what she says that makes you say that she is speaking out because of anything? To give intent to something that she either does not say was her intentions, or in the case of the latter part of the sentence which she clearly says was not her intention, is wrong. nableezy - 19:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Our biography of Lara Logan doesn't mention anything relating to the period in 2006 when she reported extensively from Lebanon and Israel. If someone has the time for it, this might be a good place to start gathering information.—Biosketch (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hastings controversy

Restored cited material twice removed from Hastings controversy. Neither time did the censoring editor explain the mass deletion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at it - the criticism that was removed seems to me to be a bit attacking and not informative and constructive, just nasty attacking comment as such its undue in a BLP.(self published as well?) That TABBLOG opinionated attack piece with the title "Lara Logan, You Suck" is the one I don't support its inclusion at all - just read it, its a rude self published attack article unworthy of linking to in the Wikipedia BLP of a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, the Rolling Stone is not Matt Taibbi's personal blog. That entry is certainly not an "opinionated attack piece" nor is it a "TABBLOG" (if that means tabloid blog) and it is certainly not self-published. I see no reason to remove Taibbi at all. nableezy - 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, Off2 is indeed misinformed, and could not have looked at the source. Even the quickest scan shows that Taibbiblog is published by Rolling Stone. (Bet he's paid too for it.) Taibbi is a respected and well-established journalist not well liked by those expecting a free ride from the press, e.g. Goldman Sachs. We do not use POV to censor RSs, and chivalry, even when directed towards one hella fine and hot reporter (Dude, I would have her baby in a minute - I mean, nine months.), is not our code. We're not at a baptist prayer breakfast. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I did look at the source - its like him blogging at Rolling stone - or his column at rolling stone - its an opinionated editorial attack piece. Also - If you continue on with your personal subjects about a living subject I will report you to an administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what a myself, or an adminstrator, or anyone else should make deduce from the phrase "personal subjects about a living subject." I can only regard it as a yet unsolved puzzle. Nonetheless, I will try to stay mindful of that editor may have sensitivities that produce scoldings, and proceed with some caution respecting that sensibility. Now, to the heart of the matter: Some things have been missed or not understood. One: if opinions per se were not allowed as RSs, then we could not include Logan's opinion on the Hastings article. Two: blog entries of notable and highly respected reporters, such as Taibbi, are RSs in the context of this discussion. Otherwise we could not allow to stay Greenwald's and McIntyre's opinions, regardless of how more mild there views were toned down and distorted effectively by POV. Finally, the whole basis of this section is Logan's opinion and those of those disappointed by her. The vehemence of their reactions should neither surprise anyone or be banned from WP. Again, we do not censor here.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe off2 was referencing your comments about her being a hella fine and hot reporter (Dude, I would have her baby in a minute ... which he was quite right to complain about. Kindly restrict such commentary to, well, somewhere other than wikipedia. nableezy - 19:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I still have no idea what ""personal subjects about a living subject" logically means. To be frank, it is nonsensical. However, you may be right and have correctly interpreted it. If statements about a reporters attractiveness, no matter how empirically sound they may be, are possible WP transgression, though it seems silly and harmless to me, I see no need to continue with them. Much appreciation for the effort taken made to explain it all to me. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Matt Taibbi wrote a column about statements Logan made on national television about a reporter at Rolling Stone. Taibbi's response is both relevant and notable. This is not some random schmuck with a grudge against Logan. What exactly does "opinionated editorial attack piece" mean? He attacked the premise that Logan made that a reporters duty is not to informing the public but rather to protect the flag. Logan slandered another reported claiming that he lied about certain comments being made on the record, without any evidence at all, and further said that this reporter violated professional standards by providing an accurate account that upset the military brass. What exactly in WP:BLP supports the removal of such commentary? The column is an attack on what Logan said, on the idea that a journalists job is to provide PR for their subjects and not to inform the public, not on Logan herself. If the column was simply an attack on Logan, then I could see removing it. But it isnt, and the claim that it is "an opinionated editorial attack piece" is inaccurate. nableezy - 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tidied this again. The version that The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous restored was a poorly written quote farm. Versions below:

Previous current
A June 2010 Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings quoted General Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff in Iraq disparaging U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other administration officials. As a result of the article, President Obama fired McCrystal as his chief commander in Afghanistan.[1] Logan criticized Hasting for violating a tacit agreement between reporters embedded with the military to not report unflattering banter.[2] But Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates noted that prior to publishing the article, the magazine had abided by all of the "express requests for off-the-record and background or not-for-attribution" made by the military.[3]

Some reporters condemned Logan. Matt Taibbi wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck" which found Logan ignorant about journalistic responsibilities, saying, "If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a 'reputable' journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it."[4] CNN's Jamie McIntyre said Logan's making issue of Hastings' lack of military service was both "clueless and unhelpful.", and her "ill-conceived attack" had "unfortunately reinforced the worst stereotype" of reporters embedded with the military by making them seem to be "'in bed' with them." Logan had, McIntyre said, effectively presented the "smoking gun" to those "looking for evidence combat reporters are too dazzled by the shiny stars on the commander's epaulets."[5]

  1. ^ "Times Topics Stanley A. McChrystal". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2011.*Cooper, Helene (24 June 2010). "Obama Says Afghan Policy Won't Change After Dismissal". The New York Times. pp. A1. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Kurtz, Howard (27 June 2010). "Interview With Michael Hastings; Interview With Lara Logan". CNN.
  3. ^ Martinez, Luis (25 June 2010). "Military Says Rolling Stone Broke Ground Rules on McChrystal Story". ABC News. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
  4. ^ Taibbi, Matt (28 June 2010). "Lara Logan, You Suck". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
  5. ^ McIntyre, Jamie (30 June 2010). "Lara Logan's Friendly Misfire". Military.com. Retrieved 27 July 2010.


Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist, Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters.[3] Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.[4]
  1. ^ "Times Topics Stanley A. McChrystal". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  2. ^ Kurtz, Howard (27 June 2010). "Interview With Michael Hastings; Interview With Lara Logan". CNN.
  3. ^ McIntyre, Jamie (30 June 2010). "Lara Logan's Friendly Misfire". Military.com.
  4. ^ Greenwald, Glen (28 June 2010). "The two poles of journalism". Salon.

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SV, I can understand removing the specific quote from Taibbi that was in the article, but I cant understand completely removing his view. Would you oppose a line that says something like: Matt Taibbi wrote that Logan's remarks about Hastings reflected what, in his view, was a problem among the news media establishment in that it acted as PR for its subjects, neglecting its duty to inform the public.? Im sure you could come up with a better sentence, but if you are opposed to including Taibbi at all Id like to see the reason. nableezy - 06:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection, but I'm wondering what it adds that the other two sources haven't already said. McIntyre said she reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters, and Greenwald said she had come to see herself as part of the government and military. Are we really adding extra meaning by having a third voice say it reflects a view of reporters acting as PR? But if you think it does, by all means go ahead and add it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the source as a whole, [76] I wonder whether it's appropriate for a BLP, especially when we have others saying the same thing, but differently expressed. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand BLP to the point that strong views are excluded. Greenwald, after a perfunctory nicety, also found Logan's standards to be degenerate. BTW, Logan made and excellent response to her critics. Even if I'm not entirely buying her line, it should be included. I'm sure there are lots of editors wishing to defend the fair lady's virtue, as it were.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The fair lady's virtue? She's a war correspondent, and what does her "virtue," whatever that means, have to do with this? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I think that was taken seriously. Never mind. Anyone wanna get busy and follow my tp? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I can agree with Slim that the "quote farm" should probably be reduced, and that a more concise version of this controversy would be appropriate per WP:UNDUE (just as I have argued per the assault section). However, I think the "clueless and unhelpful" statement should probably stay. When one war correspondent calls another's position "clueless", that can hardly be dismissed as a trivial criticism in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SV, the reason I think such a line should be included is because the others do not say the same thing. The line on her comments reinforcing the worst stereotype of embedded reporters doesnt say what that stereotype is. The line on her seeing herself as part of the military comes closer, but not quite where Taibbi went. Taibbi's point was about the establishment news media as a whole has stopped performing their duty and instead acts as PR in order to gain access, to be in the club. Logan's comments were, in his view, reflective of that trend. Nothing else really says that. If it were me, I would remove the line on the worst stereotype as I dont think that conveys any real information and add this. nableezy - 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think SV's rewrite of the section is better and more appropriate than the quote farm version. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the rewrite is for the most part an improvement as well. But I question the removal of Taibbi. Do you have any comments on including a line similar to the one I wrote above reflecting Taibbi's view? nableezy - 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This article being discussed at WP:BLPN

For those interested there is a discussion involving this article at the WP:BLPN. Link to it here. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's consensus at BLPN that the Taibbi piece should be removed as a source. Someone removed it, but then it was restored again. I left it in during my recent edit, because I'd removed it a few times before (as I recall), but I do think it's inappropriate for a BLP, so I'll be removing it soon if no one else does. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? That thread was opened with somebody saying that Matt Taibbi wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck" should not be in the article. That sentence is not in the article. Yesterday, you said you had no objection to including a line on Taibbi's criticism. Now there is a consensus that the source itself cannot be used? Really? Because a user misrepresents that source, first here and now at BLP/N, saying it is just a a personally attacking opinion piece? What exactly is a BLP violation in the text that I put in the article, that being that Taibi wrote that Logan's remarks reflected what, in his view, was a problem among the establishment news media in that it acted as PR for its subjects, neglecting its duty to inform the public. nableezy - 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the thread is objecting to the source, not to any specific sentence. I didn't mind the sentence itself (though it doesn't say much that's different from the point the others are making). But when I looked at the source, I changed my mind, as I posted yesterday. It's not really BLP appropriate. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please expand on why you feel the source itself is not appropriate for a BLP? It would be one thing if editorials in general were disallowed from BLPs (something I favor), but that is not the case. This is no different than any other editorial. nableezy - 18:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's very insulting, and I'm not aware of any particular expertise or notability of the writer. One of the other sources for the same point is a former war correspondent, so that's clearly relevant, and Greenwald is very well known, plus their comments are not so polemical. I can't see why you're so wedded to this one source. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No comment on content or appropriateness of source but Matt Taibbi is pretty well known and has won a National Magazine award for his column. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If you restore what McIntrye actually says is the "worst stereotype" of war correspondents is (that being that they are "in bed" with those that they are covering) I would not object to the removal of Taibbi. But Greenwald was just as critical as Taibbi, I dont see how you say his comments are any less polemical. Greenwald wrote that Logan views her role as protecting those secrets and serving the interests of those officials and later writes that Logan sounds like the most devoted member of McChyrstal's P.R. staff or even his family. nableezy - 18:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I won't restore the "in bed with" comment. Greenwald's article is not so insulting, that's the point. I'll remove the Taibbi for now, and if you want you can look around for something else, but I admit I'm struggling to understand why two responses aren't enough. Or even one. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine, Ill restore the in bed comment. You say that others have said the same thing so that is sufficient to not include Taibbi, but you remove the meaning of what they said. When all you say is "confirmed the worst stereotype" without saying what that stereotype is you havent said anything at all. I will also add from Greenwald that Logan saw her role as being to protect the military, not to inform the public. If you want to reword the "in bed" comment so that it does not contain those specific words, fine. But the meaning of "worst stereotype" needs to be made clear. Otherwise it is a worthless quote. nableezy - 19:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's clear what was meant. It's best not to labour points, overegg the pudding, because it starts to look as though WP wants to attack Logan for some reason, by including so much detail of other people's attacks, even when it's obvious what was meant. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont see how it is clear at all. I read that line by itself and I think what does that mean? The point that all those that criticized Logan made was that she misplaced her priorities as a journalist, that she said it was more important to protect the brass than it was to inform the public, that she acted as though she were part of a PR firm for the military instead of a reported. That point was not made clear in the article. I understand that you have this concern about the article not appearing as though it were attacking Logan, given the rest of the talk page I can even appreciate that concern. However, Logan was severely criticized as a result of these comments. I see those criticisms being watered down for no reason other than they may make Logan not look like the greatest reporter ever. nableezy - 20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy, look: "CNN's former chief military correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters. Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military."
People who don't understand that point aren't going to understand it any better if you say it in a thousand different ways. Anyway, what's the interest in adding so much criticism of this woman? It's there, we've said it, adding lots more quotes will make no difference to life, the universe, or anything at all. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I object to your characterization. I am not interested in adding "so much" criticism, I am interested in accurately reflecting the criticism that was actually made. I added something like 30 words to the article. Like I wrote earlier, the one thing that everybody who criticized her said was that she saw her role as one of PR for the military and not one of informing the public. That point is not made clear in the two sentences you placed above. And, again, without saying what the "worst stereotype" is you are saying nothing by saying "worst stereotype". I have not added "lots more quotes" (I added a single quote two words long), I have not overwhelmed the section or the article with criticism. I do not think I have done anything wrong on this talk page, certainly nothing to merit the tone (at least as perceived by me) of your comment. nableezy - 20:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, and I didn't intend to criticize you, so please accept my apology for that. I'm just wondering what the interest is in general. We do make the PR point clear: "had come to see herself as part of the government and military." That is exactly what that means. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Accepted. But based on this I dont know if I am allowed to comment here anymore, so Ill leave you to it. Though, if I could make one request before I step out, please look at the bottom section of the talk page and see if the article is accurately providing the cause of her coming forward. nableezy - 23:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taibbi has his partisans, including me, but after you consider what Greenwald actually said about Logan, he seems a little shrill, and even less effective a critic than Greenwald. She is not on the side of the angels in his mind. Again, is it being left to me to add Logan's defense of herself? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hastings again

Included criticisms of Logan for maligning Hastings lack of military service. How strongly they felt she should not have gone there is notable. Added McInyre's defense of Logan. Added Greenwald's Logan's views typifying journalism's decline, echoing in a more detailed - though marginally less emphatic - way some of Taibbi's sentiments towards Logan.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps people could comment on the versions. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
SV The Artist
Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist, Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters.[3] Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.[4]
  1. ^ "Times Topics Stanley A. McChrystal". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  2. ^ Kurtz, Howard (27 June 2010). "Interview With Michael Hastings; Interview With Lara Logan". CNN.
  3. ^ McIntyre, Jamie (30 June 2010). "Lara Logan's Friendly Misfire". Military.com.
  4. ^ Greenwald, Glen (28 June 2010). "The two poles of journalism". Salon.


In June 2010 many journalists reacted negatively to Logan's faulting Rolling Stone magazine's Michael Hastings for reporting unflattering comments of General Stanley A. McChrystal's and his staff's about U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other top administration officials. Logan disparaged Hastings for having not served in the U.S. military, did not believe what he reported, and said he violated an "unspoken" agreement between journalists and combat troops to regard soldiers' banter as off the record. She also lamented that due to the publication of Hastings' article, President Obama had fired McCrystal as his top military commander in Afghanistan.[1] [2]

Taking exception to Logan's maligning of Hastings' lack of military service were former CNN chief military correspondent Jamie McIntyre (now with Military.com), Glenn Greenwald of Slate.com, and the New Yorker's Amy Davis. McInyre said it was "clueless and unhelpful" for her to compare McCrytal's service record with Hastings', while Davis called Logan's approach in the matter "low", and Greenwald said that by furiously mentioning Hastings lack of miltary background, Logan had dropped her "neutral journalist mask."[3][4][5]

Logan's alleging of Hastings' poor journalistic ethics was said by Michael Calderone of Yahoo News to be unsupported by "any evidence."[6] In regards to other effects of Logan's views of Hastings on journalism in general, Greenwald said she had reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters of seeming to be "in bed" and too protective of the military brass they covered at the expense of informing the public. Greenwald also suggested that journalism students study the differences of the "The two poles of journalism" represented by Hastings and Logan to learn learn how Hasting represented what "journalism is supposed to be", and how Logan presented "what it has actually degenerated into." [7]

McIntyre on CNN's Reliable Sources found "insulting' that Hastings believed veteran military reporters would "write favorable stories in order to ensure access." McIntyre said he and his colleagues instead wrote balanced, accurate and fair stories with context, as shown, he said, by Logan's many "hard-hitting stories. That hasn't blunted her access."[8]

  1. ^ "Times Topics Stanley A. McChrystal". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  2. ^ Kurtz, Howard (27 June 2010). "Interview With Michael Hastings; Interview With Lara Logan". CNN.
  3. ^ McIntyre, Jamie (30 June 2010). "Lara Logan's Friendly Misfire". Military.com.
  4. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/06/defending-rolling-stone.html#ixzz1MHo3pbXF
  5. ^ Greenwald, Glen (28 June 2010). "The two poles of journalism". Salon.
  6. ^ {{cite web|date=29 June 2010|last=Calerone|first|Michael|url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100629/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2919%7Ctitle=Rolling Stone scribe lays into CBS reporter for criticizing scoop
  7. ^ Greenwald, Glen (28 June 2010). "The two poles of journalism". Salon.
  8. ^ http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/04/rs.01.html

There was also an in-between version where Nableezy added material to SV's version (Nableezy's additions in bold):

Logan was criticized in June 2010 for her remarks about another journalist, Michael Hastings, and her view that reporters who embed with the military ought not to write about the general banter they hear. An article by Hastings in Rolling Stone that month quoted General Stanley A. McChrystal and his staff—comments Hastings overheard while traveling with McChrystal—criticizing U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and other officials, as a result of which President Obama fired McCrystal as his commander in Afghanistan.[1] Logan said Hasting's reporting had violated an unspoken agreement between reporters who travel with military personnel not to report casual comments that pass between them.[2] CNN's former chief military correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, said her comments reinforced the worst stereotype of embedded reporters, that being that they are "in bed" with the military brass that they are covering.[3] Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military and that she apparently saw her role as protecting the military brass, not informing the public.[4]

  1. ^ "Times Topics Stanley A. McChrystal". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  2. ^ Kurtz, Howard (27 June 2010). "Interview With Michael Hastings; Interview With Lara Logan". CNN.
  3. ^ McIntyre, Jamie (30 June 2010). "Lara Logan's Friendly Misfire". Military.com.
  4. ^ Greenwald, Glen (28 June 2010). "The two poles of journalism". Salon.
  • As long as we don't report on these opinions based on independent, secondary sources, this all unencyclopedic gossip. (The New York Times articles about McChrystal do not mention Logan, they cannot be considered sources for this article.)  Cs32en Talk to me  23:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I can't see why there's such a fuss about this, unless I'm missing something. Something happened to McChrystal, something entirely unrelated to Logan. She commented on another journalist's involvement in it. Some people disagreed with what she said, which is fine, but it wasn't an outrageous remark. She was simply saying (I think) that some things are regarded as private; and when you've been allowed to travel with people, you respect that. I can't see how this could warrant four paragraphs (or even one) in a 1,200-word bio. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hastings cont

(If we could concisely excerpt relevant edits at issue, rather than submit a barrage of full diffs, it would be easier to get arguments and points across and consensus be found.)

  1. [unless we use] independent, secondary sources, this all unencyclopedic gossip. Very respected independent secondary sources are used. Michael Calderone, Amy Davis, Glenn Greenwald and McIntyre. The allegation of gossip (idle talk or rumour) can't hold. Davis, Greenwald and McIntyre - all very notable - agree that it was indeed outrageous for Logan was malign Hastings' lack of military service. They would not, nor could of us, call this "idle talk' in the least. Greenwald, for his part, also thought that Logan represented the what journalism had degenereated into. As for gossip, none is evident; these journalists relied on facts, not rumor. And opinions, especially Logan's which kicked off the whole kerfuffle, are at the very heart of the controversy. Only censorship of RSs would disallow them.
  2. "Something happened to McChrystal...entirely unrelated to Logan" was true until Logan chimed in and called out Hastings reporting and valor.
  3. "Some people disagreed with what she said" sugar coats it. See #1 above.
  4. "She was simply saying that some things are regarded as private; and when you've been allowed to travel with people, you respect that" McIntyre, who admires Logan as "hard hitting" journalist unafraid of being too critical of her subjects, military or not, was most emphatic on this point of military journalist not being bound be a unspoken code of silence. More to the point, Logan was talking only about the journalists ethics, not of subordinate government officals - of whom discretion is reasonable to expect and accept, or, as Virgin has logically included, was she talking about fellow voyagers on a cruise. Virgin's argument is too general to be helpful, but even if it were true in the military context, are there RSs to verify it?
  5. A point I may agree with in part is "I can't see how this could warrant four paragraphs (or even one) in a 1,200-word bio." Logan is an imminent combat reporter, and her controversial opinions on how her colleagues should act professionally can't be dismissed. The signifcance of what Logan said is too great per RSs. However, if we could bundle/condense the criticisms by category as it were such as, Hastings valor, Hastings truthfulness and Hastings alleged perfidy, or the implications of Logan's views for journalism's progress/degeneration, that might help. As would get ridding of extraneous bona fides, e.g, "former CNN chief military correspondent Jamie McIntyre (now with Military.com), Glenn Greenwald of Slate.com, and the New Yorker's Amy Davis." Even so, the addition of McIntyre's defense is a remedied ommision that should not be reversed.

In short, what some present as a pigeon turd, was, in fact, a shitstorm. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus to shorten it and remove the quote farm, so you lengthened it and introduced some new quotes. :) Also, the writing is problematic in places. I think we ought to return to the shorter version, which says the same thing without laboring the point. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall there being consensus that there was a "quote farm" though I can remember a comment or two about a previous edit. But no one has shown how the latest edit is a quote farm. I don't recall any consensus saying no more could be added. Your shorter version is not one that "says the same thing." No mention, for example, is made of Logan's maligning of Hastings valor, or of McIntyre's defense of Logan. Both valid, notable additions. There may be problematic writing, ought not you be more specific on that account? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a quote farm because you've added 12 quotes to it. :) Where does the maligning of Hasting's valor come from? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph talks about Hastings' valor being attacked. Among the tallied twelves "quotes", there have been several on word quotes, but since WP does suggest using prudent paraphrasing when possible, I felt the policy gave me little reason why I should ought not paraphrase those one word quotes, and others as well. "Low" is now "contemptible", and "unspoken" is now "tacit" Other short quotes have also been paraphased. Though WP suggests no ratios, I think the new quote tally of five disposes of any more arguments that a quotefarm exists. And it's now two paragraphs :)The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is absurd; you've taken what was already WP:UNDUE weight on a fairly minor issue, and expanded it to four paragraphs, and added 12 quotes to it. It's bad writing and, at this length, a WP:BLP violation. Is there anyone else here who supports these changes? Jayjg (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I've detailed the notable and prominent reporting of the Logan/Hastings controversy above and in the article, New Yorker, CNN etc... it is now time for someone to show why that adds up to UNDUE, rather than do no more than say it is. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No, the material is clearly taking a position, and turning what should be an encyclopedic article into a blog by expanding a fairly minor incident into a big deal. That kind of writing is fine for a blog, but an article here should not be used to record all possible negativity about a person.Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Not all possible "negativity" is in the section; tons got left out, such as Matt Taibbi saying Logan "sucked" and was jealous of a reporter scooping on her beat, the latter which Andrew Sullivan agreed with. Or Davis saying Logan was sticking up for a crummy failed general. The material, meaning the RSs, did take positions for and against Logan. (I'd love to include more RSs coming to Logan's defense, such as McIntyre's, but I haven't found them. I do encourage other do better than I have in this regard, which is one better than any one else, so far.) Many media outlets and figures took up the controversy(including Matt Taibbi, Andrew Sullivan, Huffington Post, Business Insider AOL's Daily Finance, Yahoo News) (I hope no one throws up the blogs-are-not-RSs-canard). None of this would indicate a minor incident", so, what besides an editor's unssuported opinion would make it UNDUE. Were we talking about her wardrobe (though interesting to me, and what she wears does effect the purchasing of other women, to the tune of millions of dollars), we would be discussing a obvious minor matter. But what we are talking about is her journalistic ethics, and the ethics of all combat journalists. And, as the many RSs show, is truly significant. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: too many editor's referred to the length of the section to go unnoticed and to doubt the merit of the perception. I've reduced the section to two paragraphs, and maybe half the size of my earlier edit.

Hastings consensus

I restored an edit that addressed concerns of other editors.

  1. Though it was not a quotefarm, it certainly isn't even faintly one now
  2. Logan's attack on Hasting's valor was the most egregious part of her criticism. We don't censor.
  3. Removal McIntyre's defense, which a wholesale restoration of an earlier edit.
  4. Objection to length of my earlier edit was addressed, and the current edit is marginally longer than Virgin's for only two reasons. The necessary inclusion of the valor issue and McIntyre's defense of Logan. if these were remove there would be no real difference in length of the edit form Virgin's. BTW, neither of these additions are disputed.
  5. All of the above were discussed on this page, and revert ignored status of the dialog. For example, Virgin wondered what was the valor issue about, an clear answer was provide, which was apparently ignored.

@The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You've just violated the 1RR restriction (see edit notice and talk-page notice). Please revert yourself to avoid a report. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That is right, and it has been undone. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I much prefer the read and the weight of SV's version. I thing AKA's version is over egging the pudding and it also appears to me to be over cited - eight citations in his write, half the citations in the whole article, SV's version has only four. I don't support unnecessary externals , not a cite farm. etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I still have no idea what you mean about Hasting's "valor," but regardless, there's consensus for the version currently on the page. It really doesn't need more views or quotations. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Glenn Greenwald content

  • "Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote that she had done courageous reporting over the years, but had come to see herself as part of the government and military.[4]"

This is the perfect example of why facts require secondary sources. So what this says is that glenn greenwald says lara logan is a sellout, and the implication that what he says is true. The 2nd one's not sourced properly because it's an editorial, and the 1st one isn't because it's still an editorial and you're using him as a source for himself (he's writing about his opinion). If you can just quote an editorial about lara logan and credit it to its author, then you can do that anywhere, about anyone.

So you don't actually have a proper source for that part, or the one before it, or the one before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.80.230 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Description of assault

Dispute over encyclopedic tone and level of detail in description of sexual assault. Mindbunny (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to the interview, which is the basis for this section: [77]. There is also a transcript, good for those who prefer text to video. Mindbunny (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Versions

Current version

On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak's resignation.[13] CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with her about it on 1 May 2011; she said she was speaking out because of the prevalence of sexual assault in Egypt, and to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs.[14]

She said the incident involved 200–300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. She had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later he heard the crowd make inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline". They tore off her clothes and raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of women were camping. One woman wearing a chador put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in hospital.[14] She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home.[15] CBS said it remained unclear who the attackers were, and unlikely that any will be prosecuted.[14]

Alternate version (based on previously proposed versions)

Logan was sexually assaulted by a mob of men while reporting in Tahir Square after Hosni Mubarak's resignation. The men beat her and raped her with their hands. In an interview with 60 Minutes (her employer), Logan said "there was no doubt in my mind I was in the process of dying." Her stated intention in doing an interview about her assault was to break a "code of silence." She said female reporters often conceal sexual assault, fearing future denial of hazardous assignments. Logan said she planned to return to reporting from trouble spots.

Other issues

Issue over whether to specify that "someone yelled Israeli". Points against it concern due weight. It only gets about 12 seconds, in a voiceover, out of a 13-minute interview; she spends more time talking about her children. The interview makes clear the shout did not trigger the attack, although it may have intensified it. The argument in favor is that it reveals the midset of the crowd, and is described as intensifying the attack.

Comments

An encyclopedia article on someone's biography shouldn't contain graphic details. Stuff like " She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died." is encyclopedic neither in tone nor content. The bit about the shout of "Israeli" is given very little wieght in Logan's account--12 seconds in 13-14 minute interview, and is more about the crowd than Logan. There may be validity to coverage of the use of anti-Semitism in popular uprisings in the Middle East, but this article is not the place to do justice to that topic. Mindbunny (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Both versions are bad – bad prose and choppy narrative. But if it's a choice between one or the other, then the original is better. It at least provides the reader with context. The proposed version leaves the reader without important details that not only convey the brutality of the assault but also indicate how Logan herself has reacted to it. (I've edited the article a couple of times and was active in the Discussions after the incident happened, so I've registered my comments under involved parties just to be safe.)—Biosketch (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Biosketch. Can you be more specific? For example, clarify what you mean by context? The context was the uprising and resignation of the President, which is specified in both versions. Both version specify the basic nature of the assault, i.e. that she was beaten and "raped with their hands". Both versions state Logan's reaction: that she thought she was going to die, that she wanted to break a code of silence. If you can be more specific about what you want, we can work toward a compromise. Mindbunny (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The current version gives a much better understanding of the incident, and expresses Logan's experience and views much better. It's also better writing. The new version leaves details about the assault, and is so brief that one cannot even understand what happened or what the pretext was for it. Also, this RFC "vote" is a travesty, given that RFCs are supposed to be discussions, and this was opened less than a month after the previous discussion on the same topic closed. Continually re-opening discussions on topics where consensus does not support you is disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by the discussion being "closed." No consensus was ever reached, and multiple versions were being discussed. The last comment I see in the archives is "...there are obviously a number of users who have already expressed concerns about this basic version, some of which at least I share, so we are still looking for a solution." This was said in favor of a version which is not the current version, BTW. In reviewing the archived discussion, I also noticed that you didn't direct a single comment at me that wasn't attacking. If you could be specific about your concerns, it would help us work together. For example, I'm not sure what you mean by the pretext. Logan gives no clearly stated pretext in the interview. Mindbunny (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now a lot from past discussions is coming back to me. Let's be honest: Mindbunny, when this article starting attracting attention after the incident was reported, you were adamantly opposed to mentioning "Jew" and "Israel" because the sources that reported the story couldn't specifically name a witness in that regard. Now, not only are there undeniably reliable sources that confirm "Jew" and "Israel" were part of the event but CBS itself has described those calls as being like a match to gasoline. That, together with the fact that CBS devoted a full twelve seconds to mentioning it, makes it vital to gaining a clear picture of the atmosphere surrounding the attack. Your continued insistence on leaving that out is exceedingly puzzling.—Biosketch (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
A "full" 12 seconds? Seriously? It's mentioned in passing; the interview spends much more time on her children. BTW, I have a preference for omitting it, not an insistence. I gave the basic reasons above. If somebody wanted to vote for the terser (alternate) version, with the proviso that the "Israseli" bit be added, that would be useful to finding a common ground. (The suggestion that I was a lone voice for this cause is wrong; several editors were ambivalent about it, before being bullied off the page by Jayjg and SlimVirgin.) Mindbunny (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like either, although the current version is the worst. It's unencyclopedic - written in airport paperpack pulp-style. The MB version is OK but it smacks of allowing Logan to soapbox. On the Jew/Israeli issue I don't think it's especially important or notable but I don't object to it going in. The best version is that proposed by NickCT in the previous discussion. Slightly tweaked, this is a version:

On May 1, 2011 CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with Logan detailing her recollection of an assault that took place on her while reporting in Tahir Square after Hosni Mubarak's resignation. Logan recounted that she was attacked and sexually assaulted by a crowd of men, who were reportedly spurred on by someone erroneously shouting that Logan was Jewish or Israeli. The attack continued for 25 minutes until a group of Egyptian women, and eventually soldiers came to Logan's aid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 June 2011 UTC
I like NickCT's version also. I based the one I proposed on it. I was looking for some compromise, and I do think that some information about Logan's view is relevant. It is an article about Lara Logan. At some point, we should edit "soapboxing" but at some point we also have to let the readers draw their own conclusions. (Her comments don't really strike me as soapboxing anyway--she's responding to her own experience.) The purpose of the article is to give insight into Lara Logan.
I'm disappointed the RFC has only brought one new voice to the discussion. I'm tempted to solicit views from the BLP noticeboard, but I've been so negatively involved in BLP issues lately, that it might not be best for me to do that right now. Mindbunny (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It's recentism will kill it in the end. When this is all blown over, someone new will come along, read it, say WTF and get rid of all the crap. And no one will care/notice. Patience. DeCausa (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support new, proposed version. Or some other, similar change removing the luridity of the current detailed version. Mindbunny (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the version labeled "Alternate version" above. Specifying that "someone yelled Israeli" isn't useful in an article about Lara Logan. That's a small detail that 'might' give some insight about the mindset of the crowd, but that's not really relevant in this article. Sancho 22:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current version. See expanded comment above.—Biosketch (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current version. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current version, and protest this disruptive "vote", given the previous discussion closed less than a month ago. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I suspect that improves might still be made but I agree that the current version is better than the proposed version. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current version, well documented. Nevard (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support either cut-down version. The existing account makes up about a quarter of the article content, and in my opinion is clearly WP:UNDUE. It's one event in an otherwise notable career. If there's significant detail on the event, put it in an article about the event. As it relates to Lara Logan herself, a quarter of her biography page dedicated to it is blatantly unjustified. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Alternate Version - I've commented on this issue extensively above. I'll simply note here that my primary concern is the "encyclopedic tone" of the article or lack thereof. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Alternate version This version contains all essential information about the incident, and anything more would be clearly undue. Also, the wording of the "current version" is not suitable for an encyclopedia.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current version. The incident is sufficiently important as to warrant complete coverage. The incident involves centrally Lara Logan therefore complete coverage of the incident logically and appropriately belongs at the Lara Logan article. I read a comment which is actually an inapplicable comment: "There may be validity to coverage of the use of anti-Semitism in popular uprisings in the Middle East, but this article is not the place to do justice to that topic." That comment is actually inapplicable because no mention is made of "anti-Semitism" in our language documenting the assault on Lara Logan at Tahrir Square. Our language documenting the assault includes mention of the shouts of "Jew" and "Israeli" because that is what transpired. Interpretive language attributing those shouts to "anti-Semitism" is absent. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current version. Per bus stop. V7-sport (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Blog

Collapse text copied from a blog, not a WP:RS. Dreadstar ☥ 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a different story entirely at http://temorisblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/rape-women-stripped-what-really-happened-to-lara-logan/ which declares that Lara Logan wasn't seriously attacked (though she may have been badly frightened). [Témoris Grecko] was buying tea from a vendor in Tahrir with two friends, Amr Fekry, a 26 year old Egyptian call center agent, and Andi Walden, a San Francisco political science student. Then we heard the noise and saw the mob coming. A blonde woman, neatly dressed with a white coat, was being dragged and pushed. It didn’t seem to me she was panicking, but rather trying to control the situation. They passed us in an moment. They were yelling “agent!, agent!”

I tried to run to intervene, but some Egyptians I didn’t know prevented me from doing it. There was nothing I could do and, as a foreign journalist, I’d surely end up being accused of being an agent too, and attacked. Fekry did go there and dissapeared into the crowd, 50 or 100 people strong.

Later I spoke with two young male activists who helped the person I later learned was Lara Logan (I didn’t know her before, I don’t usually follow US networks). They were Omar El Shennawy, a 21 year old teacher of English, and Abdulrahman Elsayed, a 25 year old teacher of physical education. They said they had formed a human chain with other young men to protect Logan, and then delivered her to the Egyptian Museum military post.

When I read CBS’s story and it’s interpretation by other media outlets, I felt troubled. It seemed misleading. “It didn’t make sense to me”, said Benjamin Starr, from Boston who arrived as a tourist on January 24th, and stayed to witness the uprising. He also saw the mob pass by with Lara Logan. “I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe something happened in another part of the square, but from what I saw, she was being taken by men to the soldiers, and her clothes were not torn off. There were no women, I didn’t see a single woman in the crowd around her.”

Similarly, in hearing the CBS’s communiqué, Amr Fekry wrote on my Facebook wall: “It’s a little bit ridiculous what we hear that she was raped in Tahrir!! We were there! You remember she was about two meters away from us when we were buying tea! Maybe someone harassed her, but she ran and people protected her from being hit! I tried to go and help her but many people pushed me hard to go away as they thought I was trying to hit her. The only thing that some people only thought she was an Israeli spy!”''

... I went to ask Abdulrahman Elsayed, and he related a similar account. “I was in front of her, one metre away. This was after I saw her running with a man beside her. They stopped, maybe because someone blocked their way. We formed a human chain to protect her. Only young people, 10 or 15, all men. We surrounded her. People behind us were pushing and trying to grab her, someone might have touched her. I saw her top was uneven. There was a women and children’s tent (Tahrir sq. had become a campsite) and we tried to take her there, but we couldn’t because of the pressure. Someone had a taser and he held it high, making electric noises and threatening the attackers. He told them to move away. So we could go to the Museum’s military post and deliver her to the soldiers. Then we stood there blocking the people who tried to follow her. We brought her two doctors, first a young male, then an older female. The doctor and Lara were the only women around.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulAmir (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:TakenbyChrisHondros cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TakenbyChrisHondros cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

copyrighted picture

Hi, a user has added a pic and I have cropped it and added the cropped pic - looking at it and after asking the uploader and getting no reply its a copyright violation. I have nominated it for deletion at commons. As I have made one revert today if anyone is passing and agrees with the assessment - please remove it and replace the previous picture, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 June 2011

I agree that needs to be settled and have restored the original image. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Noted. I am glad to see the removal. I was a little bit quick to crop it and replace it and should have investigated a bit more first. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape definition

Without wishing to diminish the ghastliness of Ms Logan's ordeal, or the culpability of her attackers, but should sexual assault conducted with hands be classified as "rape"? Would such a definition be allowed in a criminal conviction: and if so, where? (Egypt, for example?) BobbyGillespie (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@BobbyGillespie - Without commenting on the substance of your point, I just want to let you know you've touched on a very "hot-button" topic. Any attempt to change that wording will likely result in debate, rancor and hurt feelings. If you want details dredge through talk page history. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't our place to determine whether or not what Lara Logan endured qualifies as rape in a given legal system. It's enough that reliable sources consider it rape for us to call it that.—Biosketch (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The sources don't present it as a legal description, or present it in a way that means the source itself "considers" it be rape. It's the words used by Logan herself. It should therefore be in quotes. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
If the RSes don't use the word "rape" objectively, then you're right, the article needs to attribute the word to Lara Logan. I wouldn't do it with quotes, though, if it's only going to be around that one word, because it'll look like scare quotes and scare quotes usually come across as pretentious. Better would be to find a more sophisticated way to make clear that it was Logan herself her defined her experience as being raped. And I haven't gone through the sources to determine one way or the other, so what I'm saying is purely on a hypothetical level.—Biosketch (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The section is basically a summary of what Logan said, often using her actual words but without quotes. It should be clearer that that is what it is, rather than independent staements by the sources themselves. The rape phraseology stands out since it's an unusual use of the word in legal terms (and arguably not a very common non-legal usage) and requires some sort of clarification. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added the phrase "in her words" to the text, but did not include quotes. DeCausa (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Lara Logan's been selected to receive the Daniel Pearl award this year in October (source). I'm not sure if mentioning that now qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL.—Biosketch (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Logan's also in line to receive the John F. Hogan Distinguished Service Award on 26 September (source).—Biosketch (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interviewed by Marvin Kalb

As I write this, C-SPAN is airing an interview that Marvin Kalb, via his "The Kalb Report", has done of Lara Logan. The on-stage interview occurred this past Monday Nov. 7th, 2011, at the National Press Club. Presumably a copy of it SHOULD be available at C-SPAN's web page.
http://research.gwu.edu/centersinstitutes/globalmedia/programs/thekalbreport

LP-mn (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian sources?

Is there any Egyptian sources on the sexual assault at Tahrir square? This seems to be quite a big story in the US and with so many players involved it seems likely that some of the Egyptian press might have covered it.

Journalists keep getting raped in Tahrir square . . . On November 24, 2011 French television reporter Caroline Sinz from the state network France 3 was subjected to a violent sexual assualt by a gang of young men and boys and her cameraman was beaten while covering the "democracy protestors" (yeah,right) in Tahrir square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.49.158 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

First Marriage Incorrect

She was married to Jason Siemon in the late 90's. Her divorce became official in 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/arts/television/23loga.html?pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.116.233 (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Header - Reporting from Egypt and sexual abuse

This title needs to be changed to "Reporting from Egypt and alleged sexual abuse". No trial, no evidence, just one reporter's account. Also, this entire section is a soapbox for Lara Logan's political ideology - quote after quote, instead of an encyclopedic description of significant events.Bureacracy (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Could you please point to specific quotes that you believe represent political ideology? Because what I'm reading is a first-hand account of a sexual assault. As for alleged, I don't think there's actually any question that the event took place, and there are no names named. That change is unnecessary, IMO. Kate (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim of sexual assault is an allegation, not a fact. The title is misleading and this section is a meme for CBS media and its fellow travelers. Hopefully, a rational moderator will issue corrections to this page.Bureacracy (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a "meme"? CBS media has "fellow travelers"? Your comments don't make sense to me, sorry. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does the section header use the word "abuse" and not "assault"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.54.30 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "assault" is the more appropriate term. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012

Edbenson98 (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What about it? What is the edit you want? DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Not done: It sounds like the request is to add this to the list of ELs on the article. If that is the case I say no as this article already has too many ELs. If the request is to add this as a source to a statement in the article the requestor needs to explicitly state where in the article this should be placed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

university Alliance Française?

University Alliance françase doesn't exist in Paris. It's just a private school like the British Council for learning english. So the source is wrong. Thanks 

There is simply no such institution.  The Alliance Francaise is not a university and doesn't run one.  This should be amended but how?81.129.1.88 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Better Government Assn luncheon

she gave a speech at the BGA slamming the administration for its lies with respect to afghanistan and the al qaeda resurgence. she added that she was non-partisan and would have slammed any administration "equally full of shit" (her words, not mine!).

it was shocking in its bluntness and has pretty much gone viral. why isn't it in here? 66.105.218.19 (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

lurid details

Do the lurid details of the sexual assault really belong in an encyclopedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A woman reporter, trying to do her job, was attacked. It is not an exaggeration to say that she was almost killed. She provided an account of the attack. I do not think that her account of an attack on her can be characterized as "lurid details". I think a harsh reality transpired. I think this is pertinent both to the individual being written about and the political event that she, as a reporter, was covering. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More info needed

More information is needed about Lara's ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.152.221 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not tendentious at all

using a polemical word like "propagandist" seem inappropriate to the encylopedic writing style: "Lincoln Group propagandist Joseph Burkett." publicist? representative? spokesman? all more even-handed, which is the tone to be aimed at, i think. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.132.246 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The euphemisms you prefer are neither accurate nor useful. A spade needs to be called a spade. Mr. Burkett has freely admitted the scope of his job in Iraq. Please go to the Lincoln Group Wikipedia page. The now defunct organization was clearly defined in references as doing nothing but immensely high priced, politically partisan and blatant propaganda. The description is painfully accurate. Activist (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014

Please change "Université de l'Alliance Française" to "Alliance Française". There is no such thing as the "Université de l'Alliance Française". The Alliance Française is "an international organization that aims to promote French language and culture around the world" according to its Wikipedia page. [1] When you Google "Université de l'Alliance Française", the only hits are from Lara Logan's own biography. Nowayjose1900 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Brycehughes (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Lara Logan

Cyberbot II has detected links on Lara Logan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.rtnda.org/pages/posts/rtdna-honors-linda-ellerbee-with-paul-white-award-lara-logan-with-john-f.-hogan-distinguished-service-award1456.php
    Triggered by \brtnda\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Lara Logan

Cyberbot II has detected links on Lara Logan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.rtnda.org/pages/posts/rtdna-honors-linda-ellerbee-with-paul-white-award-lara-logan-with-john-f.-hogan-distinguished-service-award1456.php
    Triggered by \brtnda\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lara Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lara's Benghazi report

Why is Lara back on 60 minutes after knowingly put on a Benghazi report that she knew had errors and had a political context and would have effects politically? Dan Rather made a mistake and they kicked him off purposely. She knew and is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobe67 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Back at CBS

The page needs to be updated. Here's a suggested addition to the page:

According to the Associated Press on June 4, "CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said Wednesday that Logan is back. She had no details on when the correspondent resumed work and what stories she is working on." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/04/lara-logan-back-at-cbs-as-questions-linger-over/199604

Danpetitpas (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

  • 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) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lara-logan-late-of-cbs-joins-sinclair-broadcasting-to-cover-us-mexico-border/2019/04/10/e19a62de-5b3d-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html?utm_term=.fe48ce14f1b7

Adding that she now works, at least temporarily, for Sinclair. SEC California (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 19:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sinclair should be described as 'conservative'

This is very simple. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict restrictions

This article has been under active ArbCom restrictions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since 2011. Per a request at my talk page I looked into it. The connection at that time was pretty tenuous, and nothing since has happened to make it more appropriate, so I have removed the notice and the restrictions. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Appearances on Fox

Happening pretty frequently and might deserve mention. Her new show No Agenda is noteworthy. Tinybirdie (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

AOC conspiracy theory?

We shouldn’t be quoting a Daily Beast article as an authoritative source - the article cited is an Opinion piece Tjavsky95 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Antifa section

This entire section is based off of that one Daily Beast opinion piece, and should definitely not be cited as fact - recommend deleting entire section or adding additional sources Tjavsky95 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Claims about Antifa

"Fact-checkers found that claims of bricks being left at protest sites were baseless."

Seriously? "fact-checkers?" We saw pallets of bricks multiple times at multiple locations where rallies, marches, etc. were going to occur. This is NOT a conspiracy no matter what some biased "fact checkers" claim. We saw them with our own eyes! 76.202.192.102 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

recent removals

The Greenwald quote is there as representative of the criticism of Logan over that incident, and there were much more severe critiques that were removed in favor of that. The "exact revenge" bit is available in any number of sources (and I replaced the dead link instead of removing it entirely in bad faith now). The Daily Beast bits dont seem especially controversial, or inaccurate, but what exactly is the issue with it? nableezy - 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove all of my edits wholesale? For example, removing from the led that she was chief of foreign affairs at CBS News for 12 years? Is that not a "tendentious" edit? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware how insanely bipolarized the US media landscape is at the moment. Lara Logan has recently signed up for a FOX News-related streaming service, and has been critical of Obama and the "liberal bias" in mainstream US media. Hence, quoting "The Daily Beast" just won't do, I'm afraid. https://adfontesmedia.com/daily-beast-bias-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-beast/ it's very tabloidy, pop-y... and it's failed fact-checks numerous times. Let me put it this way, it's most important writer/contributer/editor/employee is Marlow Stern. Let that sink in. And them come back and tell me that this is an appropriate source to be talking about a multi-award winning war correspondent who was the chief of foreign affairs at CBS News and has reported from (and lived) all over the world. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Just saying it just won't do is what just wont do, Im afraid. There isnt any dispute about what is in the section the Daily Beast is cited for, she did tweet out a hoax antifa instruction manual, she was called out for it by Media Matters, she did claim that Media Matters has a campaign to destroy her. And the falling for hoaxes bit is not just covered by the Daily Beast, it is also Salon.com covering the same. As far as chief correspondent, the cited source says she had been one of the unit’s top foreign correspondents. If you want to change that get a source that supports the change, not just use one that does not support it. That was a straightforward WP:V failure, so no, not a tendentious edit to remove. Unlike attempting to purge material on the basis of a dead link. nableezy - 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
If you're going to insist on playing dumb with regards to the media landscape in your country (Media Matters? Salon? really?) and are intent on maintaining this BLP as close to a hit piece as possible, then I'm not going to engage. It's all tabloid-y nonsense, not worth my time. Enjoy. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I follow WP:RS, not the dictates of User:EnlightenmentNow1792. But toodles, nableezy - 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is a "reliable source" in your eyes? How disappointing. Incidentally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Daily_Beast and I quote: "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about any of this material though. You yourself put in your edit summary I have no idea if the substance of the criticisms are 100% true, and they are in fact 100% true. What is controversial about anything cited to Daily Beast? nableezy - 17:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
How about this doozy: "Since then, Logan has tweeted right-wing conspiracy theories, such as speculating that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her election to office because of some unspecified plot operated by unknown entities Logan believes control antifa activists." sourced to The Daily Beast, which of course, sourced it to a tweet. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Um, she did do that. Here. So again, what exactly is controversial about what is sourced to the Daily Beast? Since everything you bring up is verifiably accurate. nableezy - 18:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, if that's what passes muster as "encyclopedic" content for you, then there's not much point in us having a conversation. We obviously operate on two different planes, and I'm just as happy keeping it that way. Enjoy. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, toodles. nableezy - 19:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Lara logan

Desperate for attention? I understand, haven't heard your name since you left CBS. 2603:6000:D640:1949:4554:E5F1:D124:571C (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent statements

Not sure what happened to you, never that influential, but now attempting to use horrible events in history to strengthen yourself in what is a right wing narrative is not helping the Republican Party! You are attempt to raise credibility in what is now a declining career is disgusting on so many levels. You may find support, though comparisons to the Holocaust is destructive and reflection if you as a person. The party needs leadership not “you”! Gd help your children. 2601:401:C501:8770:F0A7:9812:A356:289B (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia professing ideology

Wikipedia is ought to be "the free encyclopedia" and many believe in that. Yet in truth it is clearly ridicularizing ideas that doesn't match some ideological base in which wikipedia is founded.

This is clear in this section, when it calls "conspiracy theory" the narratives of Lara about the ukranian conflict. It is clear to any meticulous observer that wikipedia is biased into torwards the western narratives and russofobia, while in fact this narrative are itself showing to be fake even in the US media. Big tech is a shame. 186.227.92.62 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources and not the opinions of random gullible people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Scientific consensus?

"In November and December 2021, Logan promoted falsehoods and conspiracy theories about AIDS and COVID-19. She shared articles that disputed the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS."

1) If there are articles disputing it, then clearly it is not a consensus ("general agreement", COD).

2) Even if there were a consensus, disputing it would not be "promoting falsehoods", as pointed out by the late Michael Chrichton:

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If there are articles disputing it, then clearly it is not a consensus That is bullshit. Of course there will be some incompetent people doubting the consensus among competent people. See also Scientific consensus on climate change, where the situation is the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah! So some people doubt the consensus because they're incompetent. How do we know they're incompetent? Because they doubt the consensus. Voilà! Doubtless Galileo's Pope would have agreed.
"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there any serious debate that HIV causes AIDS? nableezy - 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your polite question. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that there is. I hope get back to you shortly with some references. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong. You won't find a WP:MEDRS compatible source questioning that. Instead, you will find opinion pieces, weak primary sources, and articles in predatory journals. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the case, O Omniscient One, Lara Logan's talk page is clearly not the place to discuss it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The How do we know they're incompetent? Because they doubt the consensus. is not how it is. That is only how every expertise looks from the outside, to people who neither share nor like that expertise.
You should read WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Since we're on the subject, you might take at look at Wikipedia:Civility. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It is not possible to have a discussion with someone who starts whining about "civility" as soon as someone disagrees with them. Face the facts: HIV causes AIDS, and only outsiders have doubted that in the last thirty years. People like Matthias Rath who caused thousands of AIDS deaths by misleading the South African government into believing his vitamin crap. You will not succeed in turning Wikipedia away from science and towards quackery. We have rules preventing that, and I gave you links pages explaining those rules. If you think that making you uncomfortable by linking to information you do not like is "uncivil", that is a problem of yours, not of mine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
What you are describing is a majority view: that is not the same as consensus ("general agreement", according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary). Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of consensus is "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group." The word "general" means that the agreement doesn't have to be unanimous. After all there are still some people who believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer despite many years of good quality studies. That is clearly true for the HIV/AIDS link as well.~~~ Thalia42 (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Breast Implants not relevant

Last sentence in Personal section mentioning breast implants is not relevant nor is it cited. 65.66.76.130 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone verified the basic facts of her Tahrir Square attack?

I'm just curious to learn whether any other news person or news agency has independently verified the basic facts surrounding the Tahrir Square attack that Lara Logan said targeted her and caused her to spend three days in a hospital in Egypt in 2011. 2601:200:C000:1A0:D83:32BD:89E5:E84C (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 2

Consider these two quotes: 'Logan was hired in 2000 by GMTV Breakfast Television (in the UK) as a correspondent' and 'CBS News offered her a full-fledged correspondent position in 2002'

Either (in the UK) needs to be removed from the former, or (in the US) needs to be added to the latter.

Could someone undertake? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:FD4C:2554:8A55:1C38 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Would it be fair to call her a conspiracy theorist in the page's opening sentence, assuming we can have reliable third parties judging her as such based on the Rothschild stuff and other things she peddles? Aresef (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It might be fair but it seems unnecessary. She's probably still best known as a (once) legit journalist. Her trafficking in conspiracy theories is introduced in the second paragraph of the lead, and detailed in the main body. This seems like a better approach than applying the label "conspiracy theorist", and I'd say gets the point across. CAVincent (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Good point. I guess my concern was she’s more of a conspiracy theorist than she is a journalist at this point but I have to keep in mind NPOV Aresef (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_fran%C3%A7aise
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lara_Logan/Archive_2&oldid=1188933677"