Talk:Jason Leopold

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

Notice of topic-ban for user Jimmy McDaniels[edit]

Editors of this article should note that a topic-ban exists for Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs) and applies even if he is logged out. The discussion that lead to the ban and the details of the ban can be found here:

User:Jimmy McDaniels is topic-banned from any articles related to Jason Leopold and Truthout, broadly construed. Non-disruptive talkpage discussion is permitted. This restriction includes all edits made while logged into a Wikipedia account or not (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

His typical IP address ranges are 75.56.xxx.xxx, 76.246.xxx.xxx, and 76.251.xxx.xxx. They geolocate to Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, North Hollywood, and occasionally Glendale. These details can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels. See Archive 2 to understand the reasons for this ban.

Edits which appear to be made by Jimmy McDaniels should be reverted. Persistent disruption from these IP ranges should be reported to WP:AN/I for enforcement of the topic ban. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yworo, good to see you are still watching :) Arkon (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I did stop watching for a while, but checked in occasionally and noticed that lately there has been some further disruption. Yworo (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air force religious training material[edit]

I have attempted to rewrite the Air force training material to be a bit more neutral and encyclopedic and less breathless. Its worth noting that, although i credit Leopold with writing the original article [1], the article itself does not list Leopold as the author. I have emailed truthout to find out what the story is, and will update this article if need be. Bonewah (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, might want to keep in mind that the editor who originally added the material is topic banned from this article (see above). Arkon (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a glitch in their blog software. Good job rewriting. Though the editor who added it is topic-banned and should have put a request to add it on the talk page, it appears to be a significant article and should certainly be neutrally reported in the article on the subject. Yworo (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored "awards"[edit]

I've looked at the references for these, and there don't seem to be any "awards" involved. These appear to be simply "Top 25" stories of the year lists, not awards. To get some idea of the importance of these "awards", they should be reported by a third-party source, not the source supposedly presenting the "award". Calling these "awards" does not appear to be objective or factual, but simply someone trying to build up the subject. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the latest entry for being even more irrelevant than the rest. Leopold was only one of several sources pointed out for his involvement in this story, and not even the first to publish. This is number 7 in a listing of top stories of the year, and doesn't even single out Leopold for mention, except as one of multiple sources, doesn't attribute the "breaking" of this story to him or mention an award of any kind in the text. Yworo (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are people and publications on wikipedia who list "project censored awards"

Since it mostly honors top 25 of independent media the coverage of the "awards" which is a top 25 list of stories not getting bigger coverage it's written about by places like New Times, etc. Alternative weeklies that is. Here is an article from the San Francisco Bay Guardian on the 2011/2012 honorees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.222 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's stories that get the awards, not people. Whatever the situation, for it to be called an "award" on Wikipedia, the source cited has to call it an "award" and specify who received the award. If rather it is simply a "top 25" story, then it should be listed as a "top 25" story and the subject's article should be the earliest.... breaking a story is one thing, jumping on the bandwagon after another journalist broke the story is something else entirely. If other Wikipedia articles misrepresent a "top 25" story of the year as an "award" then those articles should also be fixed. I do believe Project Censored does bestow some awards; I don't believe everyone mentioned as connected with a "top 25" story can be assumed to have "received an award" for it. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondent for 95bFM?[edit]

The article currently states that Leopold is the 'US correspondent' for 95bFM in New Zealand. According to that station's website, 95bFM is a college radio station, and i can find no mention of Leopold anywhere on their site. The only reference to Leopold being their correspondent is from 'the public record' here. Im not entirely sure that the claim being made here is true, and, even if true, it is noteworthy. I propose removing the whole sentence. Bonewah (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold is listed as "American Correspondent" here. But that's from 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenThePackIsBack (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This entry on Leopold is biased. It pays quite a bit of attention to two points in time. The Plame leak and the Salon fracas. Has anyone tried to find anything positive to balance this out? I've noticed this has been going on for a while. Leopold is still working, obviously. Surely there are other things that ha e happened in the past six years aside from the lower two entries on BP and USAF. 208.54.39.183 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Lawrence Cutter[reply]

You might be right, but those were the incidents that received the most attention from reliable sources. I must also admit to being very wary of contributions from anonymous editors on this topic, as the subject and/or his surrogates have often tried to turn this into a fluff piece. I'd recommend introducing edits and their sources here first before addition, as I believe all those watching this page are reasonable editors. I hope we can address your concerns. Arkon (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the article is a little confusing. It reads like he doesn't work there and then he does. Shouldn't it say that he's there now so people who read the article know that is where he is now? If you only read the first sentence and skip the rest you're left with an impression that is where he used to work. RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2012
bias and double standards with the article continue. Please cite why the citation to Leopolds book is unacceptable and why the citation to a book on which the editor criticizes Leopold is acceptable. Why is there no attempt to update this article but plenty of work going into keeping its tone negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.230 (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citations should be to third-party sources which discuss the subject. They should not be to primary sources by the subject. Interpretations of primary sources is original research. Yworo (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just delete the page. This stuff is dumb. That's so not the deal for other wiki articles. Smells like bias to me. Damn coming close to a decade. 75.56.200.58 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request action to stop the bias and allow for new material[edit]

if there are so many people watching this article than why isn't anyone adding new stuff? That activity on the Freedom of Information Act is important for this article. Requesting conflict users weigh in on this article and review the edits and the questions that other people talked about regarding the bias. Also, request people to tell Bonewah that I ain't a banned user. It's really annoying. RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, telling people to always take it to the talk page to do edits isn't the way it works for other wiki articles. That goes against the whole community thing. Anyone can do a google search and find all the new stuff that they should use to update the article so I don't get why new stuff isn't added to the article like it is for other articles like for journalists and celebs and politicians. RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other editors don't ask to take things to the talk page on other articles doesn't mean they can't. If they do ask, you should be prepared to discuss. That's simply part of collaborating. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request people allow this stuff to be included. There hasn't been any real answer why it was scrubbed. It just was for no reason.

=Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit ==
Leopold and the group National Security Counselors sued the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration and other government agencies and that they violated a section of the FOIA law for five years by refusing to give people who file FOIA requests a date as to when their requests will be ready as the law requires.[1] In June, in response to Leopold's lawsuit, the FBI and the National Archives and the Office of Director of National Intelligence issued new policy guidelines to their staff and told them to comply with requests about giving estimated dates of completion regarding FOIAs when they're asked for it. FBI's FOIA head David Hardy explained the new policy guidelines in a declaration. RT said, "It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless." [2]
  1. ^ "Why I'm Suing the FBI, the DOD and the CIA". Truthout. Friday 17 February 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "FBI loses legal battle to investigative journalists". RT America. Monday 23 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "accessdate 13 August 2012" ignored (help)
  • The sources you have listed here are a self-published posting by the subject of this article and an (apparently) unattributed blog posting. While self-published material is sometimes accepted for statements about oneself, that is generally limited to biographical information. The unattributed posting cannot even be evaluated as a reliable source as there is no author listed and it is unclear if there is any reliable editorial review of the content. The actual content you wish to add may be acceptable (I am unfamiliar with the subject area), but it cannot be added without reliable third-party sources. If this suit and its outcome are notable, then surely there are third-party sources that have commented on it. Can you find some of those sources and post them here? Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me about this. I'll go look. I only found it cuz it was on tv and then there was a link to the article on youtube I think. But the tv show and the article are the same news source. So the article should have someone's name on it who wrote it? Is that what you mean? I'll try to find one. What about the tv show? Thanks! RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here's one link I found. This is one from when the FBI was sued in February. I'll look for more and then other ones after too. RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

First off, your claim that it was removed without explanation is false. It was clearly explained that it was removed under the "banned user" policy. The editor who removed it believes you are a sockpuppet of Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs), who is banned from editing this article. Any editor may remove content they believe is being added by a banned user. I also believe you are a banned user, based on the IP address that you also use when you forget to log in. So, you are allowed to post suggestions for changes on this talk page, but you are not allowed to edit the article yourself. Clear? If you have a problem with this, follow the instructions given you in your dispute resolution request. Yworo (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did that come from? Why would I be a banned user? And so just cuz someone believes something makes it true? How would my IP address come up as banned? Where was it banned? I added new stuff and would think other people who want to add new stuff to. So why wouldn't anyone want the new stuff on an article? I dont' get it. I'll follow the instructions about the resolution.RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because your behavior is similar and the IP appears to be located in the same geographic area and Class B subnet of the same ISP as the banned user. You can find the complete history leading to the ban here. Even if you aren't the banned user, if you are editing on behalf of either Jason Leopold or Jimmy McDaniels, you may be treated as if you are the banned user. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's cuz I live in Hollywood? Well, then what do I do? Is there someone who can talk to me? All, I'm saying is that there's some stuff that's new I think it should be included. Like on the Whitey Bulger page. There's some stuff they totally didn't include but it's pretty new. Like a link for example that was missing and I put that in. And the neighbors who lived in Santa Monica there's a lot missing from there. Anyway, can you let me know? RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can do exactly what you just did, post your proposal on this talk page and wait for the regular editors to discuss it. I'd give it about a week for discussion if I were you. There is no hurry. Yworo (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the ban is a topic ban, it applies only to this article, Truthout, and closely related subjects. I suggest you go edit some completely unrelated articles for a while. Yworo (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also, is there any feedback on the new stuff? RavenThePackIsBack (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sources[edit]

Do you think there is any value in using any of these sources:

I dont think that either of the Salon article or the Rove indictment sections are badly done, but i dont think they are fantastic either. Do any of these sources add enough value to be included in this article?

leopold doesn't work for truth out anymore[edit]

He's a contributor to Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B014:B048:AB31:C8B2:A68:183 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While neither site has any announcements about it, truthout no longer has his name on their roster and Al Jazeera has stories from him. It would be nice if we had something a bit more reliable. Bonewah (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note showing he departed Truthout in May 2013 and cited the truthout.org/about-us Wayback page for that date. 71.150.132.80 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh....http://america.aljazeera.com/profiles/l/jason-leopold.html and http://www.aljazeera.com/profile/jason-leopold-.html

and how about updating this entry with all of the FOIA work and coverage he's gotten for his FOIA work and FOIA lawsuits that received coverage? http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/17/61225.htm and http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/09/judge-orders-guantanamo-procedures-unsealed-172845.html and http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/09/doj-sued-over-access-to-report-on-cia-detention-policies.html

How about his lawsuit against FBI for Michael Hastings file that got covered? http://www.ibtimes.com/michael-hastings-still-under-fbi-investigation-controversial-reporting-after-death-according-1404127 and http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/lawsuit-launched-against-doj-for-fbi-records-on-michael-hastings/ and http://www.dailydot.com/politics/fbi-investigates-michael-hastings-story/ and more ...

How about the story on the Guantanamo hunger strike manual that he wrote for Al Jazeera that Mos Def made a video of? http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954140.html and https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-prisoners-rights-human-rights/video-yasiin-bey-mos-def-undergoes-force and http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/6-horrifying-revelations-about-force-feeding-guantanamo

Or what about his story last week on the NSA's talking points that went viral? http://www.businessinsider.com.au/911-nsa-talking-points-2013-10 and http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-11-01/ten-talking-points-nsa-uses-justify-its-spying and http://www.salon.com/2013/10/30/nsa_top_soundbite_push_911/

And what about the story he broke on the dead Guantanamo prisoner and the FOIA on that? That got covered in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/politics/suicide-by-pills-is-cited-in-death-of-guantanamo-detainee.html?_r=0 http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dod-report-on-adnan-latif-death/

The point? This article is way out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.163.212 (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi Jason. Ive updated the page to reflect your current employment at aljazeera. The rest does not seem to merit mention in the article. Bonewah (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article continues to be completely out of date[edit]

And avoids dozens of new stories that have surfaced over the years all in an effort to keep it negative. https://medium.com/matter/the-secret-to-getting-top-secret-secrets-1f693eaf609a104.12.136.14 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated and biased[edit]

This is a HIGHLY biased article that purposely is kept negative. It fails to include nearly 8 years of new information, including awards, articles written about Leopold, his exceptional use of FOIA and testimony to Congress.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6089:8D00:5409:B0C3:A367:A09B (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


FOIA WORK

Unbelievable the people here keep this out and insist on relying on decade old material in order to promote a bias:

https://medium.com/matter/the-secret-to-getting-top-secret-secrets-1f693eaf609a

http://www.spj.org/quill_issue.asp?ref=2137

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141012/18162528805/nsa-finally-releases-keith-alexanders-financial-disclosure-documents-national-security-remains-uncompromised.shtml

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/24/72774.htm

The list goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.12.136.14 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff could probably find a place in this article. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Absurd not to do so. Jusdafax 05:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a bad article and very outdated. Not including Leopold's FOIA work, widely written about by other reporters, makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80C8:8D50:7972:6815:9F01:FF24 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jason Leopold. 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) 19:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen and Trump[edit]

He was one of the two reporters who wrote an article on BuzzFeed "claiming that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project." (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-buzzfeed-story-on-trump-tower-moscow-is-different) If this story is accurate, it is a significant achievement; if it is incorrect, it is a significant black mark for the reporter. Once the dust clears, this report needs to be included in our article. 146.0.62.30 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note the article on Leopolds co author Anthony Cormier includes this which Leopold's doesn't proving my point that this is being steered toward negativity.

On April 5 2019, Cormier co-authored a story that was presented as an update to the January 2019 story and vindicated their reporting. The April story referenced a 12-page memo submitted by Cohen’s legal counsel to Congress that said President Trump “encouraged Cohen to lie and say all Moscow Tower project contacts ended as of January 31, 2016 using ‘code’ language”.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B04A:C632:18B9:523A:4072:8788 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

The exclusion of controversy puts this article in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE. The controversies are well known/documented, so immediately readers are going to wonder about Wikipedia's reliability when viewing this article, which reads more like a fan-site. Disclaimer: Jason was an online buddy of mine years back, and agreed to help editors at the BP article by proofreading my suggestion for our BP oil spill coverage. This might be considered a COI, but I do believe if I had the time, I could pen a neutral controversy section here. However, I do not have the time, so have resorted to tagging the article for now. petrarchan47คุก 23:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • Reporter with checkered past comes back with Trump Tower Moscow bombshells for BuzzFeed CNN
  • Subject's Challenge Derails Reporter's Book Project WaPo
  • Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again CJR
  • A Wizard at Prying Government Secrets From the Government ("series of scandals") NYT
  • BuzzFeed reporter, after rebuke by Mueller, unable to explain discrepancies (still unfolding but mentions past controversies) Fox
I disagree with the claim that we are excluding controversy, we cover both his high profile 'controviersies', the salon article about the Tom White email and the sourceless Karl Rove indictment claim. The accusations of plagarism from Salon and FT are in the Salon section, we could expand that or any of the other sections, feel free. There is brief mention of his FOIA work, nothing too extensive, that could be expanded too. Ive held off on the latest Buzzfeed thing so that details can come out, but if you are wanting to add that, again, you are free to, i have no objections per se. Bonewah (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very good, thanks. Per WP:LEDE, high profile controversies mentioned in the article need to be summarized as well in the Lede. Right now there is nothing. I'll try to find some time unless others get to it. petrarchan47คุก 21:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been biased and negative for years. It goes out of it's way to focus on the negative while avoiding positive to balance it out. Completely heavy on issues from the early aughts and avoids much of the past 8 years. Talks about an Emmy but doesn't speak of the story for which he was nominated. includes that he was a Pulitzer finalist and doesn't talk about that series either. The worst part is the FOIA entry which minimizes the extent of his work. And that first paragraph is hilarious using outlets, some of which don't even exist anymore. Finally, the photograph. Leopold has been a regular on maddow and Chris Hayes. Surely the picture can be updated. It does seem like its there to push that negative tone.

Also if you are going to include National Review, then balance it out with noted media critic and journalism professor Dan Kennedy who says this about the Trump Cohen story

https://dankennedy.net/2019/04/19/no-reason-for-buzzfeed-to-apologize-for-that-explosive-michael-cohen-story/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B04A:C632:18B9:523A:4072:8788 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in that article that would add anything to this bio. If you have any other sources you think will help with balance, please link them here for consideration. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag should stay. The article is extremely biased and does not have any real balance. It fails to include anything of real substance post 2006, unless it is negative. Until the article captures the full scope of Leopold's work and what he has done the NPOV tag should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B04F:BC8:9968:5B7E:FBCB:2536 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so biased ?[edit]

This is one of the most biased, negative articles on a journalist focusing so heavily on ancient issues and fails to include any of the high profile work Leopold did over the past decade, including all of the major FOIA work like Hillary Clinton's emails, all the Mueller documents . This reads like someone has a vendetta against the journalist. 2600:1012:B016:BFF1:4E6:3061:C2C6:5C1 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you feel should be added? The Hillary Clinton emails are mentioned in both the lede and as its own section. What Mueller documents do you think are relevant? Inlcude links to reliable third party sources as well. Bonewah (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_Leopold&oldid=1200295016"