Talk:Laura Poitras

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

Homeland Security investigations[edit]

This news appears noteworthy - http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/singleton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.188.73 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2004 Baghdad Ambush[edit]

Whats wrong with the source? WeldNeck (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than one reliable source for negative information about living people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.201 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2013‎
Define 'more reliable'. WeldNeck (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I only saw this just now. My fault for not paying more attention to my watchlist. I've replied on your talk page. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link from a Weekly Standard article. The author of the article contacted Cpt Brandon Ditto who corroborates the charges against Poitras. WeldNeck (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need attribution to the person who made the allegation plus more disturbing parts of your text are not verified by your sources. The allegation by one man does not make it true. 203.145.92.162 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 sources, fix it if you think it needs rework but this charge is serious. Men died over this.

Please address issues that I have pointed out 203.145.92.162 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you havent pointed any issues out, you just keep complaining about the sources.

The allegations needs an attribution to the one person who made them (you wrote it as it would be true) and all claims need to be verified. No where in your sources does it say "that she admitted she knew about the attack" just to name one example of false claims that is not in your sources.. 203.145.92.162 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the references provided for this section. Neither substantiates the claim 203.145... points out. The material is contentious and heavily dependent on The Devil's Sandbox. It should stay removed unless it can be attributed to more reliable sources. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't look at the reference if you came to that conclusion. WeldNeck (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and read WP:AGF before you call anyone a liar again. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume anything, ever. The only way you could have made the statement you did is if you neglected to read the relevant portions The Devil's Sandbox (which is available on Google books). All charges against Poitrais, her meeting with the brigades's CO, as well as her admission to the author are present in the book. WeldNeck (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You assume bad faith. There are a number of reasons I might disagree with you. You assume that it's because I'm not being truthful about reading the excerpt from the book.
In the book, that she knew about the impending attack is not supported. That she was on the roof is mentioned, but, as pointed out below, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and one author's word isn't that exceptional. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just protected this article due to the ongoing edit war. Please discuss the issue on this talk page and try to gain consensus. You may also wish to pursue dispute resolution (WP:DR). Let me know if there are any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be included. The only true source is Cpt Brandon Ditto. He did his duty and reported it. It was investigated with no charges laid. Laura has yet to comment on the matter so any inclusion at this point would be POV. We are not in a hurry for inclusion. If more material arises or it becomes a big issue then we could discuss it again. The Weekly Standard itself is POV and the author of the book is not very notable. I think it is typical tabloid crap that we normally don't include in BLP articles. A notable person is in the news and everyone crawls out of the woodwork to make unverified claims about their past.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you come to the conclusion that the author of the book is not very notable? He has authored/co authored 15 books some of which were very well recieved. Your jab against the The Weekly Standard is also highly suspect. It sounds to me like you are just looking for reasons to exclude the material, regardless of how valid those reasons are. WeldNeck (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine." Is the first sentence of their article here. The author doesn't not have a Wikipedia article that is how I judged his notability. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Without having a full copy of the book we should assume that it has a legal disclaimer about its accuracy as most do. I haven't found a review of the book that has been published by mainstream media but some posted reviews on blogs question its accuracy. See: Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you are going with this. WeldNeck (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it falls under Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.". So far we only have the soldier as a source. The book quotes him and the The Weekly Standard quotes the book. If the New York Times and a few other mainstreams interviewed a member of the investigation team itself then that may be worthy of inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Sandbox does not quote Cpt Ditto with respect to the the Poitras filming of the ambush. The Weekly Standard author contacted Cpt Ditto to verify the events described in the book, which he did. Brunning's book details the attack and the Poitras' meeting with the brigade's commander after the attack. Two soldiers from Ditto's platoon were mentioned as having positively identified her as being on the rooftop. A more careful reading of the sources provided might prove to be useful for you before you continue this discussion. WeldNeck (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs to qualify under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Unless it is widely covered as notable by mainstream media then it should not be mentioned here as a notable incident. There was an investigation that produced no results. See also: WP:BLPCRIME, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." She wasn't even arrested let alone charged or convicted. Two witnesses seem to claim it was her but those claims didn't stand up to the investigation. According to the book they even identified an African-American woman at first. According to the military it was a failure to identify. If the military can't indentify her then neither should we. This is probably why mainstream media doesn't mention it. They don't print stories about people claiming to see people doing certain things. This is called Yellow journalism which we don't do here. The book and neo-conservative journal include it probably for sales. Unless there is more coverage or further investigation then it shouldn't be included here according to our policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chalk it up to ignorance of the process (not an insult) but there was never a formal investigation into Poitras for her role in the ambush. After the ambush, command met with several local leaders including Dr Aladhadh. Poitras came along. (Redacted). Nothing more came of it because Hendrickson gave her the benefit of the doubt. Thats how 'investigations' in combat zones take place. there aren't grand juries or detectives. The determination of probable cause by a senior officer is usually enough to be remanded into custody where a formal investigation by the USACID/NCIS/Department of State takes place. It never got to that level with Poitras. Speaking from personal experience, I doubt she would have fared too well. Soldiers hate those who collaborated with the insurgents, and you cant even imagine the level of animosity there would have been had the collaborator been an American.
Since you have read the relevant sections in the book, you obviously read where Brunning details an email where Poitras admitted to him that she was on the roof filming the ambush. WeldNeck (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should look at our sources and not blindly accept them as truth. Any email to Brunning is a self published claim. I would assume that emails can easily be dismissed as possible forgeries, although I am not accusing him of that. The book may be listed as a history book but the style of the language reads like fiction. "...Hegedus' Humvee gave up the ghost. The RPG in the engine finally took its toll." and "The news hit Williams like a thunderclap." This is more the language of screenplays and novels than history books. It still boils down to wider coverage by mainstream sources. Wikipedia documents history from reliable sources not history books written like works of fiction. If you look at Aluminium#History you will note that there is no mention of it as a metal before 1808 - 1825. There is a theory that it existed in Ancient Rome and was documented in Natural History (Pliny). Tiberius thought the value of his gold would drop so he had the creator and his family killed as well as destroying his factory. No reliable sources and therefore not included in history. This Baghdad issue is similar with not enough reliable material even for mainstream sources to include. We have witnesses that were discounted because of an earlier false identification, others thought to be lying, etc. This is a BLP article and we simply can't include material such as this. We need significant coverage by a other sources and more reliable ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your literary critiques aside, the reliability of Brunning is not an issue. It would seem to meet every threshold for inclusion that I can find except the most applicable in this case WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I understand your point about wider coverage by mainstream sources, but the Weekly Standard should certainly count for that as it interviewed Cpt Ditto who confirmed the incident. (Redacted). WeldNeck (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." I have yet to see any provided.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles[edit]

Please also keep an eye on My Country, My Country, as the same BLP violation as here was overlooked, I've just reverted it. Widefox; talk 17:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the User:WeldNeck to gather wider opinion on the removal of contentious RSed content on Apache (Viet Cong soldier). Other opinions are welcome, and I'm listing here due to editor's behavior/my entry into both articles and the result of them both being protected. Widefox; talk 17:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References[edit]

Here's a great new article from the NYT on Poitras's rule in the Snowden affair. It also mentions the accusations against her in the Baghdad ambush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?src=mv&ref=general&pagewanted=all

Jsheehy (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "expand lead" tag as "seen" and unsightly[edit]

I intend to work on the lead, and think at this point the tag is no longer more helpful than harmful (it's ugly). Thanks, petrarchan47tc 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad Ambush again[edit]

Since it was argued above that the inclusion of this material required multiple high quality source, I would like to reintroduce said material based on some additional sources.

1. There is the original John Brunning source. 2. The original Weekly Standard article with the interview of the ONG 3. An additional (largely sympathetic) newer piece by George Packer in the New Yorker. [1] 4. An additional (largely critical) piece in Commentary [2] 5. An additional (largely sympathetic) newer piece by fellow intercept reporter Peter Mass [3]

Id like to find a way to massage this all in together unless there are any objections. 17:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)

There doesn't seem to be any serious suggestion that the allegation is true, and its republication and promotion is confined to partisan right-wing publications. Given the highly-inflammatory nature of the claim and the total lack of evidence for its veracity, I find no reason that it should be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider John Brunning a "partisan right-wing" source? Is George Packer a "partisan right-wing" sources as well? When you say there isnt any serious suggestion the allegation is true, are you saying Bruning lied when he stated that Poitras emailed him and confirmed she was on the roof filming during the ambush? WeldNeck (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not she was on the roof filming during the ambush is not the issue, the issue is the claim (whether overtly stated or implied) that Poitras had some sort of foreknowledge of the attack. As mainstream reliable sources mention, there has been absolutely no evidence presented for that claim, and Wikipedia is not a platform for the republication of highly-negative fringe claims about living people. George Packer mentions the claim only long enough to say that there's no evidence that it's true. In a book-length biography, we might mention the false claims, but this isn't a book-length biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Packet and Maass both treat it as a false suspicion that's a possible explanation of why Poitras was detained at airports so many times. I think it's relevant to the biography on that basis so I'd support including it in some way. Poitras herself says in a bunch of interviews (including more recent ones as well as in Maass's article) that she still doesn't know why she was detained, so I'd mention that too. The detentions are relevant to her current notability because they led to her learning to use encryption, which is why Edward Snowden contacted her, etc. The Wired article about Poitras and crypto[4] goes into that and there's other sources that say similar things. So one could infer that the bogus accusation led to her breaking the Snowden disclosures. Anyway I'd go with an abbreviated version of Packer and Maass's treatment of the rooftop filming incident. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

A purported public record of unknown veracity supposedly briefly glimpsed in a film is not particularly the sort of sourcing we're looking for here, especially when it comes to personal information. Is there evidence that external reliable sources have republished her date of birth? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing movies as a source is ok. It's not just a film. It's is the documentary film by Laura Poitras herself. Why would an authentic record of U.S.CBP include wrong BOD? Why would she lie about the origin of the record? Anyway why would she put the wrong day and month of her own birth in there even if the document was only a prop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.36.94 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we don't include full DOB unless it's published in lots of places (WP:DOB). Just because we can verify something doesn't mean it's notable. It's similar to why we wouldn't publish her phone number even if it's in the phone book. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single biographical article on Wikipedia contains a phone number, thousands include DOB. For example see two Poitras' fellow editors of The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill. In Citizenfour the report of the border incident is shown as a demonstration of her dealings with U.S. authorities as a "selected" target of surveillance and to explain why she was credible and trustworthy in the eyes of Edward Snowden. The document has all sensitive information crossed out, but DOB (02/02/64) is visible twice unredacted, which means that: a) it's correct b) she's ok with revealing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.32.107 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having it in the movie flickering by on the screen doesn't establish any relevance of the actual DOB for the biography. If she put it in a print publication (say as part of a discussion of her horoscope or because she had the same birthday as some famous historical figure) that would be more persuasive. We used to routinely include DOB's in the encyclopedia but we've moved more towards leaving them out as the page I linked to explains. So I'd still leave this one out (plus Greenwald's and Scahill's). There's no evidence that it's encyclopedically relevant. The usual marker of encyclopedic relevance is documentation by secondary RS independent of the subject, and that usually doesn't exist for something like a DOB. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50.0.205.75, thanks for your link to WP:DOB. I am struck by the guidance, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." (Emphasis added.) I was initially inclined to side with those who oppose including Poitras's birthdate on the basis of two slides of US Customs and Border Protection logs seen (at 4:40 and 5:00, respectively) in Citizenfour. However, I have since discovered Glenn Greenwald's "U.S. filmmaker repeatedly detained at border," posted at Salon on April 8, 2012. Writing of "documents obtained from a FOIA request," Greenwald links to a PDF containing six pages devoted to Laura Poitras's 9/11 Trilogy as featured in the 2012 Whitney Biennial Catalog. Four of these pages contain US Customs and Border Protection logs from 2007–2008 as released by the Department of Homeland Security in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, and redacted by DHS pursuant to the regulation cited in each blackout. Page 3 of the Whitney catalog is identical to the slide shown at 5:00 in Citizenfour. Three of these logs evince Poitras's birthdate as February 2, 1964, as does the unique slide at 4:40 in Citizenfour. On the basis of this additional evidence, as published by a WP:RS, I support including Poitras's full birthdate in our Wikipedia article. JohnValeron (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC) UPDATED JohnValeron (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did Greenwald actually comment on the birthdate, or just put up documents? If it's just documents, those are WP:PRIMARY sources and don't count as RS for notability purposes. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That is indeed the case with the slides of US Customs and Border Protection logs published at Salon. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY instructs, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth …." (Emphasis in original.) So does WP:BLPPRIMARY override WP:PRIMARY? I honestly do not know how to resolve this conflict. JohnValeron (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLPPRIMARY would take precedence since Poitras is a living person. But it's better to not take those policy pages too literally. Instead just ask yourself how the DOB helps an encyclopedia article, since it's a biography and not a dossier. What notable facts about the subject does the DOB shed any light on? 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment would be more persuasive if it were common practice at Wikipedia to omit DOB from BLPs. It is not. Consider Citizenfour, Poitras's Academy Award-winning documentary. Its characters include, among others, Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Edward Snowden. Wikipedia's BLP for each of these men includes full DOB. A comprehensive search of Wikipedia would no doubt yield thousands, if not tens of thousands, of BLPs likewise containing DOB. You challenge me to ask how the DOB helps an encyclopedia article. In response, I defy you to explain why, if such information does not enhance Wikipedia, so many editors have over time added it to so many pages. Were they all wrong? And if so, do you plan to correct those pages as well? JohnValeron (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the practice has changed over time. It used to be included routinely, now there's more tendency to leave it out, based on privacy concerns and also WP:IINFO. It could also be that the particular biographies you mention (maybe this one too) attract agenda-driven editors trying to get the DOB out there for semi-malicious purposes (I'm not saying you're doing that, just that Wikipedia does have editors of that sort). I'm not currently active in editing those other pages so will probably leave them alone. If one of the subjects asked for the DOB to be removed, I'd definitely support removing it unless there were secondary RS explaining why it was relevant. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you really lost me. In what sense would it be "malicious" to identify Poitras's birthday as February 2? JohnValeron (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we have lightened up about publishing DOB's is because they can be used for identity theft or other nefarious activities. That is explained at WP:DOB. It stands to reason that a malicious person who doesn't like a biography subject might press to include the DOB in the hopes of facilitating such misuse without engaging in it themselves. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is a good reason to omit DOB. I'm surprised Wikipedia has not deployed a bot to remove DOB from all BLPs. Seems like a fairly straightforward programming task, and as you explain it, one that requires immediate attention. JohnValeron (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't know if you're serious or sarcastic. Let's sum this discussion up:
change: DOB 1964 → DOB 2/2/1964
source: the documentary film by the person herself
argument A. Bad source: „a purported public record”, „unknown veracity”, „supposedly”, „briefly glimpsed”, „ a film”.
response A. Accepted source, the specific kind of film by a person of high ethical and professional standards.
argument B. A no-personal-info policy, sensitive information.
response B. DOB – no obvious threats as the policy is usually not enforced.
argument C. DOB = phone number, you wouldn't publish a phone number, would you?
response C. Phone number - the policy is universally enforced (a sensitive datum due to possible stalking).
argument D. Bad source, only printed publications, a horoscope discussion might be worth considering and generally better than the film.
response D. OK, here's a printed version for a reference.
argument E. It is printed, not good enough though (not a horoscope discussion?).
response E. It is perfectly acceptable source, see a different policy.
argument F (B again). I see your policy, but one should not take those policies to literally. But my no-personal-info policy!
response F (B): Again, yes, usually not enforced in case of DOB.
argument G. How about malicious purposes to include DOB, like enabling or inciting an identity stealing.
argument H. We'd remove DOB, if the subject asked (but we leave it for now ignoring the policy and the threat).
argument I. Anyway what's the usage for DOB?
We could continue with:
response G. Any information (place of birth, education etc.) can be helpful in the identity stealing.
response H. So it's opt-out after all?
response I. It might be useful. For example people can better relate to or understand some life choices of a person base on their age. I personally (irrationally, if you like) find the biographies with DOB generally better researched. Some people find DOB so important that they invited and practice a whole pseudo-science around it. It is also used on some meta pages.
But I see no point in keeping this juggling alive as it's already decided. I could only wish they started to remove DOB, because there's no better why to uproot this silly (apply-as-we-like) no-DOB policy than to start enforcing it universally and retroactively to all BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.43.245 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub-Class[edit]

I guess the article is no longer a stub - is it?ChristopheT (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laura Poitras. 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) 03:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laura Poitras. 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) 05:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Poitras&oldid=1209511640"