Talk:Wayne Madsen (journalist)

Memory hole

The following has been deleted from the article, citing WP:RS:

His work, frequently citing unnamed intelligence agency insiders, includes the claim that the USS Cole bombing was carried out by an Israeli submarine firing a cruise missile. In October, 2004, he wrote an article which claimed that the Bush administration had envisioned a scenario that involves launching a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country. He also reported to supermarket tabloid The Globe that George W. Bush was having an affair with Condoleezza Rice and that Laura Bush had moved out of the White House.[1] == See also == Nairobi and Bukavu documents ==References== ==External links== WayneMadsenReport.com Madsen's website IMDb Madsen's appearance in 2004 film Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Thanks Travb (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kook Saint

Madsen and his ramblings are a staple of the Conspiracy Fringe. Google him and "Jesuits".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.65.22 (talk • contribs)

Career

The reference that refers to him as a former Navy intelligence officer and NSA employee seems very weak. Are there any RS articles about him that confirm that ref? It has a feeling of puffery.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree re the sourcing. Most of the mentions seem by-the-way and self-descriptions. It's also unclear exactly to what extent there ever can be government confirmation that someone worked for an intelligent agency.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The PBS source looks adequate for "former Navy intelligence officer". / edg ☺ ☭ 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

These assertions seem POV

"Widely quoted in Arab media"?

What is the point of this? I imagine anyone who suggests Israel is an imperialist state will be widely quoted in Arab media. Madsen seems to be widely-quoted in general.

"Considered a conspiracy theorist"

I feel like this has no business in the lede section, especially considering the source is a flippant comment by a conservative columnist.

"Assertions and conspiracy theories"?

This is an unreasonable section heading. In the swine flu YouTube for instance, Madsen was clearly stating what others had said, and the Wired article published that same week on the subject of new research says "Earlier reports called it a combination of pig, human and avian influenza strains.", which refers to multiple sources (one I can think of would be Indonesian Minister of Health Siti Fadillah Supari). Madsen in this case was repeating what multiple others were saying off the record, adding these ideas to a public debate that had not at the time reached a conclusion. Similar cases could be made for other Madsen investigations.

I feel like the current round of edits are a WP:POVPUSH to discredit Madsen as a crackpot. This is not the business of a Wikipedia article, especially a BLP. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative columnist. The Atlantic Monthly is not a conservative magazine. Madsen has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by writers at the Atlantic Monthly, CBS News and elsewhere (Democratic Underground). While most would say DU is not RS, the others are. That is fact, not POV. He seems like a crackpot beccause his quoted views read that way, not because anyone is misquoting him.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Nobody forced Madsen to claim that Israel wants to colonize Iraq and that Spitzer's brothel was a Mossad front It's not in the business of a Wikipedia article to pass off a fringe conspiracy theorist as a mainstream columnist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You overlook that Madsen is an investigative journalist which means his own views are secondary to the investigations. He gets things wrong but he also gets some things right which can be said for any journalist in the investigative profession so should their articles also use conspiracy in section titles for their work? You can quote the claim in the body as critism but going overboard is POV. BTW, Sullivan has said that the Republican party is not conservative enough for him so where does "is not a conservative columnist" come from? Also the owner of the Atlantic Monthly is a self confessed neocon so that has to affect some of the magazines views. Wayne (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would the categorization under Category:Conspiracy theorists still be appropriate then? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My take is that claims of conspiracy over specific articles by a journalist is not enough. It's clear from his website that he is not pushing anything in particular and discredited claims he has made in the past have not been continued with as far as I can see (although as his website is a paysite I can't see everything). As a journalist it is his right to report on controversial topics no matter how much they look like conspiracy theories. The tip point is what he does with the story after it has been discredited. Wayne (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[Citation needed] for every periodical appearance

Where these mags have indexed back issues online, this can be confirmed with trivial Google searches. Whoever tagged up this section must have forgotten to make this effort.

• Village Voice
• Counterpunch
• Wired
• Corpwatch

I'm removing these, and adding Madsen's site bio as a source. Unless a sourced case can be made for this being fraudulent, it should be sufficient for the lede section. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, every single claim must be verified with a reliable source. Madsen is not a reliable source, especially for dubious resume-padding claims.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a publishers author bio. As a publisher is required to fact check an author bio unless their book is in the fiction category we can assume it is a RS unless proven otherwise. Wayne (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to indicate that Dandeloin Books, which publishes fraudsters like Israel Shamir[2], is a reliable source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Publishing a controversial author makes a publisher an unreliable source? Please point out the WP policy that says this. Maybe it's relevant to your claim that Dandelion didn't publish an author biography for Shamir. Wayne (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists

Other conspiracy theorists are described in the lede as such. The Atlanic Monthly[3], CBS News[4], and Salon [5] all describe him as a conspiracy theorist. We should say that in the lede.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the prominence of the birther conspiracy theory that Madsen helped launch, perhaps we should add that "reporting" to the lede too.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of Salon and CBS News description. Now of course it should be included in the lede. As a birther, this description would be consistent with WP's description of the birther movement as a conspiracy theory ("Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories"). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I have read some of his articles, yesterday was the first time I had a look at his website. There is nothing there that supports he is a conspiracy theorist. He seems to report something from what he has been told as any reporter is expected to do and lets it slide if proved incorrect. He definately doesn't match the WP description of a theorist. He is not a birther unless I misinterpret Madsen's statements when he says "Obama birth certificate hoax" and "Obama's birthplace has been verified as Hawaii". The closest to conspiracy I can find in his reporting on birthers is where he says Netanyahu is very close to prominent birther Orly Taitz so he (Netanyahu) may be "making it easy for birthers" then gives a possible motive which doesn't sound much like a conspiracy or even a very strong accusation. If you want to accuse Madsen of being a conspiracy theorist you really need to provide proof he is pushing discredited theories rather than occassionally reporting on controversial topics. Wayne (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything. I need not do orginal research to prove any such accusations. Our objective is to use reliable sources to improve articles with verifiable information. Multiple reliable sources describe this person as a conspiracy theorist. Hence we suggest that he be described as the sources cite. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can say in the article body "some sources describe Madsen as a conspiracy theorist" but it would be a BLP violation to say he actually is one based on unsupported claims. Wayne (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If we have seperate multiple reliable sources that describe someone as a X, we can and should describe that person as X.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also your removal of the CBS ref "March of the Conspiracy Theorists" does talk about Madsen: "Wayne Madsen, author of the Wayne Madsen Report, was one of three questioners of the panelists. His hatred of all things George W. Bush, and love of all things conspiratorial, almost rises to self-parody." Capitalismojo (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not say the ref did not mention Madsen. I said the context of the mention did not support him being a conspiracy theorist. The phrase "love of all things conspiratorial" is virtually a definition applicable to any investigative journalist and not sufficient cause to state he is one. If he was a conspiracy theorist then I would expect to see notable examples in the article. There are none so the most you can say is that he has been accused. Wayne (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This editing to include unreliable claims has got to stop. Capitalismojo has again deleted my compromise in the lead with the comment we have Multiple RS saying this. There are No sources saying "conspiracy-minded blogger" which is an obvious lie as the source he himself provided says exactly this and there are no "Multiple RS" saying it. Lets look at his sources.

• The first reference is only for Madsen being being an investigative journalist and does not mention conspiracy at all.
• The second reference says: as conspiracy-minded blogger Wayne Madsen theorized.... This article is about a topic that is not really a conspiracy theory and passing mention that a journalist (Madsen) theorised on why Karl Rove made some public appearances does not support rewording the actual text "conspiracy-minded" to read "conspiracy theorist".
• The last reference is a blog reply by Andrew Sullivan to an anonymous blogger who accuses Madsen of being the source of the "rumour" that Israel is planning to settle Kurdish Jews in Iraq. Although Madsen may have written the article being referred to, he is not the source. There has been a Jerusalem Post article about an actual suggestion that 150,000 Israelis of Kurdish descent be resettled in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdish media published the claim six months before Madsen. Arab media published the claim two years before Madsen. Seymour Hersh reported a somewhat similar story in 2004. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has even reported on it. Not only was he not the source of the claim but the claim is not even really conspiracy theory but it is investigative reporting. Thus this reference is not a reliable source for accusing anyone of anything.

Based on what I found on the last reference I will also delete the section "Israeli plan to colonize Iraq" from the article as this section is about a single article by Madsen. The claims have been published by others so they are not Madsen's rumours as this section claims and neither can he be blamed for it being translated into Arabic as it already had been. The section is not only not notable but a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Wayne (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Madsen himself is a birther, but then he claims that the Israeli's are behind the rumors.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Madsen is not a birther. If you go the article your link refers to you may notice that Madsen actually says the birther claim is false and accuses the GOP of trying to find a Kenyan birth certificate. Wayne (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Madsen's June 9th does not say the claim is false.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Orange County Conservative Examiner article you link seems to be referring to this Jun 9, 2008 article, although the Examiner article does not link it directly or otherwise specify. Madsen's article does not seem to take the birther position, and identifies those presenting this case as "GOP dirty tricks operatives". / edg ☺ ☭ 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Wayne may or may not be a "birther", that is not what was said or referenced. It is however true that he was apparently the first to write of the "Kenyan birth certificate" and that it had been found (by GOP a research squad in Africa). After his June article the rumors gained in intensity and detail. The fact that it birther conspiracy is all imaginary doesn't make it less notable. The fact that Madsen helped spark this increases his notability greatly. Absent this he is not particularly notable either as a "journalist" or as a "conspiracy theorist". The world is filled with both. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We could use a source saying Madsen was the first to write about it. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we are. The Madsen "Kenyan birth certficate" story was cited as the "evidence" of the discovery of such an item in the notorious Berg lawsuit. [6] Capitalismojo (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with mention that after Madsen's article "the rumors gained in intensity and detail" but we must also mention that the article was actually about GOP attempts to prove Obama was not American and that the certificate was a hoax to avoid the implication that Madsen was behind the hoax. Wayne (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading that article correctly, it says Berg cited Madsen, but not that Madsen was first to report this. While it is plausible that this was because Madsen was the only published source, I think it's WP:OR to assume this is the reason—Berg could have missed the original story, or just used sources he could find in a web search.

I hate to bring this tangent up (and hopefully it has been answered elsewhere already), but I'm not sure we consider either Berg or WorldNetDaily reliable sources for anything other than their own statements. WND has been dismissed several times on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Berg is Berg. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that WND or Berg are reliable sources. That's why I didn't use them at the article. Berg's lawsuit is the Ur-text of the birther conspiracy, the fact that Berg relied on Madsen is notable. But frankly nothing that touches this conspiracy stuff comes out unsullied. Lacking a source explicitly stating his article was the first journalist to state that we must remove it. The NYT source from Aug 2008 that I had read this in will not work. The article talks about the birther theory but it is in the comment section that the Madsen information is inserted; not suitable at all. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Madsen Bio

I have found a longer detailed bio in the introduction of Madsen's book Jaded Tasks. I will bring relevant data points over, with refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

His early life, navy career, and pre-journalism career have been posted (with references). Capitalismojo (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia Today

He is now disinfo-in-chief for Russia Today, being used to spread dissent in the USA. I saw one of their attack videos trying to claim Blackwater are bad, and he was the one peddling nonsense. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nNGw9mJRTU). Came here to see what he's about. Good job making sure everyone knows he's a conspiracy theorist, thank you patriots. Agent4200 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

'Thank you patriots'. People like you make me sick - disgusting anti-American colonists plundering, raping and pillaging third-world countries with your little black-ops PMC friends and then patting yourself on the back by pushing yourself as a 'patriot'. You are not a 'patriot' for defending Blackwater - you are an anti-American traitor and sworn enemy of the Republic, and you and your fellow like-minded terrorists will be exposed as such by TRUE patriots. George Washington is rolling in his grave right now seeing scumbags defend their anti-Constitutional criminal deeds as being 'patriotic'.84.30.34.104 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-pubslished template

Added this template because there's lots of information in the article whose only source is Madsen himself. We have no way of knowing whether his grandmother really helped Jews during WWII or its just a story that Madsen made up one day. Self-published sources are generally not accepted, especially when the source is clearly unreliable. I'll be removing whatever is sourced only to Madsen unless someone comes up with a policy basis not to.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLP Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves with certain expemptions, none of which obviously apply in this case. These exemptions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses, these are treated as reliable sources. The source Jaded Tasks is not itself self published. Also per WP:V Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. There is no evidence that the subject is an unreliable source beyond the possibility that some of his articles may be incorrect which can be said of any investigative journalist that relies on outside sources. I have searched and found no source disputing any of the biographical details and some details in the article are of a nature that making such a claim is a criminal offense if false. My interpretation of Wikipedia policy seems to imply that we need reliable sources disputing Madsens claims to remove content. Wayne (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, It is undisputed that the Danish communists helped the Jews as this is documented. Unless a source disputes that his grandmother was a communist we can assume the claim is true as Madsen has made it publicly. Wayne (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. Per self published, material can be used if; "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". Hence this claim should be scrubbed.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that information about Madsens family (and employment) is "not directly related to the subject"? I would remind you that you added the material yourself. All I did was reword it to avoid the appearance of an attempt to discredit him per WP:NPOV. Wayne (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Not directly related to the subject" in this context means the subject witnessed or experienced it. There is no way that Wayne could have witnessed the actions of his Grandmother before his birth. The bits I put in about her are verifiable ( Editor of Communist Paper). But perhaps you are correct and it should all be removed, per the self published policies. I may have made a great mistake by posting any of his self reported biography. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way Wayne what is your source for Wayne's birthday?Capitalismojo (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If she was in the Danish communist party then she was involved in the smuggling of the Jews and this is documented in the specific article of the event. WP:Syth is avoided by linking the party directly to the event. Wayne Madsens birth date is from a personal communication from him to a website that's subject matter is unrelated to anything on his own page, nor is it notable in it's own right so I didn't link it. I can probably find it again and post the link in talk if you want it. Wayne (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Self Published

Here is WP Poicy on Self Published:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I post this here because I expanded the article using the self-published material. The article has since been expanded significantly in ways that I think break these policy points. In fact it is getting very close to copyright violations. It must be pared back significantly. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)