Talk:Amanda Lindhout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women writers (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Canada (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Picture[edit]

I've seen in other versions that have been reversed a different picture of Amanda. I kind of prefer it but would like to get others feedback as there may be a reason why it keeps getting changed back. Chrissperdutti (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section[edit]

I deleted this: An unconfirmed statement from the Terror Free Somalia Foundation has it that Amanda Lindhout became pregnant after allegedly being raped by one of her captors. In July 2009, it was stated that she gave "birth to a baby boy". This has also not been confirmed. Wikipedia is a place for fact not a place for maybes or speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldonald86 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit- Ransom Amount[edit]

The cited article for this release amount states -

A police officer and a lawmaker said late Wednesday that a $700,000 ransom was paid for the two journalists' release. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media on the issue. It was not possible to independently verify their claim.

I have edited the article to reflect the uncertainty of this ransom amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Propagandist for Iranian regime"[edit]

I deleted this line, because it was not relevant under the subheading "career".

If others agree, we can perhaps create a "criticisms" sections, where such information would be appropriate.

~~jayparkson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayparkson (talkcontribs) 16:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be a specific attack by a reporter with an axe to grind. Don't know why it keeps getting put back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonestevan (talkcontribs) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A third opinion please[edit]

Comparing the two versions, the one the other user prefers, DELETES a sourced statement from a respected journalist, in a reliable publication; and then RESTORES a bunch of self-promoting, UNREFERENCED material. Obviously these users are doing this at the behest of Amanda herself, as I would imagine this is an exceedingly low-traffic webpage. RFI2013 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont see your huge interest in Amanda. You go as far as accusing me of being her on my talk page, and you dont seem to have any good reason for deleting the material beyond some vague personal opinion more than facts. Your edits are the reason to why the article is fully protected right now. You also once again accuses anyone who edits the article to be either an "accomplice" or "friend" of Amanda and that their cant be any interest of her as a person, while you yourself seem to be very much so interested in her and her character and life. I find this suspicious to say the least. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say about the content? Why you removed a sourced statement? Why you re-inserted unsourced primary material from her website? RFI2013 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
User proved to be a sock that had used multiple accounts even after being blocked and warned not to do it again. I consider this discussion closed.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I am in agreement with "RFI2013" - I don't see the reason for "BabbaQ"'s restoring unreferenced (and false) information that clearly reads as self-promotion, while deleting material from respected publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

France 24[edit]

[1] "While Ms. Lindhout had filed a few reports to the network from Iraq, Nathalie Lenfant, a spokeswoman for France 24, said the network had turned down her proposal to act as a correspondent from Iraq as well as her subsequent suggestion that she report from Somalia. During her capture, Ms. Lenfant said, France 24 decided to confirm that Ms. Lindhout had been on a freelance assignment, even though that was not the case."

We can report this -- ie that to help her, France 24 said she was working freelance for them, but in fact she never did. Although it was reported in reliable sources that she worked freelance for France 25, as this was not in fact the truth th article sholdn't state it as fact. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Press TV criticism[edit]

The line from the eminently reputable source, the Toronto Star, was removed by the user "Alison", with the justification: "I'm removing this per WP:UNDUE. It's a single quote from one journalist about another and is clearly cherry-picked from the entire article."

Now, I just don't understand this at all. What kind of quote wouldn't be "cherry-picked"? And, of course it is from a journalist, what kind of article would be written about such a topic that is not by a journalist?

Just for some background..........

Press TV is a highly controversial outlet. I could list hundreds of critical articles in my own language (I'm from a neighboring country) of Press TV, but there is a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to Press TV (Press TV controversies). Not mentioning the dubious nature of her work, is kind of like not mentioning any criticism of a current personality who worked for the Soviet Union's Pravda.

You can look up some of Lindout's video "reports" on YouTube to see her launch explicit attacks on "the West" and the United States, and mirror the line of the current Iranian regime.

Tariq Ramadan lost his professorship at the Erasmus University in the Netherlands when he took a job with Press TV.

It's license was temporarily revoked in the UK after it aired a false confession obtained under torture.

You should read the official Press TV response to this ordeal, to get some idea of what kind of outlet it is:

It was also temporarily banned in India.

It's the only paying job she had as a "journalist". In fact, nobody who has worked solely for Press TV has ever gone on to a career in any other outlet, to the extent that they could reliably be called a "journalist". Twafotfs (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you use "repeatedly" used "scare quotes" around the word "journalist" is a good indication that you're intent is to undermine her reputation as a journalist and in doing so, run the risk of going against WP:BLP. The entire paragraph gives undue weight to a single quote from a single journalist, excerpted from an otherwise-positive article. That's pretty-much cherry-picking, right? And the Goddard quote dominates the paragraph. Furthermore, your blind revert has now twice broken a reference that I repaired. Now, please address the BLP and undue weight concerns before simply reverting - Alison 04:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Would you like to quote any policy from those articles that precludes the inclusion of critical material from a reliable source? Twafotfs (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The title of the section is "journalism career". Now, you obviously won't find any reliable source applauding her "journalism career", so you're going to have to accept the reliable source criticizing it. Either that, or delete the section altogether. Twafotfs (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Twafotfs now blocked as a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates to Return to North America[edit]

{{Requested edit}} In March of 2012, Amanda accepted an invitation from former President of the United States Bill Clinton to participate in a panel exploring poverty, hunger and insecurity in the Horn of Africa during the Clinton Global Initiative University 2012.

Suggested sources: and

As explained in my talk page, I am the Director of Partnerships at the organization founded by Amanda Lindhout, The Global Enrichment Foundation. --Lola.2580 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! --Lola.2580 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


The fact is, nothing in this article suggest this person warrants an entry in an encyclopedia - except the actual abduction itself. As that is the only thing ever mentioned in mainstream international press.

Other than that, maybe a quick mention of her subsequent life.

As it stands, this article has clearly been written by some person who has a close connection to the article subject. I've noticed that Wikipedia biographies are sometimes used as vehicles for self-promotion. This is an obvious example.

Important information missing[edit]

"One of Nigel’s siblings flies to Somalia, risking jail for moving large sums of cash to terrorists, as well as her own life. One night, Nigel overhears Amanda on the phone, begging her mother to take the entire $500,000 that Nigel’s family has largely raised and using it to pay just for her.

He is devastated. “I don’t think I have ever felt so lonely and cheated in my life . . . I’m furious at myself for trusting her.” The bank account for their ransom, it turns out, is held in Australia, her mother unable to access it."



Recent edits[edit]

I am the "IP" who has been recently trying to improve this article - which I found to be rather duplicitous. As has been commented on this talk page above, there was a definite problem of tone. It seemed to glorify the subject - while totally omitting any information that would shed a rather different light. So, I decided to include the some of the information that seems to have been purposefully censored from this article - namely, the account of the other kidnap victim in the ordeal, as described in his own earlier published book; and that of a critical journalist from the New York Post who took a close look at both books and published a lengthy article on Amanda. The fact that this chap called "MidnightExpress" has simply deleted all the information I worked hard to add, is I think unnacceptable.

Furthermore, there was a degree of repetition and "peacocking" - i.e., a lot of personalized fluff that carried a very inappropriate, unencyclopedic tone. So I tried to trim the unnecessary fat as well.

I believe my efforts stand on their own merit. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately your edits have been very slanted against this BLP in their language. If you'd like to add neutral information here, please do give it another try. However we do have strict rules against adding information intended to show subjects purposely in a negative light, rather than a neutral one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You're still clicking "undo" - why? Just typing the letters "BLP" is not a reason. And just accusing someone of bias, doesn't make it so. Please be specific, so we can go forward. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's try to move this conversation here instead of usertalk pages in order to ensure others can join in. As was said by an administrator on the page protection discussion, BLP's require very strong and neutral sourcing. Using slanted articles by "tabloids" as that admin called them, is not appropriate sourcing. In addition, the content of a BLP should only be sourced to the fairest and majority opinion sources in order to prevent inadvertent damage to the person in real life. We are extremely careful not to be advertorial, but also not to be slanted towards the negative. A neutral biography on someone who suffered a serious traumatic incident, for example, is not well served by including pot-shots taken by others while they endured the trauma, or articles reporting speculation during her captivity. This article does include the somewhat controversial nature of a person who decides to go to a dangerous place without much experience, and the negative reaction some journalists had to her plight. This is a fairly minor part of the story, and yet it is still here. I would recommend taking time to read through our BLP and sourcing policies in order to develop more neutral material if you feel there are holes in this page. No doubt such balanced copy, if well-sourced, would be quite welcome to any page! Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
BLPs are indeed subject to a much higher standard than regular wikipages. The material was also largely non-neutral, both in tone and content. In her autobiography, Lindhout indicates that the general media fabricated a lot of the things it reported about her abduction, such as the claim that she gave birth while in captivity. She also takes exception to the sensationalistic tone of much of the coverage, indicating that she was not quite the hopeless victim that she was made out to be and that she as a former journalist would never have presented herself in that dehumanizing way. In any event, per WP:consensus, if you have something in future that you would like to add, please present it here first for discussion and then consensus. Middayexpress (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC
Finally, some specifics, thankyou! Jeremy112233, I'm happy you see that you've ceased the threats and accusations, and Middayexpress, I'm happy to see you're finally willing to discuss, instead of just clicking "undo".
Two points. First, "not to be slanted towards the negative". Before I arrived, there was not a single piece of information in this article that could be construed as negative - despite that fact that countless publications (broadsheet newspapers, tabloid newspapers, magazines) in several countries have published critical material. I read Wikipedia often, and I've noticed that most notable figures have a "controversy" or "criticism" section. Second, your interpretation of the subject matter is askew. You say "including pot-shots taken by others while they endured the trauma, or articles reporting speculation during her captivity" - my version included no such things. Unfortunately, Lindhout wasn't the only person abducted and taken into captivity, but so was her ex-boyfriend: Australian photographer Nigel Brennan. He has also published a book (although he hasn't been on Oprah or anything like that). However, his account of events has been completely excised from this article -- despite the fact that their stories, and the stories of their respective families, contradict each other.
I understand that you may for emotional reasons feel like you are protecting a victim here, but she is now a public figure, and my interest in the story is that of objective reporting of the facts as we know them. Nothing more, nothing less. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you object to the "tabloid" New York Post as a source, almost the exact same material has been reported in countless other publications: National Post (Canada), News International (Australia), The West Australian (Australia), Maclean's (Canada), Malaysia Chronicle (Malaysia), etc. None of which are "tabloids" (although I would point out, that some publications in Tabloid format are considered reliable - I don't know if the New York Post is one of them). InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to add a page on the Brennan if you feel he qualifies enough for his background to be highlighted on Wikipedia. It appears that you may want to read WP:COATRACK to refine your contributions. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a venue for journalism, but an encyclopedia which has certain rules for contribution. Personal friction between two individuals is not generally notable, however you don't have to write about the family feud. You could create a Brennan article, assuming he is notable enough for inclusion on the site, to provide a venue for your material. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
How is it "Coatracking" when Lindhout's accounts of the events contradict Brennan's accounts of the events? Do you think the article on Bill Clinton should only contain his account of events, and omit any reference whatsoever to Monica Lewinksy's? You're being absurd. Simply using terms like "slanted", "bias", "personal friction between two individuals", and various Wikipedia terms like "BLP" and "Coatrack", is not a substitute for sound reasoning. Some common sense, please. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the Bill Clinton article as I am not active there, you can ask someone more familiar with it if you'd like to elicit a comparison. In terms of Wikipedia terminology, it is used a shorthand for a larger understanding of how the site works. If you're around for a while, don't worry, you'll get the hand of things! Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
But the problem is, your statements have no content. You're very good at clicking undo and quoting Wikipedia terminology, but you have no reason or sources to offer to support your arguments. In fact, it's not even clear what your position is. You've still, after all this time, failed to specifically state what content you object to. Except for the aside above about "personal friction". InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting, can you please (briefly) list the changes you wish to make and the sources you have to support those changes. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Well, I just wrote up this:
But I'd be happy to prepare some specific changes for you here to comment on, Flat Out. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have read your post at BLP and the sources. Personally I don't see anything there but an uneasy relationship between Brennan and Lindhout. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is one point. Which I attempted to include two sentences mentioning. It's a pretty notable fact, wouldn't you agree? That the two people who were kidnapped (and at times during the ordeal, pledged their love for each other) have conflicting accounts on a number of issues, have accused each other of betrayal, and no longer speak. This is all covered widely in the media. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO it isn't notable. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait, so she was kidnapped and held hostage for 16 months with one other person. And her relationship with that person is not notable? Please explain?! InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
How is her ex-lover taking a crack at her notable enough to include in a balanced biography? You have posted at BLP so perhaps see if you get any support there. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I encourage you to read at least one article that I refer to. He didn't "take a crack at her". His book was published first. Their accounts differ. Do you understand what that means? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean, there are simple errors of fact in this article. It says Amanda was released after her family paid a ransom. This is in fact false. The two families hired a private firm that specialized in kidnappings, and it was Brennan's family who raised most of the cash, together with donations from leading Australian celebrity entrepreneur Dick Smith and the Australian politician Bob Brown. According to the article as it stands now, Nigel Brennan barely exists. In fact, he is mentioned the exact amount of times as the Somali interpreter and driver that were released almost immediately. They spent 16 months together in captivity. He deserves to have a sentence or two detailing his experience. I don't see how this could be controversial - endless column inches in both countries (Canada and Australia) have been filled writing about their relationship. And yet you don't want to even mention it? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The article isn't about Brennan and I wonder if you may have a conflict of interest. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Same old pattern. No regard for facts or sources, just repeat jargon and make accusations. I'm done here. I doubt this page gets much traffic anyway. But it's still a shame. I never thought it would be this difficult to improve an article on Wikipedia. Adios. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I also have the page on my watch list now and will keep an eye on it to be sure that it isn't transformed into a "blame the victim" hit piece. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the story, I encourage them to read the article "Escape from hell" by by Rosemary Westwood in Macleans ( It's meticulously researched, and gives a fair hearing to both accounts of the 15-month ordeal (Lindhout and Brennan). After reading that, you will see very quickly what's wrong with this article. But, alas... InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about the totality of everything said. Minority views should be represented, but the overall coverage of a person should be the driver for the overall breadth of content. We have to be careful not to take those who are overly positive or those who are overly critical of an individual as dominant sources as well. Thanks for sharing the article! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you have some allergy to commenting on content? What was the point of typing what you just did above? That is PRECISELY what I was trying to do from the first place. But you just clicked "undo". Repeatedly. Then asked that the page be protected from my edits. And succeeded in having my well-sourced edits classified as "vandalism". Well done! :-) InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
When you are right and everyone else is wrong, it's usually best to find another article to work on. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No one else is wrong, not at all. To be wrong, you have to put forward a cogent argument on a specific point of contention. None of you have done that. All you've done is click "undo" and thrown around words like "conflict of interest", "bias", BLP, "undue" - without bothering to read any of the sources, or justify a single deletion on the basis of the policy you're quoting. So no, nobody is wrong, because I'm the only one who's made any assertions based on content. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I read all the sources and I don't support an attempt to blame the victim based on what an ex-partner has to say about the subject. Seeing as you have unsuccessfully argued the same point here, on several user talk pages and at BLPN it would be wise to move on. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
How does referring to a contradictory version of events provided by the two victims constitute "blaming the victim"? Which victim am I blaming - Lindhout or Brennan? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What's more, how does the two sentences I inserted, in any way apportion blame to anyone? It only very vaguely refers to unspecified "criticism" and conflicting accounts. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

However, the book and Lindhout's initial decision to go to Somalia did receive criticism from a number of journalists.[1][2][3][4] Some accounts of events in the book were contradicted by the version of events given by her co-captive Nigel Brennan, as found in his own book, published in 2011. The two no longer speak.[5][6]

How is the idea that this page subject is not on speaking terms with someone else notable enough to appear on Wikipedia? Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, maybe because the pair went to Somalia together, spent 15 months in captivity together, were released together, and both wrote books about the experience? Virtually every newspaper and magazine that has addressed the kidnappings have mentioned it - but not Wikipedia right? Because of........... "BLP", "slant", [insert bogus excuse]..... Did you have fun reverting me eight times? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of retaining a passionate new editor, I would repeat my recommendation of looking at this editor creating a Brennan page in order to convey this particular narrative. I'd even volunteer to help in creating such a page so that they can include information they feel is relevant to Brennan, so long as it is Wikipedia appropriate. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if I did this, the information will still have to referred to in this article for the sake of balance. Your "BLP" and "bias" excuses won't wash. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Seeking Consensus[edit]

There is an opportunity to gain consensus before the page protection on this article is removed. If there are any editors who wish to make edits based on the current version, please post your intended edit and source and we'll see what we can achieve. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is instructive that the opportunity to seek consensus for changes discussed at BLPN were not taken up. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I myself didn't feel the need to engage as the BLPN thread seemed to focus on the suspicion that the nominator was a sock of some sort. I'd like to restrict myself to content issues and leave that kind of discussion with more experience than I, as they can drag on and get rather nasty. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Stating that an editor is a sock is also not appropriate. Feel free to assume. Feel free to offer evidence at a sockpuppet case. Do not insult editors and break WP:AGF by making such unsubstantiated claims. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
They implied it, not me :) I actually just said I wouldn't engage with such hostility. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversial edit[edit]

I am concerned about a recent addition to the page, which a single-purpose editor has been pushing to include--that Lindhout and her former boyfriend no longer speak. This, in my mind, is clearly non-encyclopedic information and should not be included. The material is coming from an editor, User:InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting, that has only used their account to try and add negative information about Lindhout, including trying to change the individual's career from journalist to "cocktail waitress", a clearly sexist and aggravated edit. I would like to know if someone else believes that this particular edit is of value to the page before reverting it again. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that it has already been reverted by another editor, though we can discuss it further here if there is a consensus to add the item. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Controversial, not really. Non-encyclopedic, yes. If it were to further our understanding of the subject, it should be included. It simply feels prurient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC),
Agreed, this is not encyclopedic and should not be included. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I see this as part of one editor's ongoing effort to shape this article in such a way as to portray the subject negatively. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And again here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase in question, "there was no honour or medal prestigious enough to reward Lindhout for putting her life in danger to help others and for recognizing that her captors were themselves in need of assistance" is pure OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Manmeet Bhullar states that himself [2]: "I and the Member for Calgary-East had the honour of meeting Amanda Lindhout, who was held hostage in Somalia for some 15 months. Mr. Speaker, there is no honour significant enough and no medal or cup or award prestigious enough to recognize her. She put her life in danger because, as she put it, she wanted to bring light to the crisis in Somalia in her own humble way. Despite everything she went through, she says: despite my own suffering in Somalia and without condoning what was done to me, I feel that those inflicting the violence, while certainly not innocent, are deeply wounded and war traumatized individuals. It takes a profound human being to see the perpetrators of such acts in that way." Middayexpress (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Political BS is not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "political BS". At any rate, you should probably tell that to User:Jeremy112233 since he added the link. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you disagree. The discussion in the Hansards is a presentation given in the legislative assembly and is not meant to accurately reflect reality but is filled with glowing praise and euphemism and can in no way be construed as a RS. I'm glad that you fixed Bhullar's gender. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Co-captor" vs. "co-captive"[edit]

I disagree with this recent edit by Walter Görlitz. Since both Amanda Lindhout and Nigel Brennan were taken captive, they were co-captives. "Co-captors" means two or more people who commit an act of kidnapping together — i.e., the perpetrators, not the victims — so this term unquestionably does not apply to Lindhout and Brennan. Since this edit was a revert of an earlier change, I'm mentioning it here to give Walter or anyone else a chance to defend it before I change it back (lest anyone should accuse me of edit-warring). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. A captor is one who takes captive. A captive is one who is taken captive. If it has not been changed, I will change immediately. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)