Talk:Nayirah testimony

Copied from Reference?

Check out the cited external link- http://www.visualstatistics.net/East-West/Nurse%20Nayirah/Nurse%20Nayirah.htm much of that is word for word what is on the Wikipedia article. So which came first?

The extlink seems to have shown up in early 2006 [1] while the Wikipedia article is much older. 67.117.130.181 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

$14 million?

I thought the figure H&K was paid to convince the American public that the Kuwaiti emir was worth dying for was $11 million, not $14 million. --csloat 22:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Repetition

The new material added in the last few days is just a repeat of what was already in the article- along with some choice POV additions such as: The United State’s real purpose for going to war was to protect our oil supply in Kuwait. The new links added are non-working. The photo is probably copyrighted. I'm therefore reverting to Gamaliel's version. --JJay 04:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Consequences

Did anyone get prosecuted for these lies? Last time I looked, there were laws against lying to Congress. Yes, if she has diplomatic immunity, I can see her getting away with it, but what about Lauri Fitz-Pegado, or Hill & Knowlton?
Septegram 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone was prosecuted. They were not presenting in a court of law, nor any place that that she would have to swear to tell the whole truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMD (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2006

THe Congressional Human Rights Caucus is actually NOT associated with the US COngress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.54.11 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that. We should also include at some point the info that the CHRC was a front organization of Hill + Knowlton, getting free rent in $3k/month offices owned by H+K. csloat (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"there were laws against lying to Congress"

Only if the witness is under oath. And, only committees have subpoena power. Nayirah "testified" before the "Human Rights Caucus." A caucus is an informal group of members of Congress. Any two members of Congress can call themselves a Caucus.

The caucus meeting was dressed up to appear on TV as if it were a an official, committee hearing. It was not. It was all PR. That was a part of the scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.55.73 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 November 2006

Prosecuted but not for lying to Congress

SF Chronicle Jul 8, 1992. pg. A.1, "Ex-Envoy Faces Charges Over Helping Kuwait / 3 indicted for secret roles in propaganda campaign":

A former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain in the Reagan administration and two former executives of a conservative journal have been charged with taking $7.7 million from Kuwait in secret payments to push for U.S. intervention in the Persian Gulf war.

Apparently these guys took $7.7 million from the Kuwaiti government but spent only $2 million of it on the Nayirah hoax and pocketed the other $5.7 million. They were charged with acting as secret agents for Kuwait and with evading taxes.

It looks like there's also a book about the incident, John R. MacArthur, "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War". Might be worth looking at. 67.117.130.181 12:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a great book; there's a chapter on the incident, but the book is about much more than that. csloat 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

HBO reference

The article states:

Home Box Office (HBO) presented Nayirah's story as truth in their 2002 Live From Baghdad. HBO eventually added, after the final credits, that the incubator "allegations were never substantiated."

However, in the movie, the incubator story is presented as an allegation that could potentially be a story. At the end of the movie along with several other historical notes, they also add that the incubator story is unfounded. I believe that the above characterization paints the HBO movie unfairly and could be changed to:

The 2002 HBO movie, Live From Baghdad, included several scenes dealing with the incubator allegations, but not presenting that story as truth. In that movie, several characters try to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the story, not able to draw any conclusions. After the final credits, a note stated that that the incubator "allegations were never substantiated." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaveFS (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I've effected this change... The misleading text was up there for 8 months, however, since this advice was offered here! DBaba (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Need name change

I've added mention of Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder to this article, and modified the shredder article to better link here. However, the article here seems misnamed - shouldn't it be 1990 Kuwait incubator story or something similar? Make it a lot easier to find! PR^talk 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proof she lied? If being an ambassadors daughter makes her unreliable then there is no one on the left that can claim reliability on any issue. She is an actual nurse who actually worked in a hospital in kuwait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize winning journalist John MacArthur interviewed doctors who worked at the hospital. None of them witnessed any incubator atrocities. They also told him that she worked there for a couple days at most, as a kind of intern. The story is not unreliable because she's the daughter of a diplomat; it's unreliable because she's the daughter of a diplomat who spent 11 million dollars on a PR firm to concoct such stories. But the main evidence contrary to her story is the testimony of witnesses as explained above. This really should be more clear in the article. csloat (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the info; MacArthur promoted the story but he wasn't the one who interviewed the doctors. csloat (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

John MacArthur won that Pulitzer for this story and started a charitable foundation. Other than that I can find no relevant information on the web about him. I don't know if it violates Wikipedia's guidelines, but isn't that circular logic? To clarify, using his Pulitzer as credibility on the very story he won it for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) This may have confused you, but since this is a page about a conspiracy I'm proposing the alternative explanation that the media and their favored charities are the one's who profit most from promoting a revised history that we went to war over incubators most of us did not hear about until after the war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk • contribs)

If you didn't hear about the incubators till after the war, you're either too young or you weren't paying attention. The story was mentioned by Bush in several speeches -- even alluded to in his speech on the eve of the war -- and it was brought up by at least seven senators in the prewar debate. MacArthur was the editor of Harper's and if you can't find anything about him on the web, try his Wikipedia page for a start. And, sure, the fact that the story won a pulitzer bolsters its credibility but that's not the source of it; if you read what I added to the article it's not MacArthur who dug up this info in the first place anyway. In any case, if you don't have reliable sources backing up your "alternative explanation," it's really not that helpful. csloat (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did use his wikipedia page as a source of information, thats where I got the information about his charity. I brought that up to point out that if having a PR firm makes you a conspiracy, then so does starting a charity which is a PR firm with a tax writeoff. As for the Alternate explanation i'll back up mine when you back up your's! You are the one who brought up the pulitzer in the first place, so If it's not the source of it's credibility that's on you. And why are Doctors that didn't even know she worked there "Eyewitnesses". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Mr. MacArthur's unsubstantiated innuendo that Nayirah was not even in Kuwait when the atrocities occurred was never checked. "The State Department confirms that she was in Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion and remained there for several weeks until she could escape." source NYtimes

By the way live from Bagdad is a state run media and not a credible news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk • contribs)

You're so confused I don't even know where to start. "Live From Baghdad" is a movie on HBO, not a "state run media," and it's not even being used as a source! (Beyond that, BBC is a state run media, are you saying that's not a credible source??) The Pulitzer is irrelevant; actually I don't see that on his page at all so I may have been wrong about that, but if he did win a Pulitzer for this story I would think that would increase rather than decrease his credibility (which seems to be your argument). I'm not sure why him contributing to a charity would hurt his credibility either? The reason doctors are "eyewitnesses" is because they actually worked at the hospital in question and they were interviewed and all that could be confirmed is that she worked there one day (or a couple?) and that there never were any babies yanked out of incubators. There is no "unsubstantiated innuendo" that she wasn't in Kuwait; I am going to have to re-read MacArthur's book to be sure but my understanding is that his claim is that she wasn't at that hospital more than a couple of days and the doctors at that hospital confirmed this never happened. Finally, MacArthur is not the main source of the story; it is the Independent, which interviewed doctors and even found alternative explanations for where the myth came from -- read the actual article in the Independent and you will have the evidence you are asking for (or just read the part I quoted in this article!). The fact that she was in Kuwait is irrelevant to whether she witnessed something at a particular hospital. csloat (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good article summarizing everything wrong with "Nayirah's" story. It turns out that the source of the info that she was only at the hospital one day is ... wait for it... Nayirah herself. Kroll Associates undertook a "voluminous" study of the Hill & Knowlton story after the war and interviewed her and learned that "contrary to her testimony, which she said had been prepared with the help of Hill and Knowlton, she had not been a volunteer at the hospital, but had only stopped by for a few minutes." Other evidence from the incubator story came from Dr. Ibrahim Bahbahani, a "Kuwaiti surgeon" who turned out to be a dentist, not a surgeon, and who also had no direct knowledge of such incidents. Another so-called witness cited by Hill and Knowlton outright said they lied about what he had said and that he had said no such thing. And don't tell me Kroll is Iraqi run media or some such nonsense; they were hired by the Kuwaitis in hopes that they would vindicate Hill & Knowlton. I'll add this additional evidence to the article eventually, but it's pretty conclusive, as far as I can see. csloat (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't see this... "Pulitzer prize winning journalist John MacArthur interviewed doctors who worked at the hospital. None of them witnessed any incubator atrocities. They also told him that she worked there for a couple days at most, as a kind of intern. The story is not unreliable because she's the daughter of a diplomat; it's unreliable because she's the daughter of a diplomat who spent 11 million dollars on a PR firm to concoct such stories. But the main evidence contrary to her story is the testimony of witnesses as explained above. This really should be more clear in the article. csloat (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I added the info; MacArthur promoted the story but he wasn't the one who interviewed the doctors. csloat (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC") ...on this page? It's right on this very page above you.

And on the original page "Live from Bagdad" was indead used as a source. And yes BBC is a state run media with no credibility or have you not been keeping up with all the scandals they've had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Or their popular nickname "Bagdad Broadcasting Company". No I'm not making that up. Maybe I could've been clearer as you yourself said earlier and said "By the way live from Bagdad is a state run media's propaganda and not a credible news source.", but at least I don't change the page and then criticize you for a comment made before the page change.

Also in your latest page you misquoted the senator, and I'm the one confused?

"...contrary to her testimony, which she said had been prepared with the help of Hill and Knowlton, she had not been a volunteer at the hospital, but had only stopped by for a few minutes." This is not contrary to her testimony her identity was being protected! Also her "few minutes" visit was prolonged until her father can smuggle her out of the country.

"Dr. Ibrahim Bahbahani, a "Kuwaiti surgeon" who turned out to be a dentist, not a surgeon, and who also had no direct knowledge of such incidents." He was testifying about completely different atrocities, and his identity was being protected too. Also in Kuwait a "Dentist" is a "Surgeon" so this smear is based on an error in translation

"The reason doctors are "eyewitnesses" is because they actually worked at the hospital in question and they were interviewed and all that could be confirmed is that she worked there one day (or a couple?) and that there never were any babies yanked out of incubators." One completely denied she ever worked there. And their testimony was that they "checked inventory afterwards and no incubators were missing", not that "they were there on the day the nice invaders just stopped in the hospital for a chat". Maybe you haven't heard, but Iraq lost the gulf war, they had to pull out and leave things that were too bulky and would slow them down. "...but if he did win a Pulitzer for this story I would think that would increase rather than decrease his credibility" Not on the story he won it for, that is circular logic. or as it's also known when you write a research paper "Academic Incest".

"I'm not sure why him contributing to a charity would hurt his credibility either?" He founded the charity, it's equivalent to the ambassador's hiring a PR firm except he can hide money in it and never pay an estate tax. Not that it makes him unreliable it's just a comparison.

"Her testimony, which had been regarded as credible at the time, has since come to be regarded as wartime propaganda. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony" from the page.

From wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[3] Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." —Preceding—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to respond to incoherent rambling. You really lost me after "Baghdad Broadcasting Company." Cheers, csloat (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed your limitation's, and am sympathetic to you. The above is Wikipedia's policies. It looks messed up because I posted them at the same time as you. Baghdad Broadcasting company is an obscure reference. I apologize for confusing you. I will explain the above, Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons puts the burden of proof on you. You saying that "her statements have come to be regarded as wartime propaganda" violates wikipedia's standards. If you can't verify she lied, then you can't just insinuate it. If you don't have proof she lied, then your article cannot state that she lied. Your article is not Neutral point of view, and you are doing original research. You obviously are stating your negative opinions about a living woman and wikipedia is not your blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The verification is in the article. It doesn't say that "she lied" (although she obviously did, and admitted herself that she did); it accurately states that her statements have come to be regarded as wartime propaganda, and the sources back that up. I'll add the additional source now. csloat (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it. I'll use simple terms. Saying that very many people think that Michael Jackson is a child molester is not allowed by wikipedia's standards, even if it is true that many people beleive Michael Jackson was a child molester. If he was convicted of molesting children stating that he was convicted of molesting children would be allowed. Do you Understand? If you really beleive you have proof she lied, then why don't you have the guts to change the article to say she lied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk • contribs)

You need to back off. If you have a specific change you'd like to see in the article, let us know what it is, and link to a reliable source backing it up. Making stuff up about Michael Jackson or about Nayirah's allegedly having been at the hospital longer than a few minutes or about HBO being a "state-run" media is just not helpful to anyone. csloat (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You really don't know an what an analogy is? I'm not criticizing Michael Jackson. You are criticizing Nurse Nayirah. And you've been Condescending to me this whole time while also claiming to not know what I'm writing about. I think that you are intentionally pretending to misunderstand me, but if you really don't understand what I'm saying you need to leave editing wiki pages to someone a little older, at least until you graduate grade school. To rephrase yet again what I've been saying to you-- Saying that other people beleive that someone is a liar is a cowardly way of calling someone a liar, and being able to later claim you never said any such thing. It is also a violation of Wikipedia's Standards. People have been using that trick since before the internet, and Wikipedia had a real problem with it during the Bush administration, so they banned it.

"Nayirah's allegedly having been at the hospital longer than a few minutes" "The State Department confirms that she was in Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion and remained there for several weeks until she could escape." You should stop accusing me. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/27/opinion/l-kuwaiti-gave-consistent-account-of-atrocities-789292.html

"The Filipina nurses, Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, who worked in the maternity ward of the Al Adnan hospital, had never seen Ms al-Sabah in their lives." http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1205-04.htm So if they didn't see Ted Bundy kill and rape a woman that must not have happened either, no matter they never met any of the women who were raped.

To summarize I do have a specific problem about your article, it violates wikipedia's standards, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and I've wrote that several times while you've claimed to not know what I'm writing about. If you really believe that I'm being rude and disruptive then e-mail an administrator! I believe they can tell with one glance that this is not neutral point of view. And you keep posting at the same time as me, and I've had to type every single thing I've written twice. That is why what I've written apears messed up on this page, which you keep criticizing me for—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.88.34 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are criticizing Nurse Nayirah. No, reliable sources are (plenty of them). A distinguishing difference. Dynablaster (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And, to go further, nobody's really criticizing her per se or calling her a liar. She told the truth when Kroll interviewed her. She was clearly bullied by Hill & Knowlton, as were other "witnesses," several of whom recanted their testimony. And even that's not a criticism; for heaven's sake, she was a 15 year old girl being pressured and coached by a PR firm hired by her father; what would you expect her to do? Anyway our opinions about this can differ, it doesn't matter, as long as we stick to what reliable sources have written on the matter, which is what we are trying to do. csloat (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Example #1 Claims must be attributed to a source. "Her testimony, which had been regarded as credible at the time, has since come to be regarded as wartime propaganda. The public

relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony." "...has since

come to be regarded as wartime propaganda." by whom? Not by "The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton" which is the only

organization mentioned in the same paragraph, and the link takes you back to this same page.

Example #2 Giving an opinion as a fact. "...has since come to be regarded as wartime propaganda." The phrase "Regarded as" is stating an opinion, regardless of any

sentence it's in. That is it's definition. Biographies are about facts, they have no room for opinions.

Example #3 Definition of an Eyewitness " One investigator, Aziz Abu-Hamad, interviewed doctors in the hospital where Nayirah claimed she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pull 15

infants from incubators and leave them to die. The Independent reported, "The doctors told him the maternity ward had 25 to 30

incubators. None was taken by the Iraqis, and no babies were taken from them." While not called eyewitnesses in the article they

are being sourced as Eyewitnesses. An Eyewitness is someone who witnesses an event personally. If my neighbor Joe says that he

was abducted by aliens along with his cows. That experiments were conducted on them in which some of the cows died some of the cows

died, but the aliens returned them to his field anyways. In this case I would be an Eyewitness that it happened if I was abducted

along with him and seen the aliens myself. To be an Eyewitness to something that different happen is actually not the opposite,

but the same. To be an eyewitness that my neighbor Joe and his cows were not abducted by aliens, I'd have to been there by his

side the whole time, and seen no aliens. I can't just spend time with him some other day, or be asleep when he said it happened,

and I certainly wouldn't be an Eyewitness if I swore that I had no neighbor named Joe. --Unless I actually don't.

"The Filipina nurses, Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, who worked in the maternity ward of the Al Adnan hospital, had

never seen Ms al-Sabah in their lives." They were counted as Eyewitnesses originally, before the state department verified that

Nurse Nayirah was in that hospital. At that point legally they were no longer considered Eyewitnesses.

Example #4 You're doing Original Research which violates wikipedia's policy "The story helped build domestic support for the Persian Gulf War." The following is from Wikipedia's policies "Wikipedia does not

publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any

unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the

place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.Citing sources and avoiding original research are

inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly

related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.""Biographies of living persons

must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not

our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The

possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It is

also not a court of opinion for you to weave together an argument from various sources and agree with them while rejecting other

articles that don't fit your story. "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care.

In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for

people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple,

highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the

Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their

truth."

Example #5 Self Published Sources "Brian Eno, Lessons in how to lie about Iraq, The Observer, August 17, 2003. Ameen Izzadeen, Lies, damn lies and war, Daily Mirror of Sri Lanka, 2001 (no more precise date provided), archive.org mirror accessed 18 December 2006. Phillip Knightley, The disinformation campaign, The Guardian, October 4, 2001. Maggie O'Kane, This time I'm scared, The Guardian, December 5, 2002. " "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless

written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to

personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so

long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization

publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be

attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Example #6 Criticism and Praise "No, reliable sources are (plenty of them). A distinguishing difference. Dynablaster (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)" I've shown far more reliable sources that state the exact opposite of yours. As to why that's not original research, I'm not editing the article, the burden of proof is on the person who edits the article. Your reliable sources include a journalist who wrote a retraction for his critic, and this distinguishing column links to it as if it were a retraction."Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." To emphasize even if they were reliable... "and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

Example # 7 Guilt by association "The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony." "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." Burden of Proof is on the Person who edits the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and adjusted the article to deal with the one point you made that has any legitimacy. If you knew anything about this situation you would already know that this is a textbook case of propaganda, but I've now cited the textbook in the lede (even though the point is well established throughout the article). I think we're done now; thank you for your input. csloat (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not mentioned yet how much I think you are doing a good job with this article, especially your last revision. However my most important point is still not addressed. Using the phrase "come to be regarded as " is synanomous with opinion, because it can be replaced with "is the opinion of some people that it is" with no alteration in meaning. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regard It's also a tactic that has been used in propaganda for centuries. It has a name "weasel words",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words because when someone says "many people regard my oponent as resposible for...", what they really mean is "I beleive I can get you to think my opponents responsible for..." and then claim they never suggested such a thing. It's also against Wikipedia's standards. But the most important reason that phrase shouldn't be used in an article is that people have caught on to it. It does not fool anyone anymore. No one that doesn't already sing themselves to sleep with a mantra of "Bush lied kid's died." gives a fig about the regards of an anonymous indeterminate horde.

Your Sources http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html It says Opinion on the top of the page and in the link itself

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n9_v24/ai_12529902/ This is an online archive that links to a print publication, thats own archives don't go as far back. It is second hand, and Ted Rowe is an opinion article writer, which leads me to beleive it is also an opinion column.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/27/opinion/l-kuwaiti-gave-consistent-account-of-atrocities-retracted-testimony-790692.html Also says opinion right at the top of the page, in addition he's retracting someone else's testimony.

http://www.hbo.com/films/livefrombaghdad/related.shtml Says New York Op-Ed at thetop of the article

Now why is this important "News organizations Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. Some caveats:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment. Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work.[2] To avoid this indirect self-referencing, editors should ensure that material from news organizations is not the only existing source outside of Wikipedia. Generally, sources that predate the material's inclusion in Wikipedia are preferable. " from Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

You know, we've already addressed your concerns in spades. It would be best if you quit filling the talk page with incoherent rambling. It also doesn't look good when you solicit help from banned trolls on this page. If you have a specific change you think would improve this page, explain it clearly. But I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. csloat (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This "Incoherent rambling" is wikipedia's policies, but I don't need to tell you that. I was shocked to find out that you used these very same arguments on the swift boat pages. You are a hypocrite, pretending ignorance of wikipedia's policies when you used these very same arguments yourself. So drop the "I can't make heads or tails of..." act. As for "banned tolls" you were the one reprimanded for calling the other wikipedian an Islamophobe, when you lose an argument you accuse others of being racists. You know that you've been caught red handed violating wikipedia's policies, and putting your fingers in your ears saying "I can't hear you!" doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's policies I have trouble understanding; it's your incoherent rambling about them. csloat (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling my bullet point format "incoherent rambling" is as foolish as criticizing a Microsoft sans serif font printed document as "bad handwriting". It couldn't be any clearer than if it was printed at the top of the page.

Which as a matter of fact it is. "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous" which then links to the page which tells you specifically what a poor source is, which I quoted in the paragraph above.

Also in the paragraph above I cut and pasted your links as an example. Then I pointed out that at the top of the linked pages it says "OPINION". That means it is an editorial.

In case it has slipped your mind by now Opinion pages or editorials are NOT reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards.

But why would that be so hard for you to grasp when you made the exact same statement in the "Winter Soldier" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a little weird to have someone stalking me for several years and then bringing up material from years ago to try to insult me. Don't you have anything better to do? csloat (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You always change the subject and attack me when confronted with the fact that your article violates wikipedia's standards.

As a matter of fact I do have better things to do. That is why I never joined Wikipedia. That is why I asked someone else to take up the editing on this page. That is why I never even read John Kerry's articles until last week. Your comments are still there. As to who is the stalker- Exactly how did you know that I asked someone else to read this page?(Rhetorical Question)

Since you refuse to comply to wikipedia's standards, I will edit this page in a more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I reworded phrases that used weasel words. I removed content that was expressing the authors opinion. I also removed content that was badly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:DE. csloat (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That applies to you not me. I only removed content that was badly sourced, and reworded phrases that used weasel words. You are the one disruptive editing. I added nothing, so I couldn't have added anything that was biased.

"Testified" is the proper word to use in the sentence, "Alledged" is a weasel word, that suggests a point of view. "Testified was also the original wording until someone changed it to "controversally alleged".

"A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. In addition, such editors may:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles. "

That describes you perfectly.

Do me a favor - stop personally attacking me, and stop deleting well sourced content on the article. Even your minor changes are bad for readability; e.g. you put the word "testified" in a sentence that already uses the word "testimony" to describe the act. Just cut it out. Get a user id and learn the rules around here if you want to edit regularly, but do not try to bully your way through things. Thanks. csloat (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That was content that was already in the article before. As to personal attacks You've filled this page with veiled insults to my intelligence, all I did was turn one attack back on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that testified was in the sentence twice was your bad grammar not mine. You didn't even correct the problem. "Alleged" is synonomous with testified. Alleged is a "weasel word" synonym meaning that it is FORBIDDEN by Wikipedia's standards. "Testified" is the allowed term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the page alone; continual behavior like this is likely to get you banned from Wikipedia. Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You leave this page alone. You are the one misbehaving. Your behaivior is reprehensible. I have improved this article, and all you can do is revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Beware of wikipedia spin by PR firm Hill & Knowlton

Please note that Hill & Knowlton was found to manipulate wikipedia articles as reported here: [2] [3] [4] [5]. As this edit reveals, the IP 194.242.55.7 is used by Niallcook, according to his page "worldwide director of marketing technology for communications firm Hill & Knowlton". On top of obscene vandalism, 194.242.55.7 edited an article about Maldivian politics as well as the one about Ahmed Shafeeq Ibrahim Moosa, a Maldivian politician. There may be more accounts that are used to influence articles related to Hill & Knowlton or its customers. Using the wiki-tool of a whois search, one can find that all IPs in the range of 194.242.55.0 - 194.242.55.255 belong to Hill & Knowlton. Knopffabrik (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Nayirah (testimony) and Citizens for a Free Kuwait

We've got Nayirah (testimony) and Citizens for a Free Kuwait, both of which are duplicates of each other in terms of scope and content. It doesn't make much sense to have two articles when a centralized topic would treat both. I'm open to suggestions that propose solutions to make the lives of our readers easier. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Nayirah's testimony is notable enough to warrant its own article. The Citizens for a Free Kuwait was a separate campaign which received its own criticism and should be further expanded. While the Citizens for a Free Kuwait article is currently heavily overlapping this one, they should not be merged, but the CFK article should be expanded. Also, when I originally expanded this article, I planned to move several sections of the article into a separate article regarding the incubator allegations as a whole, but never did.Smallman12q (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to keep them separate for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't better for our readers. They are both duplicates of the same topic and same content. Why do we need two articles and more importantly, which topic is the primary? This article, Nayirah (testimony), appears to be the child article of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, yet it is Nayirah that is treated as the primary. That doesn't make any sense. A recommendation is made above to "expand" Citizens for a Free Kuwait, but that would mean duplicating Nayirah (testimony). Sorry, I'm not following either of you. If the testimony was generated by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, then we would have only one article. If Citizens for a Free Kuwait is ancillary to the testimony, then it would be part of this article. There's no need for two articles on the same subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep separate. I think that this article has a great deal of information specific to Nayirah's testimony that would not be relevant to the broader article on the Citizens for a Free Kuwait campaign. To keep that article flowing properly I think that you would want to have a section on the testimony for sure, but with a link over to the main article. There was so much coverage of this specific topic that I think it does warrant its own article. As to which is primary, sometimes a particular event like this is what is most widely recognized rather than the larger concept that it was a part of. I'd also like to commend the obviously thorough work that went into the expansion of this article. —Zujine|talk 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence the article on Citizens for a Free Kuwait can ever be expanded so what is your objection to redirecting it to this article? That group produced this testimony, and there is nothing more to say about them other than duplicating this content. Aside from the poorly named title, it is clear that there is consensus that this aricle should be the primary topic. However, that doesn't address the fundamental problem. Is there any objection to redirecting the campaign aricle here? If so, what is the basis of this objection? Smallman claims that Citizens for a Free Kuwait was a separate campaign, but the sources don't say that. The sources say that this testimony was produced by the front group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait. If Smallman's point is to be considered, then he would have to describe other campaigns produced by that group. Are there any? Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

-The group did not produce this testimony.

1. The Kuwaiti government funded 99.9% of Citizens for a Free Kuwait which spent most of the money on the PR firm Hill & Knowlton which provided stylistic help/coached Nayirah.
2. Citizens for a Free Kuwait gave some money to the Congressional Human Rights Foundation, which hosted the testimony.
3. The testimony was recorded/distributed by HR.

I've looked around and there isn't much coverage of Citizens for a Free Kuwait outside its relation with the Nayirah testimony, so perhaps it should be merged. Alternatively, an article for Kuwaiti public relations during the Gulf War could be created to cover this campaign as well as others. Another article would be Iraqi incubator allegations for the rest of the incubator allegations.Smallman12q (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If it means centralizing the topic and simplifying access for our readers, I support the merge and redirect. Your own footnote 38 says the group produced the testimony. If that's wrong, perhaps the sources in use need to be reevaluated. I don't find it helpful to further fragment this centralized topic with additional new articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Summary style, and Wikipedia:Article size. Both articles under consideration here are relatively small, so size alone would not suggest that they must be separated. The essential question is whether Citizens for a Free Kuwait has enough material that is not related to the Nayirah testimony. It doesn't look like it: CFAFK was in existence only a brief time, and the only thing it is known for is the Nayirah episode, true? I don't see a compelling argument one way or another: Merging with a redirect would be just fine; leaving them separate is not bad either. Personally, I would merge them just because I like conciseness and simplicity. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Arden Wohl

Rumor has it that the nurse Nayirah was actually played by Arden Wohl. Anything to prove or dismiss this? --197.229.159.18 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nayirah (testimony). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/5/pr.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/5/war.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nayirah testimony. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429012920/http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429012920/http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

source review tips

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nayirah testimony/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll start the review for this in a couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, @MagicatthemovieS: I apologize for the long delay in getting to this review. After a preliminary read through, I can offer the following comments before I start a formal review.

1. Background could include a precis on the war, when, who, how, why.
2. Followed by Controversy, which explains what happened with accusations of genocide, followed by explaination of the sub players; hill and Knowlton, etc., plus each role they played
3. The material on Hill and Knowlton should be consolidated and linked.
4. For that matter, all entities should be linked in the lead and in the body at first mentions of participants
5. Isn't there an info box for this? It would help explain the situation better.
6. Make sure your word choices are what you mean.

Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 26, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: not well written. Confusing narrative, repetitive,

2. Verifiable?: the qualify of writing calls into question its accuracy

3. Broad in coverage?: n

4. Neutral point of view?: n

5. Stable?: y

6. Images?: y

as I have suggested above, this needs a significant copy edit, and a better structure to lead the reader through a complicated and controversial subject

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)