Talk:Jamie Doran

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

Guinea Pig Kids description[edit]

I've reverted an edit by Betterworld67 (previously made and then undone by Probewiki). The edit removed the following sentence from the "Guinea Pig Kids" description: "The BBC has upheld complaints that this documentary breached editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, acknowledging that it made false claims and was biased towards the views of "AIDS denialists"."

The sentence was replaced by: "A subsequent Federal investigation confirmed that some children had been volunteered for trials by New York's Administration for Children's Services without the appointment of independent advocates to ensure their wellbeing."

My reasoning is that the original sentence was well referenced and stated a highly pertinent fact. That the documentary in question has been the subject of much controversy must be noted. It is highly unusual for the BBC to issue an apology of this nature. In contrast, the sentence added instead was unreferenced and omits the most important finding of the Federal and other investigations - i.e. that the documentary's most serious allegations were unfounded. Trezatium (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution would be to include both our statements in some form or other. However, for this to happen I think we should have a reliable reference to support your statement, given the contentiousness of this subject. Trezatium (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needed improvements[edit]

My edits were reverted a few times so I think i need explaining why I made them, more detailed.

The article is about Jamie Doran, it is not a hatrack for political views about the United States or Afghanistan and other things Doran did films on. Doran is notable bc of his films, so you have to talk about his notable films. But you have to say what is said about them in sources not stuff you think about them or you heard from some body even if you are Jamie Doran editing this. Examples are,

  • "This massacre was confirmed in The Guardian newspaper." The article confirms a massacre allegedly occurred, it does not say it is the same massacre in a film. When there is not explicit tie between the Guardian report and the film this is called original research, WP:OR. This article needs sources about Doran and Doran's films. Like, if the Guardian report says, "here is a massacre from Afghanistan, and filmmaker Jamie Doran filmed this film called Afghan Massacre about it, and we investigated it and found out it was all true."
  • Andrew McEntee "reviewed evidence held by Doran and other sources including the United Nations, and through McEntee's own on-site visit to the mass grave during September 2002." The source does not say Doran, it does not say site visit, it does not say Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death, it says McEntee called for an investigation, that is all.
  • "The claims were also backed by a leaked United Nations memo, said The Guardian newspaper, while Newsweek magazine confirmed with its own lengthy investigation." The United Nations memo did not support Doran's claims prisoners were shot and US troops knew about it, it said there was no evidence of violence, some people died of suffocation in containers, there was no evidence US troops knew any thing. So if we want on doing original research, there should be the opposite conclusion, Doran's claims are not supported. But we do not do original research and the Guardian and Newsweek don't say a thing about Doran or the film, so it is all irelavnet on this article.
  • Need for Speed, there is needed a source this film is real and notable, beside Jamie Doran's web sites. Also source for the General's quotes that is may be blp.
  • Lord of the Wing, the source has a letter from the producer of the film, it does not say the film was the reason for the fund, its more like the producer, not Doran, started the fund, the site does not say any thing about Doran. The Motor Neurone Disease Association is I am very sure a awesome group but this article is not about them it is about Doran. If you want to talk about them, start article on them.
  • "described by London Evening Standard critic, Victor Lewis Smith, as “television at its finest” on 28th March, 1998." Is this a quote, then it has a source or was it just a comment to the film maker?? RetroS1mone talk 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing is, the awards, did Doran get them personally or were they for his films, it is a small distinction but we need to be accurate. And also alot of language has to get changed, alot of this is just copied from Doran's websites acftv, probetv. RetroS1mone talk 02:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new user added some good sources on this article but also did not solve these problems. Can not say Jamie Doran won award except with RS which says, "Film What Ever by Jamie Doran won this award" and it is good when it is an independant source. I take out some stuff with old fact tags also. RetroS1mone talk 03:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments 22nd July 2009[edit]

Dear RetroS1mone,
Your amendments to the Jamie Doran page deleted numerous facts that were substantiated by references from reputable sources, including major news publications. Many of your justifications for these deletions appear to be inadequate.

However, I would like to thank you for highlighting a small number of legitimate issues relating to the information I posted. I believe these have now been resolved.

  1. Your personal opinions about the film festivals at which Doran won awards are hardly valid reasons to delete references to the original, third-party sources which corroborate the fact that he is a named winner.
  2. With regards to the information and references you deleted on the Afghan Massacre film: The Le Monde Diplomatique article and one of the The Guardian articles mention Doran by name and cite his film. You deleted numerous references about the event covered in Doran’s film. The sentence to which these references were attached did not claim that they mentioned Doran, merely that they were related to the Afghan Massacre story. This information is certainly valid as it relates to Doran’s work. Specific references to Doran in every one of the cited articles would therefore not be necessary for their inclusion on this page. Further information relating to this story is also indisputably relevant.
  3. You removed all information about the film The Need for Speed, including a reference from the Goethe Institute which specifically mentions Doran and this film. This is unquestionably a reputable third-party source. Please also note that the reference to the BBC article was prefaced with the statement, “The BBC also reported on this story in a 2003 article.” I consider this to be relevant information - relating, as it does, to Doran’s film, as well as giving Wikipedia users the opportunity to access further information about a story he worked on.
  4. Your deletion of the entire section on the film Sexpionage is a clear infraction of Wikipedia policy. Proof of Doran’s involvement in this film can be found on the cited New York Times website page. However, thank you for highlighting your issue with the prose. This has now been amended.
  5. For your information “popular science writing” is a genre. The adjective is used to differentiate between academic science books and books for non-academic consumers.
  6. Your deletion of the entire section on the film Jimmy Johnstone: Lord of the Wing also contravenes Wikipedia rules. The first three references mention the film by name (I suggest you use your browser’s search function). In the fourth, there is an image of the DVD box - clicking on this box brings up a larger image on which the following sentence can clearly be seen: “Directed by Jamie Doran.” All are third party sources.

I look forward to making further contributions to this page to transform it into a truly informative and useful resource for all Wikipedia users.

Regards,
Biggerpicture
(I originally directed correspondence about this page to RetroS1mone's User Talk page. This text is copied from there)
Biggerpicture (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the "partly upheld" in Guinea Pig Kids appears to be accurate based on the sentence a bit later in the first article cited (the second one appears to be dead), which states "However, the BBC did not uphold all the complaints made against the programme." --RobinHood70 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It completely upheld the complaints in article, it did not uphold one other. RetroS1mone talk 01:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a quick look at the text, I'm not seeing that. It mentions "several key parts", and later goes on to mention "did not uphold all". I think "partly upheld" is reasonable wording, though if I've missed something and it was only one particular concern, then "upheld most of the complaints" would probably be even better wording. As I said in my response to your accusation of WP:HOUNDing, I have no particular interest in this page—I just made some quick improvements to the article while I was here—so I'll leave it to you and the other editors of the page to figure out what's most appropriate. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answer Biggerpicture

  1. Original document from film festival website is not "third-party sources." It is primary documents, where is a third-party source about these festivals and Doran? New York festival gave out near 3000 awards that year and 270 Gold whateveritis awards. Worldfest gives near 1000 awards every year. The festivals are minor festivals, near every film gets an award so every film-maker is "award winning film-maker" it is like you got an award for saying a poem when you were six, but it is not notable so pls do not put it on Wiki.
  2. "The Le Monde Diplomatique article and one of the The Guardian articles mention Doran by name and cite his film." It is BC the Le Monde is not an article but an opinion letter by Doran him self!! The other "article" is also opinion editorial. Where is third-party objective news source?? Pls read WP:SYN, when RS does not say, "Jamie Doran first reported on this, and others followed" it is synthesis.
  3. "This story" about "Need for Speed" is synthesis like before. Is Goethe Institut reliable news source, is it substantial coverage from the movie or a schedule?
  4. Sexpionage, it was not reviewed by New York Times it is not a story about it, it is a database. The movie is not notable by the source.
  5. What is source for "popular science writer"??
  6. Pls do not accuse me that i violate Wiki rules. The sources do not say Doran and the film and they are about the player. Pls find sources about the film and Doran. When you are needing to magnify a picture and read sth from a DVD cover, it is not notable and it is not a good source for Wiki. RetroS1mone talk 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RetroS1mone,
Many thanks for your comments. I will attempt to answer them below:
  1. The festival websites could be classed as primary sources - however, this is questionable as Doran does not appear to be connected in any way with the festivals' administrators, and cannot, therefore, influence the information that they communicate via their website. If you look carefully at the wikipedia guidelines, I believe that you will see that the inclusion of these references is permissible: They substantiate the fact that is outlined in the preceding text. Again, I should point out that your personal opinions about the festivals in question do not constitute grounds for their removal.
  2. Regarding the fact that Doran wrote the Le Monde Diplomatique article, Wikipedia policy states "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." WP:PRIMARY This article has been in the public domain for a number of years now. The claims made in it have not been contested. This publication's reputation is beyond question. I am therefore certain that it is valid. Regarding the Guardian article: I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what your issue with this is. If there are Wikipedia guidelines that state that editorials in national newspapers are not permitted, I am not aware of them, and would appreciate a reference to the page that gives details of them. In either case, the article's author, George Monbiot, is the author of several books, and a regular contributor to the Guardian and other publications; I do not believe that his journalistic credentials can be queried. Monbiot regularly uses this section of the newspaper to report on journalistic investigations he has undertaken (as do numerous other journalists). Furthermore, for reasons stated in my initial contribution to this thread, I believe that the inclusion of the other references related to this film are also valid. May I suggest that we ask for an impartial opinion on this?
  3. I dispute your claim that the text on the Goethe Institute website is synthesis. The Goethe Institute is undoubtedly a reliable, third party source. This reference proves that Doran was responsible for this film - a fact that you seem to be disputing. I therefore argue that its inclusion is necessary. I would be grateful if you could also provide me a reference to a wikipedia guideline that states that a review or "substantial coverage" is necessary.
  4. I believe that the above answer also applies to your issues with the information relating to the film Sexpionage.
  5. The phrase "popular science writer" is in common usage. I suggest you type it into the search engine of your choice to verify this.
  6. As previously stated, the references in question do all mention this film by name. Please check this before stating otherwise. You seem to be disputing the fact that Doran directed this film. The picture of the DVD box is therefore a valid inclusion as it provides proof of Doran's role. I also believe, that in a case such as this, a primary reference - perhaps to Doran's company website - would be permissible. As in point 2, it is my opinion that the fact that Doran's claims of involvement with this film on his website have not been legally challenged (again, after having been in the public domain for a number of years) make it worthy of inclusion. Again, I quote wikipedia policy: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." And, "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." WP:PRIMARY
I welcome your editorial contributions, however, I ask that, to avoid accusations of wikipedia rule violations, you ensure that these contributions comply with wikipedia guidelines.
I recommend that, if we are unable to come a consensus on these points, we should seek an impartial opinion.
Warm regards,
Biggerpicture Biggerpicture (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind to clarify your interest in this topic, when you are Jamie Doran or you are associate of Jamie Doran, pls read WP:COI. So many primary sources from a editor that edits one article only, alot of times means, the topic is not notable and it is a vanity article. RetroS1mone talk 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RetroS1mone,
I believe that this page now accurately reflects both Doran’s successes, and the criticisms that have been levelled against him. It therefore clearly does not contravene Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Nowhere in these guidelines could I find clauses pertaining to the number of pages an editor contributes to, nor to the number of times they edit a page.
This page can no more be described as promotion than can the vast majority of uncontested wikipedia pages relating to most other film producers. It has become much richer in sourced information than it was prior to my editing of it: All of this information relates to films that Doran has been directly involved with (I refer you, once again, to my previous contributions to this discussion for justification for the inclusion of these references).
I should point out that your deleterious contributions to this page thus far indicate that you may have been trying to further an agenda of your own. Please note that, as a gesture of goodwill, I deliberately have not included references to any of the numerous newspaper articles that talk favourably about the film Guinea Pig Kids; nor have I referenced the Guinea Pig Kids group’s website; nor have I included references to any news articles about the controversy surrounding the Incarnation Children’s Centre, or to any other articles on consent issues relating to minors’ participation in pharmacological trials in the US; nor have I amended the wikipedia page relating to the Incarnation Children’s Centre.
I believe that by doing this, I have offered you a reasonable compromise.
I do not want to get into an “edit war” with you. I enjoy using Wikipedia, both as a consumer, and as an editor (and plan to contribute to a wide range of pages in future). I assume that neither of us want to engage in activities which could jeopardise our ability to use Wikipedia hereafter.
I will, in future, add further third-party references relating to the films Doran has worked on, and I may, at some point, arrange the films listed in the Filmography in chronological order. Please be assured, however, that if you accept the compromise I have offered, I will not attempt to add any references relating to the contentious issues I mentioned before.
I sincerely hope that this matter is now settled.
Regards and best wishes,
Biggerpicture Biggerpicture (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 10:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of clarification, there are two things (I think) that RetroS1mone is raising as potential concerns here: the first is that she believes you may be Jamie Doran, or a close associate of his, which would raise conflict-of-interest issues; the second is that this may be a single-purpose account. She seems to have forgotten another common Wikipedia guideline, however, which is don't bite the newcomers. --RobinHood70 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Pls do not put in original research from primary sources and pls do not synthesize things from secondary sources. Thx RetroS1mone talk 02:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RetroS1mone, You appear to have completely disregarded my attempts to enter into a dialogue with you. I have given lengthy justifications for my edits on a number of occasions, and I have made attempts to accommodate your wishes in these edits. I have also attempted to reach a compromise with you. You have, however, continued to make sweeping and deleterious edits which have been in violation of numerous Wikipedia guidelines. I believe that this should now be a matter for Wikipedia administrators. I will shortly be posting a request for administration to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, and for your reference, I will copy this message to your talk page. Sincerely, Biggerpicture Biggerpicture (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I removed an obscure reference, and arranged the filmography into chronological order.
I gave reasons for my edits. Please read WP:NOR. Example, you have four references for "Lord of the Wing", two references are in RS and they say, there is a film about the person called Lord of the Wing, they do not say Jamie Doran made the film. Third reference is a primary source, a BBC brochure, it says they showed a film Lord of the Wing, it does not say Jamie Doran. Fourth source is nonrs, it is a internet something. Biggerpicture says, when you amplify a picture of the DVD in that nonRS internet site you see the name Jamie Doran on the cover. That is a most funny example of Original Research i have seen. So, when there is not reliable source saying Jamie Doran made the film, it is not notable for Wiki.
Awards. So I make a film and no RS reviews it, and i take it to a minor film festival where every film gets award, and surprise my film gets one of 3,000 awards at the film festival but no RS reports it bc no RS cares about one of 3000 films. It is not right, I say on Wiki I am award-winning film-maker when there is not RS for it, that is NOR from primary sources and very very obscure stuff.


Afghanistan. Synthesis. You wrote the investigations followed Doran's film, that is not in the RS. Most from the RS are about alleged massacre in Afghanistan and do not say Doran or film. It is synthesis when you say it is same thing and the Doran film started the interest in it. Do you have a RS says it, OK, when you do not, it is synthesis.
AIDS denialist film. You deleted RS about this film and Jamie Doran. My edits were not vandalism, deleting RS to address the subject directly IS vandalism, pls do not do it. The AIDS denialism is one place in this article where there is RS on Jamie Doran and film, may be you do not like the criticism for some reason but it is verified, in RS.
BLP noticeboard. Is for times when people are making claims on a living person that are not in RS. RetroS1mone talk 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O and "chronological order?" How you do know the chronological order of this person's films? There is not many RS on Doran, when it was not the AIDS denialism he got involved in that is in many RS, I would say this person is not notable, where is RS on chronological order? RetroS1mone talk 23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RetroS1mone, As you will see from my edit summary, I have again tried to reach a compromise by including both of our comments. A little later on today I will make further efforts to try to accommodate your wishes by adding yet more citations to back up the facts that I have listed. When editing these, please check them thoroughly to ensure that your edits comply with Wiki guidelines.
Regarding your allegation that Doran made an "AIDS denialist" film: AIDS science was clearly not the subject of the film Guinea Pig Kids. It was about the human rights abuses being perpetrated against socio-economically deprived children in New York - Specifically that some of these children were being forced to undergo pharmacological tests without proper consent procedures having been followed. I include a reference to an independent review of these allegations that was carried out by the renowned Vera Institute: http://vera.forumone.com/download?file=1816/Executive_summary_english
This film's flaw was that Doran had not adequately researched the background one of his interviewees - the controversial scientist, David Rasnick. For this he was penalised. However, Doran did not give this man a platform for his views on AIDS science in the film. The interview pertained mainly to the welfare of the children in the Incarnation Children's Centre. The central tenet of the film was found to be correct by the BBC review, which only partly upheld the complaints that were made against it. I am sure you are aware of this.
I am open to your suggestions on how we might reach a compromise. At the moment, we do not seem to be making much headway.
Lastly, the chronology of the listed films is quite obvious from the accompanying citations. Surely this can easily be verified.
Sincerely, Biggerpicture (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have "wishes" about this article, and it is not "my text" and they are not "facts" on Wiki stuff is verified or not, all I care is, to use reliable sources and not do original research. You do not respond to any of these problems, you only revert. I do not call Doran an AIDS denialist, the sources say film is biased to AIDS denialists and makes HIV denialist claims. What is your source for "Doran had not adequately researched the bacground of one of his interviewees?" That can be a BLP violation w/o a source. "The accompanying citations" do not give a chronology except with original reserach. Pls answer these problems. RetroS1mone talk 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RetroS1mone, I see that the page has been edited by an impartial editor, who as far as I can see, has had no prior connection to either of us. Please can we leave it at this? Best wishes, Biggerpicture (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't answer the questions you asked: It was one of your quotes (I think from the Guardian article) that said that Doran's research was inadequate. Also, I wasn't aware that contributions on the talk page also had be backed up with citations. If this is the case, then I will try to do so in future, and I apologise if this contribution didn't meet Wiki standards.
Regarding the dating of the films from the citations: surely the fact that the citations themselves are dated, and run in chronological order is enough. Do you consider IMDB to be an adequate source? If so, I will include citations from IMDB and similar sources which will prove when these films were made.
One more thing - I think your insistence on making the first citation a negative one contradicts your claim that you are not trying to further a personal agenda. I don't think this reference is appropriately placed, but I will leave it there for the time being for a third-party editor to make a decision on. Regards, Biggerpicture (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "personal agenda" is, I do not want fluff bios on Wiki with original research from primary sources and other Wikis like IMDB. When citations on Doran are negative, article is negative, when they are positive, article is positive. When we want primary research on this article, we should say the "awards" the film-maker got were at award farms where they gave almost 1000 awards , Worldfest, and 3000 awards, New York in 2004. RetroS1mone talk 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conteroversial[edit]

The film-maker's films that are in reliable sources are Guinea Pig Kids and Massacre. Both films are very conteroversial. All sides from reliable sources should be in article. BC so much dispute, from US government on Massacre and scientists and activists and journalists on Guinea Pig, pls discuss edits about these on talk page.

I put in more information on Afghanistan film, RS says only 15 bodies were found and Afghan commander says they are of people that were injured and died on way to prison. It is important, for a film-maker that is basically accused of falsehood on at least one film, to have balance from RS in article and not only put in positive or negative. RetroS1mone talk 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I am not trying to suppress information. I am trying to make this a balanced page that includes all the facts. Sure, please do include the reference that says only 15 bodies were found, but do not delete the other information or references about this. Please note that I am not trying to delete the citations you have given that relate to Guinea Pig Kids.Biggerpicture (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As for the body count, Doran's film said 15 bodies had been found at the time. According to Newsweek reports based on the UN memo, by August a mass grave containing 960 bodies had been found. Per Guardian source cited. JN466 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The HIV Treatment Bulletin quote I think takes us too far into WP:COATRACK territory, especially since it is not a mainstream news publication. I am in favour of striking that; it is clear from what is there before that Doran's program was found to have misrepresented the facts in several material ways. Any objections? JN466 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayen466, Again, thanks for your work on this page. It really is looking a great deal better now. I have a few more references and additional facts that I will add in the coming days. I have no objections to striking the reference from the HIV treatment bulletin, but, in light of the dispute I've been having with RetroS1mone over the page, I'd rather not remove it myself. Best wishes, Biggerpicture (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait what RetroS1mone says. By the way, I presume you are both aware that parts of the Afghanistan program were screened this month on Democracy Now!? You can view the program here. The page also has a complete transcript at the bottom (you have to scroll down). JN466 09:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. Interesting stuff. Biggerpicture (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About bodies, 960 is what a Guardian opinion article says a Newsweek article says is in a secret UN memo, i suggest, we use Newsweek source direct. Newsweek source says a eyewitness said 960 people died, it does not say, 960 bodies were found in a mass grave. It says 15 bodies were found.
About a use from HIV Treatment Bulletin, the documentary made claim about current HIV treatment and medicine, it is appropriate, we include a medical source opinion when it talks about film direct. I do not object, we note the source and have the quote in endnote.
I think also, we should have mention Massacre documentary is also called "fake." RetroS1mone talk 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RetroS1mone, I agree, it would be better to have the Newsweek article directly - do you know where to find it? I do think, though, that the Guardian is valid source, and so it should remain as well. What are your thoughts, Jayen466?
I also agree that it is important that if there are allegations of fakery relating to the Afghan Massacre film, that these should be included. Are you talking about the quote from the "Afghanistan commander"? Please do feel free to include this and/or any other references on this.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on your meaning about the HIV treatment bulletin reference - You say you "do not object" to its removal, but you also say that you we "note the source and have the quote in the end note" - so do you mean that some of the text in the filmography should be removed, or do you actually mean that you would object to the removal of the reference?
Cheers, Biggerpicture (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, have citation w short summary like "scientists say this" and quote can be in endnote so not so long. RetroS1mone talk 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's see how it looks. Biggerpicture (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go out now. I'll check back later, and answer any messages you might have left. At the risk of labouring the point, I will politely ask one more time - please do not make sweeping changes to content or citations without us having discussed them first. Best, Biggerpicture (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a link to the Newsweek article? If not, it is covered here, p. 118. As for the Afghan program being called a fake, we need a quotable source on that. Do you have on to hand? JN466 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical data[edit]

This being a biography, we are currently really lacking some biographical data on Doran, such as his date of birth, place of birth, from when to when he was at the BBC, and so forth. JN466 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I doubt that we could find citations to back up any of that info.Biggerpicture (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RS[edit]

DemocracyNow is activist group and Seven Stories Press is activist publisher, are they RS for a conteroversial article? RetroS1mone talk 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And AIDSTruth is not an activist group? I'm willing to debate this, but let's not make any deletions until we have come to a consensus. Biggerpicture (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said time and time again, I don't believe that your personal opinions about the award are valid reasons for their removal. I can find another reference if necessary. What do you think Jayen466? And as I asked just a minute ago - let's discuss further changes. If we do so, we will surely make smoother and swifter progress. I also think that your statement about the accuracy of the documentary could be reworded - the context doesn't seem quite right, given the first half of the sentence. In fact, I do not believe it is appropriate in this initial paragraph, and that it would be better placed with the rest of the info about the film. Can we come to an agreement on that? Perhaps we could ask for Jayen466's opinion. I also believe that a reference should be supplied. Your comment about your edit was: (i take out minor award, no source in article now, from lead and i add the dispute about Massacre, source is rferl). What does "rferl" mean? I'm sorry, I'm not very good with abbreviations and acronyms, please will you try to avoid using them in future (I'm honestly not trying to be pedantic). I should also mention that the "Afghanistan commander" you mention is well known for being a very nasty guy. In the Afghan Massacre film he is on camera threatening to rape and kill a whole family. I think this denial actually might even add some weight to the accusation. Also, I don't believe Democracy Now! is solely an activist group. If it is deemed to be, I would certainly say that they are credible. How do you feel about Physicians for Human Rights - activist group or not? Are they a reputable source? Again, I respectfully ask for discussion before either of us make further changes. I also ask that we come to an agreement on the points I have raised in this message. I look forward to hearing from you, Biggerpicture (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Now! is a left-leaning programme, but golly, they have won dozens of journalism awards. Well within WP:RS. JN466 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RetroS1mone,
What are your thoughts about the page now?
The criticisms of Doran are in the first paragraph. And as I've said many times, I think they are valid criticisms, and I'm not trying to suppress them. To go into more detail about them at the beginning is not appropriate, I believe. There is lots of information about them in the section on Guinea Pig Kids. Please note that, still, I have deliberately not tried to include any other information about Guinea Pig Kids. I agree it was a flawed film, and I'm not trying to defend Doran for it.
About the criticisms of the Afghan Massacre film - As I said before, these criticisms come from I delete BLP violation, accusation of war crime. RetroS1mone talk 02:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) a guy who has received enormous amounts of criticism from human rights groups, General Dostum. It's hardly surprising that he would be question the film's accuracy, as he is implicated in it. His opinion is mentioned in the section on this film. I don't think it is appropriate in the first paragraph. I think that to include this criticism in the first paragraph would make it too lengthy - I would insist on including information about Dostum directly after his comments. I think it would be much better, and much more encyclopaedic, to leave this information until the section on the film. I hope we can agree on this.[reply]
Jayen466 seems to have good standing in the wikipedia community, and his edits have undoubtedly much improved the page's quality. It now looks like a decent wiki page - that is, it looks objective. Please note that I haven't been editing the page very much at all in the last few days - this is because of the dispute that you and I have been having over it. Jayen466 is a third party who has not had any contact with either of us before. In his edits, he has included information that both of us have brought to the page.
I hope we can agree on the page now, and leave it how it is.
If, however, you feel that it still needs work, I'd be more than happy to discuss your concerns.
Best wishes,
Biggerpicture (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts about the page are, it is better but there is to much partisan sources. OK i know what you are thinking, she is a fascist freak, no i am a proud Marxist!! Encylopedias need use neutral sources. OK may be there is no such thing, you will have a right wing guy say, hey the New York Times is communist rag and a progressive person says, the Wall Street Journal is corporate filth but on Wiki a news article in Times or Journal is RS.
Problem, a Newsweek source says 15 bodies are found and eyewitness says 960 people were killed. Opinion on Newsweek in Guardian messes it up, says Newsweek says 960 bodies are found. It is like what people want being true, yes also i think George Bush was idiot but it is not encylopedia writing to twist them into what i want, that is why Opinion is not a good RS. So now there is opinion articles and DemocracyNow, i love it but it is partisan organization, there is The Nation, openly leftist, BuzzFlash, a progressive organization, a Progressive publishing house. It is activism, it is not journalism.
I believe it to, People!! They killed innocent people, the Amis knew about it, the people at top should be prosecuted for war criminals. Problem, in encyclopedia we need RS. My opinion and Rush Limbaugh's opinion and DemocracyNow opinion, that is great it is not for the encyclopedia. RetroS1mone talk 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RetroS1mone, thanks for finding the Newsweek article! I have now put in a direct quote from the article; if your interpretation of the Newsweek text is different from the one in the Guardian, I'd have to say, Guardian is published, you are not. So let's put the original text, then the reader himself can decided whether the UN team thought the graves might contain as many as that. Secondly, The Nation definitely refers to the Gold Special Jury Award. Therefore reverted to source. If you can bring alternative sources referring to the award, documenting that several people got this award at that event, then we can review this; until then let's stick with what the source says please. Thanks. --JN466 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've self.reverted. http://www.worldfest.org/downloads/winnerslist2004.pdf appears to bear RetroS1mone out. JN466 23:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RetroS1mone, you insist on mentioning that according to Newsweek only 15 bodies were found. This is the relevant passage from Newsweek:

That's when Haglund, a veteran of similar investigations in Rwanda, Sri Lanka, the Balkans and other scenes of atrocity, was called in. Standing at what he reckoned from the 'dozer tracks was an edge of the grave site, he pushed a long, hollow probe deep into the compacted sand. Then he sniffed. The acrid smell reeking up the shaft was unmistakable. Haglund and local laborers later dug down; at five feet, they came upon a layer of decomposing corpses, lying pressed together in a row. They dug a trial trench about six yards long, and in that short length found 15 corpses. "They were relatively fresh bodies: the flesh was still on the bones," Haglund recalls. "They were scantily clad, which was consistent with reports that [before they died] they had been in a very hot place." Some had their hands tied. Haglund brought up three of the corpses, and a colleague conducted autopsies in a tent. The victims were all young men, and their bodies showed "no overt trauma"--no gunshot wounds, no blows from blunt instruments. This, too, Haglund says, is "consistent" with the survivors' stories of death by asphyxiation.

There is a clear implication that these 15 represent the tip of the iceberg; wouldn't you agree? JN466 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, let's also remember that this is Doran's BLP, and not the article on the Dasht-i-Leili massacre. It is very clear from the way the findings at the grave site are described in Newsweek that they are consistent with Doran's story to the extent that it claims that hundreds of people were buried in these graves. JN466 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also in Newsweek: "I can say with confidence that more than a thousand people died in the containers," says Aziz ur Rahman Razekh, director of the Afghan Organization of Human Rights. Again, I cannot make out that the Newsweek report contradicts Doran as far as the severity of the massacre is concerned, except on the question of US involvement. JN466 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totaly agree and i think it is atrocity and Amis probally helped. But i am not published and you are not published and Newsweek is and my interperation of an implication is not RS. RetroS1mone talk 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RetroS1mone, with regard to this edit, Newsweek did not say that there was an "alleged" mass grave. Newsweek said there was a mass grave there. It is even in the title of the Newsweek article: "Probing Of A Mass Grave". I don't think your edit is helpful, as it creates the impression that the writers of Newsweek had doubts as to whether there was a mass grave or not. JN466 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RetroS1mone, I agree that there is difference between activism and journalism. But I think that the reputability of a source can be determined by the research that is done by the journalists who write the articles. Therefore, I firmly believe that Democracy Now!, Seven Stories Press, and Physicians for Human Rights should be considered reputable sources. I would be grateful if you would revert your deletion of the Censored 2005 reference. Many thanks, Biggerpicture (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys i do not like the Amis more then you do i will bet but this is Encyclopedia it is not my blog. Conteroversial topics, where people like me and Democracy Now and Seven Stories Press are anti war and anti Ami imperialism, it is not RS using us as source. It should be third party source. We are involve in this story!! Now this article is a hatrack for the Afghan Massacre conteroversy, after Jayen466 said i was hatracking for Guinea Pig Kids. Jayen466 pls have a link to the movie web site and take out nonRS partisan sources, specialized stuff that is not about Doran and it should be in film article. Thx RetroS1mone talk 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure that the above message actually rebuffs my point about the difference between journalism and activism. Surely the merits of a piece of journailsm should be judged by the quality of the journalist's research. I don't think that there exists any objective news source. The Guardian could be described as anti-war, but it is certainly credible. Perhaps even CNN ould desrcibed as being the same. Fox, on the other hand, could be described as being pro-war, yet the inclusion of a reference from Fox news in a page like this would probably not be questioned. Anyway, this is not about pro-war or anti war sources - it is about the facts. RS guidelines state that common sense should be used when determining what references to include. I think that these references provide more information. They also seem to have been meticulously researched. Also, RetroS1mone, might I remind you that neither I nor Jayen466 are objecting to the inclusion of references which you brought to the page - namely the AIDSTruth citation and the article on the report on the drug tests. It could be argued that AIDStuth is a capainging NGO and that the other article would be more sutied to the Incarnation Children's Centre page. In an effort to reach a compromise with you, I have not contested their inclusion. Could you perhaps try to compromise as well? Biggerpicture (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets take out AIDSTruth and all the leftist activist sites. RetroS1mone talk 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK it is out and some from the activist sources are out, I hope we can make it a Wiki article from my political views article, people all ready know my political views :-) RetroS1mone talk 00:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RetroS1mone, a few questions: Do you know what the word 'compromise' means? How about the words 'discussion' and 'consensus'? How about the word 'before' - as in 'let's discuss and come to a consensus before making sweeping changes'. Why do you keep writing about your political views? What are 'Amis'? What does 'hatrack' mean? Do you think that, in terms of information, structure, and quality of language, the page can now be described as more or less encyclopaedic than it was before your most recent edits?
Quite obviously, I was never going to agree with the reasons you gave for your last edits. I'll now revert them all. I'm sure you will then undo my revertions. It could go on like this until the end of time.
I thought we were making progress.
I am absolutely open to any suggestions that you have might have about how we can move forward.
Biggerpicture (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RetroS1mone wanted to delete the long section about the spat between the German broadcasters and the German US embassy. I can see what she means; it's in the article on the film for those interested in in-depth information, and it does not describe any personal involvement by Doran in these events. On the other hand, RetroS1mone seems to want to make a strong case on this page that Doran is not to be trusted. That is a BLP issue, and in that regard, the information that a mainstream German broadcaster defied US pressure to show Doran's film an national television is relevant to his BLP. They obviously considered him, or the witnesses shown in his film, to be trustworthy enough to risk a diplomatic fracas over it.
  • Where I can't follow RetroS1mone's reasoning at all is in the fact that her version of the article deletes all mention of Doran having gone to the European and German Parliaments to show delegates the film, a fact that was widely reported. Again, that is relevant to his BLP. It is quite exceptional for a documentary filmmaker to be invited by major parliaments to show them his work. I do not agree to the deletion of that content. I also found another scholarly source on this: [1]
  • Another thing that makes me uneasy is that RetroS1mone keeps referring to the "alleged" massacre as if there were any doubt that a mass killing happened. We have heaps of sources, including Newsweek, a July 2009 article in the New York Times ("after a mass killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban prisoners of war by the forces of an American-backed warlord during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, Bush administration officials repeatedly discouraged efforts to investigate the episode, according to government officials and human rights organizations."), human rights bodies, academics etc., saying that there was a massacre in which hundreds or thousands of people died. The point of difference between Doran and Newsweek etc. is that he claims to have filmed witnesses saying Americans were complicit in some of it, while other sources do not go so far (although Newsweek did raise questions about it). Absent any recent reliable sources casting doubt on whether hundreds or thousands were killed – and the New York Times doesn't count Dostum among those – I am inclined to think that sowing doubt in the reader's mind as to whether there was a massacre or not is giving undue weight to a denialist fringe.
  • By the way, RetroS1mone means WP:COATRACK when she says "hatrack". "Amis" is short for "Americans" in some languages. JN466 11:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not say Doran is not to be trusted, my opinion, Doran is hero to expose Imperialist conspiracy to kill innocent people, it is only, impartiality and accuracy of some from his films are question in RS. Wiki is for RS, DemocracyNow and the state and world socialist are activist. I take out some activist source again and things better on the main articles for Afghan Massacre but i leave most of Jayen's edits and the recent edits.
I do not agree on the Worldfest award as notable award. Minor festival for independent film where they give 1000 awards each year, one for every film, they are not notable awards. Award at Cannes is notable. May be top award at Worldfest, it is called Grand Award, is notable. May be but i do not know. Lower awards, every film gets, it is like saying, The film is award-winning film, it got the Amazon five star review from reviewer RetroS1mone. RetroS1mone talk 13:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retro, the Buzzflash and wsws.com links are interviews with the BLP subject, they are not sources used for any statements in the article. There really is no problem with having those in the article.
Also, I will take out that "various news sources dispute" the claims he makes in his Afghanistan documentary, because to my knowledge none of the sources we have in the article do dispute that. At least I cannot remember any news source saying, "In our view the claims are false". --JN466 13:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the section on the "The Need for Speed" film which RetroS1mone deleted as "not notable". Again, totally mystified here. I've added CBC.ca and Die Zeit as sources. RS and notability are not restricted to US sources. JN466 14:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the sections on the two earliest documentaries, Red Bomb and Sexpionage, as well. They are certainly WP:Verifiable on the New York Times website. The other source listed for Red Bomb is an academic website, again well within WP:RS.
I think the lede and the section on Afghan Massacre are okay as they are now; what do you think, Biggerpicture? JN466 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayen466,
I think that the opening sentence was better when it read ‘Some of Doran’s documentaries have raised controversy.’ The second half of this sentence (‘including questions of accuracy and impartiality’) is unnecessary - information on this is repeated at the end of the same paragraph. I believe that including the second half of this sentence will give the paragraph a partisan feel.
RetroS1mone will, I’m almost certain, try to reword this opening paragraph, putting the accusations of accuracy and impartiality relating to the Guinea Pig Kids film first. It is conventional, however, and, I believe, consistent with wiki guidelines on BLP (which state that BLPs must adhere strictly to a Neutral point of view [[[WP:BLP]]]), to start with the notable event Doran’s successes, and then to go on to mention the criticisms that have been levelled against him. This, I think, seems more neutral. The revision that I envisage RetroS1mone making will not, in my opinion, be encylopaedic in its nature. Both convention and the chronology of the films discussed in this opening paragraph indicate that the sentence should be structured how it is now.
I believe that the majority of RetroS1mone’s edits have been in contravention of wiki guidelines on ‘coatracking’ (WP:COATRACK). Despite utterly transparent (and incoherent) claims such as “my opinion, Doran is hero to expose Imperialist conspiracy to kill innocent people”, she is clearly trying to make this page as damaging as she possibly can for Doran. Her repeated deletion of numerous references from reputable sources also contravenes wiki guidelines, and, I believe, constitutes vandalism (WP:RS and WP:Verifiable). She has a long history of edit warring, and has been criticised by several other editors for her unilateral edits and inability to compromise (please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RetroS1mone).
She is also in clear breach of guidelines on disruption (WP:DISRUPT), the opening sentence of which states: "...a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article"
I also take issue with the quality of her spelling, punctuation and grammar, not to mention her phrasing, and the overall content of her edits.
Do you think this issue should be logged on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Are there other measures that can be taken to prevent her from making deleterious edits to this page in future?
Sincerely, Biggerpicture (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I am thinking about this article, I want to tell you both, I was wrong. When struggle against Imperialism and Ami rule comes before Wiki rules for you i do not stand in way, every person has there way for the struggle, i salute you, I will not go in your way. RetroS1mone talk 03:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to be funny? What you call the "struggle against Imperialism and Ami rule" has nothing to do with this page. I don't appreciate your insinuation that we are attempting to break wiki rules to further a political agenda. The page's edit history clearly shows that this is not the case. Biggerpicture (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish or Scottish?[edit]

Is Doran Irish or Scottish? Both occur in sources. Or was he born in Ireland, but lives in Scotland? JN466 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources say Irish, so shall we stick with that? Biggerpicture (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four "news" source at Google News says Scottish filmmaker , ten says Irish filmmaker, most from the "Irish" are activist web sites, so RS, it seems a tie. There is no biographical information about this person? RetroS1mone talk 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I have found so far in addition to the above is a German source stating that his father was an Irish freedom fighter, and there is a reference to him as a Glaswegian here. JN466 10:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jamie Doran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Doran&oldid=1201618136"