Talk:Kevin Sites

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

Neutrality / Promotional Copy?[edit]

There is a lot of opinion in this article. Sites is a 'respected' war correspondent? By whom? This article may be promotional copy as it lacks detail. I was a war correspondent and it's a very overused and abused title.202.82.171.186 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd settle for someone telling me who else he worked for before CNN and NBC, and whether he was staff or freelancer at CNN and NBC in Iraq. A lot of people showed up in the Middle East and walked out 'respected war correspondents' so I think a full CV is needed here to make it all clear (I have been a CNN staff employee AND freelanced for NBC)202.82.171.186 07:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference for the claim you're querying, as well as the other one that had a [citation needed] tag on it. The reference came from one of the links in the "External links" section, which has been there for a while. I also re-added the awards paragraph that an IP had removed and referenced it. AntHolnes (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgent? Captive? Prisoner? Suspect? Terrorist? Resistance fighter?[edit]

The article calls the Iraqi an "insurgent". Actually, we don't know whether he was an insurgent. Whoever had been firing on the Marines when they captured the mosque may have taken hostages. Or the Mosque's Iman, or janitor, could have stayed behind to try to prevent holy items being vandalized by the gunmen, or by the Marines. Mere presence doesn't prove he was an insurgent.

I don't agree with describing those fighting the foreign occupation as "insurgents". The use of this term implies something that needs to be proven. A fighter isn't an "insurgent" unless they are fighting a legitimate authority. Iraqis didn't elect Paul Bremer. They didn't like Paul Bremer. They didn't trust Paul Bremer. And his administration made no meaningful progress in providing Iraqis with safe water, electricity or sewage disposal. It couldn't provide law and order. So, in what sense could it be described as a legitimate authority? -- Geo Swan 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq has been sovereign for well over a year by that time. The Iraqis had already held one election, and were about to hold another. Furthermore, the U.S. presence had been authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1546 to remain there so long as the new Iraqi government consents. That's legitimate sovereignty by most standards.
Ba'athists may disagree. Some will always regard Saddam as the only legitimate authority.
-- Randy2063 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
November 2004, when Sites took the photos, was during the period of Iyad Allawi's regime -- appointed, not elected. -- Geo Swan 14:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the page on UN reso 1546 is inaccurate. The actual reso says the UN is looking forward to the resumption of full sovereignty. It sees the June 2004 handover as a step in that path. It does not say what the wikipedia article says it says.[1] -- Geo Swan 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it does say that the "Allawi Regime" was sanctioned by that same UNSC resolution. I realize that falls short of your standard, given that Saddam was elected with 99% of the popular vote, but that sentiment is not universal.
-- Randy2063 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The November shooting needs to be covered in more detail[edit]

The November shooting needs to be covered in more detail. What is missing:

  • Ten to fifteen seconds prior to shooting you can hear one of the Marines say: "These are the aame guys from the other day." Marines had already captured this mosque. The Marines had already captured these Iraqis
  • The Marine's ejaculation is missing -- "This one's not dead" -- or whatever it was he said.
  • The Marine's name has been kept confidential.
  • There was supposed to have been an inquiry into the death of all the wounded Iraqis in the Mosque. The Geneva Conventions and the US Uniform Code of Military Justice require that soldiers take the necessary steps to try to preserve the lives of their prisoners. I think Sites said that although he only captured the shooting of one Iraqi on video that the Marines had shot all half dozen Iraqis. Further I think he said the Iraqi whose shooting he captured on video didn't die right away. He asked, "Why did you shoot me. I co-operated with you the other day."
  • Apologists offered all kinds of excuses for the shooter, his buddies, and for the Marines who initially captured the Iraqis.
    • Apologists said that the shooter had just lost a good buddy when an Iraqi in civilian clothes shot him with a concealed weapon. So, how could apologists know this when his name and unit number were kept confidential?
    • Apologists said the shooter had himself been shot, in the face, just a few days before the incident. See above.
    • Apologists said that it was a different unit that had initially captured the mosque, and the Iraqis. Even so, it must have been a closely related unit, since the video captures one of the Marines saying "These are the same guys from the other day." See above
    • Apologists said that the initial unit had left their wounded prisoners because the situation did not allow the safe transit of transport for them. See above.

So, where should this story be covered? -- Geo Swan 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, cleaned this up of the clearly un-scientific Zionist POV 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

216.136.107.24 using Wikipedia to anonymously libel Kevin[edit]

I just went through and deleted a bunch of swipes by 216.136.107.24. These comments by 216.136.107.24 attacked Kevin and his reputation, in fact 216.136.107.24 had the gall to create an entire section called "criticisms" where he wrote his attacks. Amazingly, 216.136.107.24 did not provide a single source or citation for any of his attacks. It is possible that 216.136.107.24 simply made these "criticisms" up on his own. To be clear to 216.136.107.24 or anyone else who uses Wikipedia to damage people's reputations, libel of a public figure is a very serious tort. Unless you are using a proxy, people can find out who you are through your IP address. I doubt Kevin is the type to sue but others might not be so nice. If you are going to attack a public figure's reputation then you should at least provide a source for the things you write.

Again, 216.136.107.24 used Wikipedia to anonymously attack Kevin with his sourceless and citeless opinions. 216.136.107.24, if you have a problem with Kevin then write him an e-mail or create your own website. --75.16.84.229 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "very serious tort" LMAO! Wow, just wow. Internet law expert, eh? LOL

Is there any more information on Kevin Sites the person, birth, his life before being hired by Yahoo?

--Hear, hear, and don't just DELETE things yopu don't agree with, user 75.16.84.229 ... that's what the TALK page is for.202.82.171.186 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kevin Sites. 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) 02:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin Sites. 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) 14:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Sites&oldid=1211668893"