Talk:Richard Miniter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Email
A friend asked me to research the truth of an email hoax related to Richard Miniter's latest book, Disinformation. Here is the text of the email:
"Here’s an interesting new book I would like to read called Disinformation by Richard Miniter. According to the Human Events leader to this book, it states: Did you know WMD’s have been found in Iraq? No you didn’t because of disinformation from the major media sources. In fact: “1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium; 1500 gallons of chemical weapon agents; 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas); over 1000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas; roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency have been found. And this is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction: according to Richard Miniter’s book. The reason for this is political disinformation.
Mr. Minter’s book contains 22 media myths that have been disseminated to undermine the war on terror, including Osama bin Laden’s alleged kidney dialysis and personal wealth."
Her question was "Is this true?" It's clear that Richard Miniter wrote this book and that it's being lauded all over the internet by conservatives--conversative book reviews & think tanks, Fox News, fukfrance.com, Catholic Analysis, etc.
Some of what Mr. Miniter writes in the new book is undoubtedly true, but I don't see any evidence that credible sources like the New York Book Review, for example, have picked up this book & measured its value or veracity.
My best guess is that it's a mixed bag of truth and propaganda, and one would have to study the book and do a bit of research before deciding what is true and what isn't. Is anyone available to point me toward a less-biased source of information regarding Disinformation?
Leishalynn 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Miniters's Disinformation
I just read the article you mentioned, an ad sent to "Fellow Conservatives" for HUMAN EVENTS. I was amazed at the content of the letter, which is quoting "Disinformation". How two halves of the US can be receiving completely opposite views on Iraq and other issues is really eye-opening. I am sure his fellow conservatives lap up every word of that, while my fellow liberals are aghast that anyone can believe things like the following are myths, which implies that Liberals actually believe the bit about the nukes or Jews in the WTC.
- There is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (not a myth!) - The U.S. funded the Taliban in the 1980s [According to the Wikipedia article on the Taliban: "The Taliban were already making international news in such papers as the Irish Times as early as first quarter 1990." As far as I understand, the future leaders of the Taliban were being trained by the US to be able to fight the Russians. - Suitcase nukes are in place across America (who says this?) - Osama_bin_Lad'n was trained by the CIA - Halliburton made a fortune in Iraq (of course they did!) - There were no Jews in the Word Trade Center on 9/11 (this is widely believed in the Middle East, not in the US!)
As you say, some of these are confirmable, some are myths, but the myths are believed by the conservatives because of disinformation from their media.
BYelverton 22:17, 12 December 2005
I have read "Disinformation" and his points are well researched and believable. A differing Wikipedia article hardly qualifies as a refutation. To believe the statement "There were NO WMDs in Iraq." Is foolish. Of course there were. It's been well documented. Considering the quantity and condition, the general consensus is that they were not significant. Both sides should be willing to admit both those truths. Then we could all move on.
[edit] Why is this article tagged as an advertisement?
I realize that it isn't in depth, and doesn't quote critics, but it appears to be straightforward. Perhaps a better term might be "stub" -- it simply needs more information.Scott Adler 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it is an advertisement, an online cv. I'm surprised he doesn't go as far as giving his rates for public speaking! Meowy 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree this article does sound like a resume for a job. It may be all true, but needs balancing information as well.
I concur. It needs a sharp axe. smb 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
27 DEC 2007: I am the person responsible for writing, " Substantial Innaccuracies and credibility Issues in Miniter's Reporting ". This heading has been removed many times, but it's accuracy has yet to be challenged directly. And no matter how many times it is removed, I will keep replacing it. For a very simple reason: Miniter's reporting is Innacurate And/Or Biased On Many Key Points. And I invite anyone to research these points for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicemc (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict of interest
As seen in the history, an IP who has added a rather long, all-capitalized commentary section relating to Wikipedia, has been removed. It was signed by the subject of this article, and I have left a note on the anonymous editor's talk page to let them be aware of the issues with such an edit, as well as the COI guideline. I suggested the editor discuss the article's problems here, and refrain from editing, so anyone who regularly contributes to the article, please keep an eye out for the editor who may request factual corrections. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I have re-ordered and renamed the sections to be more in line with biography standards, which present one's life in order, early life, education, career, sub-headers of career areas, etc. This article, which must adhere to the living persons biography policy has no inline citations of reliable sources, which is absolutely imperative for living biographies, and these issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. Someone who has a best-selling book, surely has been written about, and yet the only items given are those written by the subject, which are not reliable, third-party sources. I request someone familiar with this subject work on this article, before it becomes an issue of BLP concerns. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
