Talk:Michael R. Gordon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael R. Gordon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Journalism Unassessed

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Where's all the Iraq stuff? Relata refero 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS

LIBERAL BIAS, Wikipedia stop letting people put liberal anti-war bias ist not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.245.11 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Please. You just censor anything that demostrates how pathetic and unprofessional Gordon is. He is an inept hack who did BAD reporting. His reporting was 1. WRONG and 2. Bad Reporting. When you get all of your info from single govenment sources and do no checking up of the "facts" you will fail as a reporter as Gordon has done on several occasions. His errors are obvious now and were obvious at the time of publication. How did he keep his job? Obviously, being a shill for the White House/Pentagon is not only lucrative but job security. Even his articles from Germany have holes but...that is another edit.

I assume you are either a friend of Gordon or Gordon himself. After reading the Gordon Wik I was appalled to see anything about his WMD reporting scrubbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basalt calling (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of content on inaccurate Iraq reporting

Material on Gordon's inaccurate Iraq reporting has been deleted many times, always by driveby IP editors, or shortlived WP:SPA accounts. As the comment above suggests, this has been going on for years. If Gordon, or a friend, has concerns about this material, it should be raised under WP:BLP, not deleted time and again. JQ (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

language about "gordon is a shill for the worst excesses of the bush administration" in a broken footnote at article's start deleted

if (or when) more tangible links between mr. gordon and the pentagon come to light, please insert such material with cites.

for example, several months after the march 2003 attack on iraq, a few details about mr. gordon's co-author, judith miller, were published. ms. miller's contractual arrangements with the pentagon were published in new york magazine (that she personally negotiated her embedding agreement, which then secretary of defense donald rumsfeld signed off on).

again, if (or when) such details come to light, please do not hesitate to cite to such details in the main article. until then, statements such as "gordon is a shill for the worst excesses of the bush administration," however accurate and in fact obvious they may be, read as partisan and tendentious without substantiation.

with scandals and coverups such as these, the truth (often) eventually comes out, in print, it's just a question of waiting. months, years, decades, better to wait for it (or report or otherwise publish on it oneself) than risk discrediting yourself with accusations of overstatement. my two-cents worth at the present-time, anyway. Alfred Nemours (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]