Talk:Robert Parry (journalist)

List of topics

I took this paragraph out. It seems to me that it is original research and sourced only by the Parry's site itself. Also who decides what are the most important topics? Redddogg 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I think. Steve Dufour 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redddogg, please review Wikipedia policy on "No Original Research". The fact that the majority of Robert Parry's published articles were sourced from his own website is not, in itself, a good reason to summarily delete an entire paragraph. The paragraph you deleted provided a useful summary of the topics on which this journalist has published. Also, please review Wikipedia rules for Biographies of Living Persons. Thanksriverguy42 (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I will work on the list trimming it down to the more important topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.43.4 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources tag

I took off the sources tag. It's been there a couple months. What seems to be happening is that reliable sources have no interest in writing about Mr. Parry. I don't think tags are meant to stay on pages forever. (The article has been nominated for deletion before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Parry and the vote was unanimous to keep.)Northwestgnome (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

but if he is notable enough for a wikipedia article surely there should be more RS, and not just all the self-praise kind of stuff. the refernces are rubbish and not good enough. he is just a kind of knee-jerk pro-Russian propagandist by now .[1] if his work used to be considered significant there should be RS available that discuss it,. the whole article is useless sourced peacock rubbish imo. Sayerslle (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Trick or Treason

Where is the reference to Trick or Treason [2] and the PBS documentary that he made? I am interested in his interview with Israeli intelligence agent, Ari Ben-Menashe.

--Rolec Dubbing (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to mention it. Articles can list an author's works without secondary coverage of each, since it is presumed that if the author is notable the books can be mentioned. Borock (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Why is Robert Parry described as "left-wing" as the very first adjective? Neither George Will or Charles Krauthammer are described as right-wing. I would like to suggest replacing "left-wing" with liberal which is parallel with the descriptions of the above (as well as Michal Medved and Rush Limbaugh) as conservative. Also, the label should come after "journalist" as it does with those individuals mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.182.127 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Off topic
Off topic and potential WP:BLPVIO
is it true he writes that ukrainians shot it down? Russian RIA writes, he writes that ukrainians shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 according to a good source (?)--Anidaat (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 'Robert Parry is part of a cadre of investigative journalists who have put themselves at the disposal of the Kremlin on the matters of Syria and/or Ukraine' Sayerslle (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) The above user is a sock puppet, so take these claims with a grain of salt. Planetjanet (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC) in fact it is very vague what he says but he should know how this is being used.... --Anidaat (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC) on consortiumnews he wrote stuff like this [3] 'What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms. This looks like Russian propaganda: Nazi Roots of Ukraine’s Conflict, Consortiumnews. It states that Nazi "inconvenient truths" "help explain the recent violent, anti-democratic upheavals that have made Ukraine the battleground of a dangerous new cold war between NATO and Russia. And they should inspire Americans to reflect on our own country’s contribution..." Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. That explains it. -- Ríco 17:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC) The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.' - so the missiles were fired by drunk Ukrainian troops - beer bottles everywhere - looks copperbottomed - Sayerslle (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine theme

It is fact that he writes about Ukrainian crisis Cathry (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to take the rack down?

There have been no improvements made to this article. It remains self-sourced (that is, virtually everything is sourced from consortium.com) and Parry is no longer employed by the other agencies presented in the infobox.

Essentially, this article has been given a few years in which to be developed but is, instead, being used as a WP:COATRACK for promoting WP:UNDUE and blatantly WP:POV agenda's (such as this). I'm getting a little tired of WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE accounts trying to validate the use of articles in the Consortium for Independent Journalism in a multitude of articles surrounding current affairs in Ukraine by means of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think journalist, who got George Polk Awards has some reliability (especially in article about himself) so do his site Cathry (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting the George Polk Award years ago does not make his ezine automatically reliable, nor does it make plucking a single WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS issue tackled in CIJ in order to POV-push 'fascism in Ukraine' anything less than WP:TE on your behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources such as Democracy Now, Common Dreams and RT suggest that he is a journalist of some repute. His work on the CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking alone would seem to merit inclusion on WP. There are dozens of additional secondary sources that suggest notability, so let's stop trying to sweep all this under the rug. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the publications you're referencing are not considered reliable sources: they are WP:BIASED, WP:SELFPUB, and government run media outlets. You'd need to find sources understood to be reliable for an encyclopaedic resource attesting to the journalist's notability. The article is still reliant on WP:QUESTIONABLE sources to demonstrate notability. He may be notable enough for something in 1985, but the article is being used as a WP:COATRACK for Consortium News. Per WP:TITLE, the article is not about a news outlet, but is a WP:BLP about a person, and how reliable sources depict the person. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you cleared those issues up. Looks good. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I agree with you. This article would likely squeak by in Afd, but it should be noted that another two more years have gone by and it is still heavy on the primary sources as well as a couple others that are questionable by Wikipedia standards. The section regarding the October Surprise conspiracy theory is particularly one-sided. There is only a cursory mention that the House October Surprise Task Force investigated his conspiracy allegations and rejected them. One nugget of information that I found interesting in the Task Force's report is this: "On November 17, 1992, the Task Force sent letters to Robert Parry and Robert Ross of Frontline, requesting that Mr. Parry and Mr. Ross meet with the Task Force and discuss his meetings with several of the allegators of the October Surprise theory. See App. at 331-34. The Task Force received no response from either Mr. Parry or Mr. Ross."[4] This and the move to Consortium gives the impression that Parry doesn't want anyone to fact check his statements. -Location (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Location: Indeed, agreed that, given the detail of the when, why and wherefores, there certainly appears to be a lot of WP:CHERRY picking of primary sources. I would also agree that Parry is notable enough to merit a bio, but the only balanced way to treat it is to par back the detail or expand on it. As the latter could probably only be accomplished only by pushing the primary sourcing, my preference would be for the former (per WP:WEIGHT). The detailed POV rehashing of subject matter that is the subject of other articles has resulted in this biography being used as a content fork of the articles you've noted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

How about now? Do the obituaries all across the press in early 2018, including the already referenced NYT article, provide enough non-primary sources that we can take down the {Primary sources|date=April 2017} tag? Here's another pretty good article on the Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/04/robert-parry-journalistic-giant-tribute/ I could add that, as it's got some good info, but I don't know if other people here would consider the Intercept a reliable source, given how edgy their journalism can be. Also it's written like an opinion piece. I'd say the Intercept is reliable , and so does this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Intercept and the article is ok, but I'd appreciate some feedback on this question before boldly taking off that tag. --Kai Carver (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Consortium News WP:COATRACK (again)

Using this article on a notable to promote Consortium News is a WP:PLUG. The article on Consortium News was AfD'ed long ago, and trying to recreate a miniature version of it here contravenenes WP:INHERITORG. The issue has already been discussed on this talk page, so please don't try to do this again without any form of discussion as to why the content should be introduced here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just intereseted, why there is no Article about Consortium News. Wanted to find out more about them due to an actual Twitter post and wanted to know if and how they are may be biased. Ans was surprised there is no Wikipedia article about them. Too much trouble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankxberlin (talk • contribs) 11:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

R.I.P.

Will be missed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickdubois30 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

I have removed the following per WP:REDFLAG:

He continued to pursue it after a Congressional investigation had concluded the story was untrue, turning his Frontline research into a book published in 1993, and in 1994 he unearthed "a treasure-trove of government documents" supporting the theory, "showing that the [Congressional] task force suppressed incriminating CIA testimony and excluded evidence of big-money links between wealthy Republicans and Carter's Iranian intermediary, Cyrus Hashemi".

The first citation is simply a photo of his book on Amazon. The second citation alters the context of what was actually written. The sentence is: "Parry says he gained access in 1994 to a treasure-trove of government documents, which he calls 'the X-Files.'" What Parry said supported his theory and what actually supported his theory are two different things. The third citation is to an article that elaborates on these documents that would supposedly alter American's thinking about the October Surprise conspiracy theory: "So far, national news outlets have ignored the evidence that Parry exhumed. He isn't surprised. 'Mainstream media cannot deal with the new information because it clashes with conventional wisdom,' he says." This is almost the definition of WP:REDFLAG which refers to, in part, "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". -Location (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Cause of death category

Someone evidently categorized Parry's death in the footer tags of the article as "cerebrovascular disease," but in the New York Times it says pancreatic cancer, as I found at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/obituaries/robert-parry-investigative-reporter-dies.html -- I will leave it to others to know how to adjust footers. Emerman (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

And here's some more information published by his son in the publication Robert Parry had started: "... the doctors were now saying that the strokes were actually the result of undiagnosed pancreatic cancer that he had been unknowingly living with for the previous 4-5 years." https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/27/in-the-spirit-of-robert-parry/ Emerman (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)