Talk:Dahr Jamail

Who is Dahr Jamail's father?
Some sources have Dahr as being the son of prominent Houston attorney Joe Jamail, can this be confirmed?--Msr69er (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Dahr Jamail, the journalist is not the son of Joseph Dahr Jamail Jr., the lawyer from Houston, Tx. Joseph Dahr Jamail 3rd is the oldest son of Joe Jamail, the lawyer. Joe 3rd is also a lawyer. Submitted by Randall Jamail ( son # 2 )

Added more sources
What else is needed to establish notability? To me the case is pretty strong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbranum (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Better third party sourcing would do it. As it stands now, the only source that qualifies is his Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism which looks fairly marginal to me. The remainder of the sources for this article are to articles he has written to truthout or to his own webpage, both of which do not qualify as reliable sources. Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course they do; see WP:SELFPUB. Information like "He graduated from Texas A&M University" and "Jamail is currently a correspondent for Truthout" hardly need "third-party" sources. Your implication that Jamail's notability is "marginal" is absurd; he's been quoted in literally hundreds of reports from all kinds of sources. Anyway why should I even have this argument? You are obviously some guy who goes around removing information from Wikipedia if it doesn't fit with a neoconservative worldview, and adding notability tags to everything you don't like. You've even tagged "Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism" as needing more references, simply because it bears on Dahr Jamail, who in turn has reported facts about your country's massive war crimes that disturb you, so suddenly the article doesn't have enough references. I mean, shut up. This silly game of "I'm just an editor asking for more references and quoting policy" is fucking idiotic. God, Wikipedia is so pointless. 74.14.71.60 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've reverted the recent edits to this article. They did not improve the coverage of the subject and they cluttered the article with multiple tags when the article is already properly tagged at the top. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)