Talk:Michael R. Gordon

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

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)

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)

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)


 * I just came to this Wikipedia page to try to verify the claim that Michael Gordon, who also promoted the Iraq WMD story, is now promoting the Chinese lab leak story. I see that the section, "Prewar coverage of Iraqi weapons program," has been deleted repeatedly, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_R._Gordon&diff=1104033204&oldid=1100787531 with the edit comment, all primary sources aka "original research".
 * First, one of the links is commentary by the New York Times itself, rather than a primary source. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/business/09cnd-miller.html"But her reporting came under criticism with her subsequent reports suggesting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, coverage that helped the Bush administration build its case for invading Iraq but that turned out to be wrong."
 * Second, there's a huge amount of WP:RS news reports and commentary on this NYT Iraqi WMD story. Rather than deleting it, editors should add those sources. I would start with journalism reviews, and media columns in major newspapers and magazines. (I would do it myself but I don't want to spend a lot of time on a responsible edit only to have someone arbitrarily blank it.)
 * I recommend that the deleted material should be restored, and that more WP:RS be added. Ideally, that would include Gordon's response to that criticism, if any. Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a WP:RS secondary source. There are many more.
 * https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/case-study-the-war-in-iraq
 * Case Study: The War in Iraq. Chapter 7
 * in: Politics and the Media: Intersections and New Directions
 * by Jane Hall
 * CQ Press (2021)
 * --Nbauman (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael R. Gordon. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120708132438/http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20060901fabook85526a/michael-r-gordon-general-bernard-e-trainor/cobra-ii-the-inside-story-of-the-invasion-and-occupation-of-iraq.html to http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20060901fabook85526a/michael-r-gordon-general-bernard-e-trainor/cobra-ii-the-inside-story-of-the-invasion-and-occupation-of-iraq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wuhan "sick worker" claim
I think it should be mentioned that this author also started the explosive claims of sick Wuhan lab workers on WSJ media. It seems significant enough to be added in, given how it's now become so viral and people should know who started reporting those allegations.

But think it should be minimally discussed first before doing so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228 Nvtuil (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)