Talk:Jamie Shea

"His distinctive London accent"

Eh? He may be native Londoner but his accent is pure southern hemisphere. DublinDilettante (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish! That accent is pure Cockney. Muddy3 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not insert some lines where we talk about all the lies he spread to prepare the Kosovo war?

He invented "collateral damage"(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Shea). He managed the campaign that was spreading lies about a "concentration camp" in the stadium of Pristina, while everybody knows nowadays that it was a lie and that he is a liar, that he pushed minister of foreign affairs of NATO spread this lie. That he afterwards boasted about how well the job has been done?

Here in Germany, where I come from minister Rudolf Scharping even compared the stadium where nothing was happening to Auschwitz. In my opinion quite tasteless to use Auschwitz to promote a lie in order to start a war, particularly as German Minister. But Jamie pushed him to do so as he praised himself in telly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYcRjHX50og.)

So maybe someone knows even more about it wants to report about this part of his character. Maybe his children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.181.76 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP

~2026-87011-4, quit cherrypicking from the sources, citing poor sources and discuss on the talk page. Your excuses do not make you exempt from BLP. You should also realize that the burden to gain consensus lies with the editor who restores disputed content, not the other way around per WP:BURDEN. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but since when BBC is a poor "cherrpicking" source? Even a NATO interview? A peer review geopolitical academic analysis book? An recent interview with him by Telegraph media? I agree that the text should be softened or had criticism section, but not simple be expurged along with refs. Did you read the sources? Because there are direct quotes there that confirm the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-87011-4 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You are omitting the context from those sources and that is cherrypicking (ex. omitting the context from him that the bombing was done in response to ethnic cleansing). Also, you cannot analyze interviews, since that is original research. I do not see any criticism against him from reliable sources, including for statements he has made. The claims that he said some things against Serbs also come from Serbian sources only and there is no proof that he ever said those things. Unless you are willing to cite reliable sources and willing to add necessary context, do not bother restoring the content. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Reflecktor, why did you restore the same misleading content by the anon? The source does not even the mention the ages of civilians. I think we need to cool it with adding editorialized content. If a secondary source has criticized the subject for his statements or at least summarized his quotations, then it can be restored in the article. Even the BBC article mostly cares about the actions of NATO. Presenting it as it is misleading, cherrypicked and editorialized. If there is still a dispute over this, then I will leave a notice at the BLP noticeboard to see what other editors think. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If the concern is about the age of civilians, then I'm amenable to removing that. There's no reason to object to sourced material, there's certainly no violation of BLP here, and Wikipedia should not be running interference for people's reputations either. Reflecktor (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not about protecting anyone's reputation. It is just that the source focuses on NATO's actions, not his statements, although it does mention them. Anyway, what is your proposed wording? I will see what other editors think too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The proposed wording is the same except no mention of age. Also, there's no source-focus criterion for article inclusion. Reflecktor (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That is true, but there's still NPOV and BLP. I have left a notice on the BLP noticeboard. We still have to be wary about how we present content. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with it's removal. Quotes in general are to be avoided, especially in such a brief article. Editors should be summarizing from BLP-quality sources, ideally sources with depth and historical context about the subject of this article. --Hipal (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)