Talk:Nina Totenberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I have added information that Totenberg doesn't have a law degree, has never passed the bar exam of any state, and doesn't even have a B.A. degree. Someone took this out as "partisan bias." I think this is highly relevant in any discussion of the work she does for NPR. It explains, for example, why she covers the supreme court in purely political terms, mostly because she doesn't know enough law to make or understand legal arguments.

Anyway, I wish people would leave the information about her lack of credentials in the article.

Reporters are not expected to hold the same professional credentials as the people on whom they report; White House reporters need not have ever worked in the White House, sportswriters need not ever have been athletes, crime reporters need not ever have been criminals, etc. In fact, the whole underlying principle of Wikipedia is that it is possible for people who are not authorities to write authoritative articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we also mention that she doesn't have an M.D. and that she's not a five-star general? A person's lack of qualifications speaks for itself -- only qualifications are worth writing about. Eliot 13:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, Totenberg is not a legal analyst for NPR, nor is she ever represented as one. She is, and is described as, a legal affairs correspondent. Just as a political affairs correspondent is not required, nor necessarily expected, to have a degree on political science; and an international affairs correspondent is not required, nor necessarily expected, to have a degree on international affairs. Magidin 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Seven awards from the American Bar Association would seem to suggest... welll... you know... I suppose they might have awarded, oh, five or six to someone who "doesn't know enough law to make or understand legal arguments," but seven is, you know, really quite a lot. Most of them were for specific programs or series, but the Silver Gavel Award she won in 1978 was for "For 'The Supreme Court Reporting of Nina Totenberg,' an entry giving numerous examples of her fine reporting on U.S. Supreme Court rulings."

And now that I think of it, not having a law degree would be a characteristic she shares with many licensed attorneys. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we also mention that she doesn't have an M.D. and that she's not a five-star general? A person's lack of qualifications speaks for itself -- only qualifications are worth writing about. Eliot 13:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how "lack of credentials" only matter when it's a liberal.

Oh, stop it. Jerks on both ends of the political spectrum constantly try to insert jabs into the articles on their favorite targets. It's an ongoing problem. Lots of Wikipedia articles are marred by liberal point of view and lots are marred by conservative point of view. There's no overall bias. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the entry for Sean Hannity: "Shortly thereafter, he attended New York University but dropped out to pursue his radio career. He has claimed several times on his radio show that personal financial difficulties contributed to his dropping out."

So Nina "attended" BU. But Sean "dropped out" of NYU. Very curious. Very curious.

Also note the "non-partisan" entry for Rush Limbaugh: "He attended Southeast Missouri State University for one year where, ironically, he flunked two speech courses, then dropped out."

So, Nina "attended" BU. Hannity "dropped out" of NYU. And Rush "dropped out" and "flunked." Let's pick a standard and go with it. Either Nina dropped out of school, or Hannity and Rush merely "attended."

By all means, say Hannity and Rush "attended."

Many articles in Wikipedia have neutrality problems, but that's not a good reason for inserting POV into other articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I am reverting the latest changes, as there were no references or verifying information provided. If the person who made the change cares to, they can provide such. Magidin 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has done so, but I'm not too happy with the reference, which is to a website named "famousplagiarists.com" which appears to be the personal website of a Dr. J.P. Lesko, a self-styled "Plagiarologist." IMHO that doesn't come close to meeting the guidelines for reputable sources.

Although the section on Nina Totenberg itself has a link to "references," when you click on it you get a long page that is apparently all of the references for everything on the site. It doesn't link to any reference specific to Nina Totenberg, and the long page of references does not contain the word "totenberg" so it is not in the title of any of the references. I hope someone can find a better reference for the story; I don't think this one passes muster. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the source does not meet the standards for reputable sources as is. I fear I do not have the time to track it down, though I did write a paragraph to replace the original single-sentence version to provide a more neutral POV. I'll go ahead and revert the page again; if an independent reputable source can be provided, either the person(s) who made the original addition or others can revert back to include the paragraph or some other version thereof. Magidin 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one from the Columbia Journalism Review, but it seems to be in the context of an opinion piece. What's really needed is the Wall Street Journal article it refers to. The CJR piece is at least reasonably neutral in tone. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice this discussion until after I added my section just now. I pulled the WSJ article from Factiva. Below is a fair-use excerpt. Random Task (T·C) 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having read WP:FAIR I guess even a few paragraphs isn't fair use, but I'll leave the below for now. Are there different rules for discussion pages? Random Task (T·C) 00:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tales of Ignominy, Beyond Thomas and Hill
By Albert R. Hunt
1571 words
17 October 1991
The Wall Street Journal
PAGE A22
English

In December 1972, the Washington Post's Myra MacPherson wrote a piece about Thomas P. O'Neill, who was about to be elected House majority leader. A week later, Ms. Totenberg wrote a profile of Rep. O'Neill for the Observer.
...
The lead paragraph in Ms. Totenberg's story repeated, virtually verbatim, five sentences of the Post paragraph. Members of Mr. O'Neill's family still remember Ms. MacPherson reporting that story; they can't recall talking to Ms. Totenberg.
...
Four other substantial and identical quotations occurred in both stories. For example, former Rep. Thomas Rees told Ms. MacPherson that Rep. O'Neill would be "a lot more open to innovation and reform than other leaders," and would be "more aggressive and flexible about putting younger members into positions of responsibility." The quotes appeared verbatim in the Observer story. Mr. Rees says he spoke at length with Ms. MacPherson but doesn't remember ever talking to Ms. Totenberg.
...
Ms. Totenberg, in an interview, insists: "What I did or didn't do almost 20 years ago isn't the issue. I believe I left the Observer because I was being sexually harassed." But Lionel Linder, who was a top editor at the Observer in 1973 and is now the editor of the Commercial Appeal of Memphis, says flatly that Ms. Totenberg was fired because "whatever extenuating circumstances, it was clear that she plagiarized." Purposeful plagiarism is one of the cardinal sins of journalism from which reporters can never recover their credibility: There is no statute of limitations on that judgment.

Formal credentials

I just snipped "Totenberg has not earned an undergraduate or law degree and has no formal education in journalism," as this has been discussed before and is adequately implied by the statement that she "attended" BU and by failure to mention any other institutions.

I question the neutrality of such statements, as I see them most often in the context of right-wing attacks on Totenberg's supposed liberal bias.

(I note that Bill Gates' lack of formal computer science credentials is not referred to in the lead section of the article about him; it's usually seen as a side note, not something terribly important in assessing the man or his career. Luciano Pavarotti's alleged weakness in musical literacy is not mentioned until close to the end of the article, and when it is mentioned it is in the context of the controversial and sensationalist book the publicized it; again, whether or not he is skilled in reading music isn't more than a trivia point, and not very relevant to his achievements).

Just a thought, as I don't care to do the research myself, but I suspect it would be possible to craft a good neutral, adequately-sourced statement to the effect that "the right wing perceives Totenberg to have a liberal bias, and frequently attacks her lack of formal credentials." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, to make it more POV-neutral, a statement to the effect that "many conservative commentators perceive Totenberg..." etc. Magidin 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor saved bride's life on honeymoon

When I tried to go to the webpage in this URL, it came up as an expired page. I believe it should be removed. I am curious how this would effect the entry pertaining to her 2nd husband? Bstone 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a good link as of January, 2006—and it did support the story that her (new) husband treated her after, while swimming, she was struck and badly injured by a boat propeller. I believe it should stay, with a notation along the lines of "retrieved Jan. 2006; broken link as of Jan. 2007."--HughGRex 23:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Further research turned up this link, which credits Good Housekeeping in supporting the story, and this one, apparently a legal reprint of the Good Housekeeping article. Looks like the old broken link should be replaced by one or both of the "new, improved" links.--HughGRex 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia strikes

Conservapedia's Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article lists this article as an example of Wikipedia's penchant for "gossip". It's my assumption that recent edits, here result from that listing. The question is, however, are these edits actually helping or hurting the article. That Totenberg's husband (potentially) saved her life seems like the sort of fact that would appear in any biography of her, so why not here? We have sources, so the only thing that Conservapedia really had to complain about was the tone. Does anyone else feel that there's a solid basis on which to remove this information? Is there some policy on which the removal could be justified, or are we just knee-jerking to Conservapedia's scatter-shot complaints about Wikipedia? -Harmil 16:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit was in response to their comment which made me look at it. However, my logic was not the gossip concern but more one of notability. If no source other than her own column picked up on this fact (and the fact isn't obviously notable) it is hard to justify its inclusion. JoshuaZ 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Does Totenberg write a "column?" There's nothing in the article that says so. In any case, the article in Good Housekeeping was written by "Warren, Larkin," not (as far as AFICT) by Totenberg. In addition, the incident was reported in the North Andover (MA) Eagle-Tribune on 2000-12-20, as this edit shows. It's a broken link now, but it was live a year ago—and as I recall, there was no indication that it was written by Totenberg. For that reason, I believe the incident is notable and the fact should be re-inserted into the article.--HughGRex 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means add it back. This was most likely my fault for not paying enough attention to the sources given. JoshuaZ 03:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your understanding. (I wonder whether Conservapedia would allow for this sort of skeptical exploration of the facts in its articles?)--HughGRex 10:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced subtrivia

I'm moving these here because a) Nina Totenberg does not figure in an important way in either of these works, and b) no source citations attesting to their accuracy and importance have been provided. We don't need a catalog of passing mentions or cameo appearances. There could be exceptions, e.g Marshall McLuhan's appearance in Annie Hall was brief, but was one of the most memorable gags in the entire film. I don't think either of these is comparable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

• Totenberg is mentioned in the Simpsons episode "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy", wherein the Lisa Lionheart doll is imbued with "…the wisdom of Gertrude Stein and the wit of Cathy Guisewite, the tenacity of Nina Totenberg, and the common sense of Elizabeth Cady Stanton! And to top it off, the down-to-earth good looks of Eleanor Roosevelt."

• She appeared briefly as herself in the Kevin Kline film, Dave.

Educational Level

Someone has repeatedly removed material about her educational level, which is relevant to her ability to do her job, and which is routinely included in other wikipedia biographies of media personnel. E.g., for Sean Hannity: Education Hannity attended St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary in Uniondale in Long Island, graduating in 1980 with a high school diploma. He dropped out of New York University and decided to pursue a radio career.[2]

Kindly restored the deleted educational info on Totenberg.68.244.100.197 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read the past discussions on this topic, which are in the very page that you posted your comments on. There used to be a reference to her attending BU; that is a reasonable NPOV statement that can be put in the article. Magidin 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It was gone, but I put it back. KeithCu 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Attended; Dean

Since there have already been two edit/reverts, I'm writing down my rationale for the reverts here for reference. As has been discussed before many times, "attended BU" is considered the neutral way of saying she did not graduate; explicitly saying "graduated High School" is clearly meant to be a put-down and as such not NPOV. As for her being the Dean of the Supreme Court press corp, note that in this context "Dean" refers to length of service. Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary's definition of dean includes a reference to doyen, whose main meaning is "the senior member of a body or group;" the secondary meaning is "a person considered to be knowledgeable or uniquely skilled as a result of long experience in some field of endeavor"; and the tertiary meaning is "the oldest example of a category". Thus, calling Totenberg the "Dean" of the Supreme Court press corps is not a subjective term, but objective, and the NPR citation is adequate for that. Totenberg is the Dean of the Supreme Court Press Corps just like the longest serving ambassador for a country is the Dean of that country's Diplomatic Corps, the longest serving foreign ambassador in a country is the Dean of the Ambassadorial Corps (which is also a term of art in international law, as it provides protocolarian prerrogatives to the holder of the title), and Helen Thomas is the Dean of the White House Press Corps, having served in that capacity continuously and longer than anyone else currently there. Magidin 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The comparison to Sean Hannity is a red herring. The quote is not simly that he dropped out of university, but that he dropped out for financial reasons. Moreover, it is something that he himself points out as part of his "getting to the top the hard way", as you can see in the article referenced there. It is not meant as a put-down, whereas the recent edits here are clearly meant to be derogatory, as stated in the original edit summary that claimed the article was "adulatory" and this was meant to diminish that. You can see in the talk page that "attended" is the NPOV consensus here. As for the personal accusations, remember to be civil. This edit is not neutral by your own admission. Magidin 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing it from "adulatory" to neutral WOULD be npov. And I don't buy your red herring story. When I look at wp's Rush Limbaugh article, it also says he dropped out of college. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Is that your or wp's idea of npov - put that in for conservatives but censor it for liberals? Or in your terminology, use the "neutral" approach for liberals, but "derogatory" for others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.212.162 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on this page, as this topic has been dealt with many times. No, I don't think we should use derogatory terms for anyone. Hannity makes a point of the fact that he had to drop out for economic reasons, and so this is stated, in those terms, in that article; that is why your comparison to Hannity constituted a red herring. The references cited have Hannity himself saying so, or the fact being discussed as a positive character-building. As for Limbaugh, feel free to change it to "attended". You don't achieve balance by being even-handedly nasty; you achieve balance by being even-handedly neutral. The consensus in this page is for "attended". It has nothing to do with your perceived "liberals v. others", and you might want to try assume good faith next time. As for Limbaugh, you will note that in fact that sentence that opens the paragraph on education says he "attended" the University. The rest of the discussion is related to his eligibility for the draft; personally, I think the mention of the speech class should not be there unless Limbaugh has made pubic claims to the contrary, though his subsequent elligibility for the draft probably would. Your impression that this page is "adulatory" is puzzling, given the discussion of her firing for plagiarism, for example. You did not change adulation to neutrality, you were changing neutrality to back-handed insult. Magidin 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition: if you read through this discussion page, you will see that it has been noted that there would be a place to put a well-sourced, neutral statement indicating that her lack of credentials has been and continues to be the source of criticism of Totenberg. Such statements, however, would have to be properly sourced (see Wikipedia policies on verifiability and adequate sources), and would not belong in the introduction, but rather in a separate section. Feel free to provide such a section if you feel so strongly about it, and so long as it is well-sourced and well-written it would definitely belong in the article. Magidin 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that you feel so strongly about this [even more so than I, in that you change it back to have the last word], why don't YOU change the Limbaugh page to "attended", so it is not a "back-handed insult"? Seeing the media's patterns, incluing wp's, can make it hard to "assume good faith" in some places. I doubt that if I changed the Limbaugh page to "attended", it would last very long.

But all that aside, I thought wp's aim was to provide info. Simply saying "attended" is ambiguous [includes graduates and non-graduates] and thus provides less info than the versions you deem unacceptable. That - providing complete, specific info, should be the test, not the use of PC feel-good language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.102.109 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurtz, Hunt, etc

I was asked to express my opinion on the Kurtz/Hunt articles issues. Before reading the two pieces, I had never read anything by either one of the two. My impression is that Kurtz very definitely makes an ambiguous statement about the reason for Totenberg's departure from the Observer, and in essence creates the impression of a "non-confirmation confirmation" that the "real" reason might have been related to sexual harassment. Hunt attributes this impression to Totenberg, which seems to be at least a stretch based solely on the article in question (Hunt later quotes a separate interview in which Totenberg explicitly says that the reason she left was the alleged harassment; however, this is done later on the piece and cannot really be used to support the claim that it is Totenberg who is being misleading in the Kurtz piece). Although the Hunt piece is ostensibly about how the several sectors (Democrats, GOP, and the press) had mishandled the Thomas hearing, he does not criticize Totenberg's coverage or use of leaks as far as I can tell; his comments on Totenberg are exclusively about the Observer incident. It really reads like a separate issue from the rest of the piece. As such, I think 76.7.131.95 is correct that the Hunt piece had nothing to do with Totenberg's reporting; and Gamaliel is incorrect in saying Kurtz is clear in stating why she was fired. I don't think the current sentence accurately reflects this (nor did the previous one). It should note that Kurtz is ambiguous; what Totenberg said separately in the interview quoted by Hunt; and then what Hunt brought up. Magidin (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is a thorny issue because of Kurtz's unclear writing and Hunt blaming Totenberg for what Kurtz did, as well as Hunt quoting Totenberg's interview, an interview we don't have access to. This is pretty minor, but to give a full picture of it requires more space than the issue deserves. My instinct is to shorten it, leave out the he said she said, just say Hunt attacked (or the verb of your choice) Totenberg and brought up the plagiarism incident, but then 1) the anon seems determined to blame Totenberg for something here and 2) leaves us open to accusations that we are sanitizing the issue. As far as the connection to Totenberg's reporting, it seems obvious to me. We'll never know Hunt's motives, and I don't wish to attribute any to him, but in an article about the Thomas case, at the time of the Thomas case, he starts the section on her saying "One of the most visible journalists on the Thomas story has been National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg....", I don't know how we can pretend there is no connection here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it seems the connection was more obvious to me because I'd read what Time had to say on this matter and others haven't. So I've referenced the Time piece in the article. Sorry about any confusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was that while Hunt is using the Thomas affair as a clothesline from which to hang her comments on Totenberg, the comments themselves do not address her reporting in any substantial way; so Hunt is not really criticizing or commenting on Totenberg's coverage of the issue, but rather using her coverage as a way to go from the topic of how GOP and Democrats have behaved during the coverage to the topic of Totenberg's firing from the Observer. In that respect, I agree that Hunt's piece is not about Totenberg's coverage. Magidin (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your edit to this section was a good one and I'd like to see our anon friend comment here to discuss why s/he reverted it. I also reverted the anon's commentary about Hunt and the WSJ. You can quote people who dispute critics of Hunt and the WSJ, but you can't construct a defense of them yourself. See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the first edit because it fleshed out details about both the Kurtz column and the Hunt column. You put that here in the first place.

In the second instance, I was correcting a false description of the WSJ, and you are once again attempting to make it appear that Hunt wrote what he did because he didn't like Totenberg's reporting (again, see Oct 19, 1991 Capital Gang to see that he was quite sympathetic toward Hill and against Thomas). You added "conservative" in descbribing the WSJ--that was not in the source you referenced. It is a common misperception that the WSJ is a conservative paper. The editorial pages are; the news pages are not--whether they are viewed as liberal or as straight. There are several sources that demonstrate the point that there is a huge difference between the two sets of pages. Please see the WP entry on the WSJ for some of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I also agreed with Magidin's removal. See the above discussion and please participate in it before you revert.

I have no idea why Hunt wrote the column so I am obviously not trying to attempt anything. I am trying to show that Hunt's column was perceived as part of the anti-Totenberg pushback against her reporting. Whatever Hunt's unknowable motives were, this is how the column was (accurately or inaccurately, who can say?) perceived, and I've backed that up with citations. It's simply not permissible (according to WP policy) for you to follow that up with a self-constructed defense of the WSJ that takes up a third of the paragraph. This is clearly original research. If you want to quote a defense of the Hunt column, fine, but you can't make up your own! I've restored my edit with a tweak that should satisfy WP policy and render your defense irrelevant. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(doubly indented for ease of reading; this is a reply to [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801] and comments before his, not to the latest by Gamaliel)

The problem I saw with the line I edited out was that it gives the impression that Kurtz had been clear about the reason why Totenberg left the Observer, and that nevertheless Hunt decided to bring up the issue. (It read: "Kurtz's article mentioned that she had been fired over the incident, but Hunt charged Totenberg gave the impression that she had been fired because of sexual harrassment."). From my reading of Kurtz's article, he was very unclear and ambiguous about the reason why Totenberg left the Observer, calling it an allegation of plagiarism and essentially blunting the assertion via his phrasing. The sentence in fact, in my opinion, makes Hunt "bringing it up" more objectionable; putting in enough detail to give sufficient context would probably take too long. I'm not at all happy with the current version, for what it may be worth. Here is my suggestion, in italics; keep the same references as before; the (*) makes a reference footnote I would add, which I put after the text:

In an interview published on October 1991, Totenberg alleged to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that she had been sexually harassed at the National Observer[3]. A week later, Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, in a column about the Thomas hearing,[4] further quoted an interview(*) in which Totenberg stated she believed she had left the Observer because she was being sexually harassed. Hunt then gave the details of the 1972 plagiarism incident.

(*) Hunt identifies the quote only as having been made "in an interview".

If there is a direct reference to the Totenberg quote that Hunt mentions in his piece, then we could put that instead of (*). I don't really see much point in either the defense of the "wall" on the WSJ, or of quoting the position on the TIME piece. This is not a page about the incident, or about Hunt, or about the WSJ. I think merely stating these facts would be sufficient here. I think putting in the dates of the exchange and of the original incident is sufficient context here, and mentioning the very explicit quote that Hunt quotes gives reason for the rejoinder. Of course, if you have better wording to suggest, I'm all for it. Magidin (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this paragraph fit better in the Early Career section with the other discussions of plagiarism and charge of sexual harassment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 19:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, the connection has been made and is backed up by reliable sources. Your insertion of repeated factual errors to defend Hunt and the WSJ and to make Totenberg look bad has become quite tiresome. The Hunt column is obviously an editorial column and appears on the editorial page. I've verified this by looking at a PDF of that entire page, where it appears on the editorial page with two staff editorials and two other editorial columns. If you persist in inserting blatant falsehoods to push your POV I think either page protection or an IP block is in order. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And what are those factual errors? Hunt's column may have appeared on the editorial page, but Hunt was part of Washington NEWS bureau and NOT part of editorial page staff. His work was completely independent of the editorial page staff control. If you check, you'll see he worked for the NEWS division for his entire tenure at WSJ. I personally don't care for Hunt, so I'm not defending him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So the editorial page editor has no control over his own editorial page when a news division guy decides to write a column there? Absurd. Your conjecture is hardly enough to override the fact that the damn thing is on the editorial page. You are just making stuff up as you go along. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I should add that once again, your conjecture is a violation of the prohibition on original research. You can not construct defenses of Hunt, only quote and cite the defenses of others, and you cannot insert your theories about the nature of Hunt's column into the article. The version you keep altering makes no claims about the nature of Hunt's column, motives, or partisanship, it merely cites the fact that others made the connection between Hunt and the editorial page's attacks on Totenberg. You seem to be of the opinion that this connection is unfounded and inaccurate, but you cannot use this article to push your theories to discredit this connection. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not. Check it out! Hunt talked on camera about the separation of church and state when discussing his employment with the news division. I believe it was on another episode of Capital Gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. You can't construct a defense of the Hunt column, period. This violates WP:OR, period. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not constructing a defense of the Hunt column. I'm clearing up the misconception that he is on the same team as the editorial page staff. He was in the NEWS division. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 20:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you put in the article. You wrote that the column appeared on the "liberal news pages" instead of the editorial page, a factual inaccuracy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt. But is there a rejection or a second to my suggested version? Magidin (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801] wrote of my suggestion: Wouldn't [this] fit better in the Early Career section?

I don't think so; the incident and the allegations are already discussed there. However, I do agree that the connection with the Thomas hearing is somewhat tenuous, just as Hunt trying to connect the back-and-forth to the Thomas hearing was tenuous to begin with. Perhaps the best location for this is under Controversies, as that is what it seems to have been. Magidin (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for that. I don't think that the part trying to dismiss Hunt's column as some right-wing cabal (the Time reference) should stay. It once again attempts to assign motivation to Hunt's column as being he didn't approve of Totenberg's reporting on Thomas/Hill. Hunt is a liberal and was sympathetic to Hill. Just read his work and see transcripts of his appearances of "Capital Gang." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 ([[User talk:76.7.131.95|talk]) 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hunt column does make it clear that he believed Totenberg was trying to muddy the water regarding her firing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a particular phrasing. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in that proposal about the Time reference. The problem with what Hunt believed is that he explicitly blames Totenberg for the ambiguity in Kurtz's column. This is a problem, because he had no way to know if Kurtz's choice of phrasing was Totenberg's, or if Totenberg had been complicit in what I termed the "non-confirmation confirmation". So if we were going to mention that Hunt states that Totenberg is muddying the waters, then it also needs to be said that he is accusing her on the basis of how Kurtz reports the incident (Hunt does not provide the explicit Totenberg quote until much later in the column, after he has finished recounting the incident, and by describing the comment with the word "insists"; that means he is basing the accusation of Totenberg on the at best ambiguous text of Kurtz). That opens the whole can of worms of motivation. I think we need to try to avoid going into the stated accusations and she-said/he-said issues (which would be too much minutiae and not really germane to this article); there is also the problem that Hunt's recounting of the incident is really unrelated with the rest of the column, in which he is criticizing actions directly related to the hearing (this is a criticism of at best something that is two degrees of separation from the hearing); this agains leads to questions of motivation. All of this is a big problem. So, again, here is my suggestion, slightly rephrased:

''In an interview published on October 1991, Totenberg alleged to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that she had been sexually harassed at the National Observer[3]. A week later, Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed column about the Thomas/Hill hearings,[4] recounted the details of the 1972 plagiarism incident, and further quoted Totenberg saying in an interview(*) that she believed she had left the Observer because she was being sexually harassed.

(*) Hunt identifies the quote only as having been made "in an interview".

Reference [3] is to Kurtz's article; reference [4] to Hunt's column. Nothing about the TIME piece, nothing about Hunt's sympathies or lack thereof or motivations; no statements about "legendary" separations (by the by, at best that ought to have been written as "has been described as 'legendary'" with suitable citation). Magidin (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be placed in the Thomas section because of the connection to the Thomas pushback. The Time piece explicitly makes the connection and Totenberg's biographers (see Newsmakers and Current Biography) place it in Thomas part of their chronology for the same reason. I think we should follow the lead of the published sources we are drawing upon. I'm also curious if any comments about this matter arise from the BLP noticeboard complaint I filed. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the time of my comment, when I realized that you had taken that bullying tactic, it was after I posted my comments here. Sounds like you still believe that it's your way or the highway despite the agreement to the proposed wording.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to play the victim, no one is going to fall for it because you are the only one inserting factual errors to push a POV here. As for the rest, I'm just posting my opinion about how the article should be worded and it's ridiculous you should take offense to that. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801] 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have enough consensus to go with Magidin's proposed wording?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay; part of the issue is where to locate this event within the article. I think that in order to include it "as part of the pushback" to the Thomas hearing, we would need to provide a bit more context. This would involve discussing how Totenberg herself became somewhat the focus of attention (a la Kurtz's piece, and being interviewed herself), and some of the context. But it has to be relatively brief. Location is, however, probably the least of the objections? Are you concerned about lack of context, about missing information, about information there that shouldn't be there? I would definitely apreciate some constructive criticisms, since as I've said I'm not terribly experienced with BLPs. Magidin (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Totenberg herself became the object of media scrutiny and sat for a number of interviews. In one interview with Howard Kurtz...." That's pretty brief and sets the stage. Gamaliel (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: There is currrently an ungrammatical sentence: "Criticism came many Thomas supporters..." Needs to be fixed. Next: I would preface that with "Following the Thomas/Hill hearings, Totenberg herself..." (minor detail, I know). As to the "pushback" comment below: I think there is at least a partial misinterpretation here. I do not see Gamaliel as saying "pushback from Hunt", but rather that there was a pushback, and Hunt's piece fell into place within that pushback. Magidin (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed the grammatical error. I'd say "During" instead of "following", but it sounds good to me otherwise. And I concur with your interpretation of what I wrote earlier. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the resulting version is that on the pushback. The current version does suggest that there was pushback from Hunt due to Totenberg's reporting: "Some observers connected Hunt's rehashing of a then-nearly 20 year old incident to the stance of the Journal, whose conservative op-ed pages had "editorially championed" Thomas and had previously attacked Totenberg."--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct evidence (there's just conjecture referenced in the Time article) that there was a pushback from Hunt resulting from either Totenberg's reporting or from the Thomas hearing itself; there is direct evidence that Hunt's pushback was due to Totenberg's claim that she believed she was fired for sexual harassment.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But we have enough consensus to keep your version because you added it and because you alone think it should be there?--76.7.131.95) 16:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude won't get us to consensus any quicker. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When there is a lack of consensus and an active discussion on the talk page, it is generally considered good form to leave the article in the status quo ante that discussion while the discussion takes place. Magidin (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to go ahead and bring this to consensus? What's the next step?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this version:

"During the Thomas/Hill hearings, Totenberg herself became the object of media scrutiny and sat for a number of interviews. In one interview with Howard Kurtz, she alleged that she had been sexually harassed at the National Observer. Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal brought up the plagiarism incident in a column about media coverage of and responses to the Thomas hearings. Some observers connected Hunt's rehashing of a then-nearly 20 year old incident to the stance of the conservative editorial pages of the Journal, who had "editorially championed" Thomas and had previously criticized Totenberg, however, Hunt worked for the liberal news division of the Journal instead and was personally sympathetic to Hill." (or just the leave last sentence out entirely)--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: the problem is that everything from "however" to the end constitutes original research and synthesis on your part. Unless you have a verifiable source that made that defense (much like the TIME piece made the argument for a connection), it's out. What you are suggesting is that unless you can do synthesis and original research to defend against an argument made by a reliable secondary source, then the latter argument should not be included. But that is not how this is supposed to work. Magidin (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You just aren't listening to the objections Magidin and I are raising, this is just a rephrasing of what you've been pushing all along. Coincidentally, I've just received a Vanity Fair article that briefly talks about Hunt's role and his defense of his column and I'll be taking info from that for the article. It does not mention anything about the ideological editorial/news divide and thus that material would still be inappropriate original research. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can produce reliable secondary sources that indicate that Hunt worked for the news division, that the news division is liberal and that the editorial division is conservative, that there is a significant divide between the two divisions, and that Hunt was sympathetic to Hill. I can't produce a source that specifically speaks to his writing this column from the news division or a from a sympathetic attitude toward Hill. It seems wrong that something that is clearly false can be included simply because there is a secondary source that provides it, but WP rules are rules, so I'll abide by that. The disclaimer added by Gamaliel that Hunt denied any ideological motivation does help some.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP is built on secondary sources, not original analysis of primary sources. The prohibition on original research prevents people from making novel new theories based on their personal analysis of the primary evidence. Thus it keeps the time cube guy, the 9/11 truthers, and Obama Birthers, and the JFK assassination nuts away from WP articles. It also prevents those of us who have the best of intentions and are absolutely convinced that their personal theory is true from inserting that theory into the article. It's just another way of helping us all be absolutely neutral while editing articles. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are very important points.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I've been distracted by policy issues and revert wars, there's something I hadn't noticed before now. The Time article says that the critics were criticizing the WSJ as a whole, both the editorial and the news division, the former for their attacks and advocacy, the latter for undercovering and burying the Hill story. So the OR theory about the impossibility of Hunt participating in the pushback is incorrect since both supposedly separate divisions were participating. (Of course this is according to these critics and should be clearly labeled as such - as it is in this article - and of course contrary critics should be quoted if available.) Gamaliel (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackmun quote and controversy

The latest addition: it seems that the intended innuendo here is that she characterized Souter as "weird" when it was thought he would be conservative, and as "normal" when he retired because by then he was liberal. Setting aside the fact that this would be blatant original research, there are a legion of problems. First, Totenberg did not describe Souter as "normal"; she quoted Blackmun, with Blackmun saying "perhaps the only one of us who was normal" (that is, "normal" in the context of Supreme Court Justices, not exactly the corner-crowd bar to begin with). Second, the comments refer to Souter's personal life: bachelor, living with his mother, liking to hike, disliking the Washington cocktail party scene, etc. Nothing to do with his jurisprudence. Third, Totenberg's article has a lot of other stuff about Souter: that he was "proudly old-fashioned", that he wrote his opinions in long-hand (something that is quite 'weird' in the current and previous Courts), disdaining computers (quite weird in this day and age), opposed to the death to cameras, etc. To single out the final paragraph, where she is quoting someone else, seems rather a stretch; to further connect it to Souter's jurisprudence is original synthesis and definitely a stretch. And even setting all of this aside, how is the choice of adjectives, almost 20 years apart, a "controversy" or a "controversial quote"? Really, it seems more like another attempt at an OR claim of liberal bias. Magidin (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As for other times in which Totenberg described Souter, see for example [1], a story filed April 30 (announcing Souter's plans to retire). She says: "Souter was unconventional in other ways beyond his ideological independence. He moved to Washington to attend court sessions, but he returned to his beloved roots in New Hampshire whenever possible, including for the court's long summer hiatus each year. Rather than fly home, Souter preferred to drive. He also resisted other forms of contemporary technology and convenience, holding out against the cell phone and e-mail and continuing to write his opinions and dissents in longhand, using a fountain pen." Hardly calling him "normal", is she? Magidin (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a Nexis search on this "weird" quote and found no hits, nor could I find the original source of the quote. It's one thing is a statement is specifically denounced by a Globe columnist (and I'm not sure even that's sufficient for inclusion here, frankly), it's quite another to pick out a couple words that were mentioned in passing and claim they are a "controversial quote". I think the anon is either acting in bad faith or not familiar with how Wikipedia works. We don't cherry pick quotes in an attempt to create an impression, and from the edit summary "It shows a lack of measured judgment and a dismissiveness toward a Supreme Court nominee.", it's clear that the anon is attempting to use quotes and partial quotes to come to a conclusion about the subject of the article instead of reporting on significant statements and the conclusions of others. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to wager that the quote is something she said on the air when discussing the nominee. She has always described him as eccentric and not the usual Washington person (or judge). But the real issue here is that with BLP we are not supposed to "paint the picture" ourselves. I've suggested in his talk page that the other editor find reliable secondary sources that make the assertion that Totenberg is biased (since that is the picture he seems intent on painting); then he can quote them, properly attributed. Magidin (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiasm for Lani Guinier Nomination

We're asked to believe that Totenberg's behavior (getting out of bed, hugging a friend, offering an interview) is supposed to indicate "enthusiasm" for Guinier's nomination. There's nothing there that would be out of the ordinary behavior for a diligent reporter and, more importantly, no reliable source has indicated that there's anything strange about that behavior, other than perhaps Kurtz bringing up the hug. This is pretty much text book POV and OR synthesis, so I've removed that section. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Enthusiasm" is nowhere to be found in the version you removed (after Magidin's edit). Let's see. When there is a dispute over a version that Gamaliel puts in, it gets to stay; when there is a dispute over a version that someone else but Gamaliel puts in, it gets removed. Is that how it works?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Playing the victim won't accomplish anything. Try addressing the matter at hand. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is sliding down towards hatchet job territory. At some point we're going to have to make this into an article instead of a bullet point list of every Howard Kurtz article and National Review complaint. Is every Kurtz column and right-wing whine worthy of a paragraph here? Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is actually sliding down towards puff-piecery with a list of awards by every liberal group under the sun. There are exactly two references to Kurtz (hardly a right-winger at hardly a right-wing news organization). How many are there to liberal organizations granting or creating an award for their conquering hero Totenberg? How many are there to NPR, hardly a neutral source when it comes to providing information on Totenberg?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles typically mention awards, especially high profile ones like the Polk and Peabody, so it's perverse for you to turn that into some kind of conservative "liberal media waaa" talking point. And let's not pretend that everyone who isn't the National Review is some kind of left winger. This isn't about politics for anyone here, except you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so modest. You wage war on a number of WP fronts, defending liberal causes and trying to make conservative ones look bad.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And as a reward, when health care passes I'll be on a death panel killing grannies. Hide your relatives! Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Touche!--76.7.131.95 (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How often do you see honorary degrees mentioned for a high-profile journalist?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• shrug* I couldn't care less about that. Junk it if you want. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that, since most criticisms (and the particular POV that our anon editor has stated wants to see) are about either unprofessionalism or bias, they can likely be summarized in a section under the corresponding headings (Criticisms and responses); state that she has been criticised for X or Y, with sundry links to sundry such criticisms as a sample, and link to corresponding replies or responses. only major incidents, such as the Hunt column, would need to be detailed in exenso Magidin (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that would work. I believe the main issue is bias/advocacy (for or against) and coziness toward one side/hostility to the other. Again, I think that the demonstrably false charge of Hunt shilling for the conservative editorial division of the WSJ needs to either be removed or explained in more detail.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 12:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehr... you do realize that truth or falsity of an allegation is not really a determining factor for inclusion, right? The Wikipedia verifiability policy states very clearly and explicitly:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

If the allegation that he was "shilling for the conservative editorial division" is verifiable, then whether or not the allegation is false (or true) in fact is immaterial. Magidin (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I would still like to put this charge in context that Hunt was writing from the news division side and not the editorial division side and that Hunt was sympathetic toward Hill. These items are verifiable.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But now, again, you are suggesting an act of synthesis. Unless someone specifically and explicitly made the argument that Hunt was writing from the news division, that he was sympathetic towards Hill, that his column should not be placed in the camp of the "pushback", and did so in a reliable secondary source, you should not put it forth yourself, or even suggest it by simply placing the information, however verifiable. See again the example given in the relevant Wikipedia policy page, which I quoted in your talk page: just because both A and B are verifiable, it does not mean that putting forth "A, and B" does violate the policy against original research. Magidin (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a good one and would bring this article more in line with NPOV. We certainly don't need a paragraph for every friend Totenberg has in Washington. I don't think we need to mention them all, frankly. Do these non-controversies meet the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Do WP articles on other journalists have a "conflict of interest" discussion for ever friend they have? I suspect Totenberg's gender and perceived political orientation are to blame for this. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need a paragraph for every friend of Totenberg's, but we just have two, and both are not simply friends, but are related to her past or current objectivity in reporting. I can't see how gender has anything to do with inclusion (the point would be the same if Totenberg, Ginsburg, and/or Guinier were male).

Please see my suggestion for the Hunt paragraph in the Hunt, Kurtz, etc. section above.--[[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Totenberg's writing on Anita Hill

This addition is written in a completely neutral manner, relates to a major topic in this article, and consists primarily of a direct quotation from Totenberg's writing. There is no POV to dispute.--76.7.128.107 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now, it is in "Other". The real question is: just how is this quote important, interesting, relevant, controversial? I am sure that you can read all sorts of things into it, but just exactly why is it notable enough to warrant inclusion? Magidin (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to pick random quotes by Totenberg and put them in the article. That's not how an encyclopedia works. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the POV tag is not appropriate. Is there a "notability" tag? Found it. That's really the issue here as far as I can tell. The isolated quote not only is completely banal by itself, it is also completely lacking in any context that might make it notable. Magidin (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the POV tag because I think it's pretty clear that the anon is pushing this to make the subject of the article look bad, but I have no objections to this replacement. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is important because it speaks to the issue of Totenberg's objectivity on the most noteworthy event in Totenberg's reporting career--the reporting on Anita Hill. She was obviously a major player in the controversy, so it is fair to give readers some insight into her views on the controversy. In the preface to the book referenced, Totenberg spoke clearly to her belief that it was important for the Senate (and the country) to examine Hill's charges and that Hill's charges were credible. She also made it clear that she believed Thomas' advocates were heavy-handed, while Hill's advocates were timid and ineffectual. I believe that this issue deserves a place in the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings subsection, but I didn't think that Totenberg's quotation by itself merited placing it there. I could expand on the context of her statement.--76.7.128.107 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picking a quotation does not accomplish that goal, nor does WP policy permit you to pick over primary sources like this. (Original research, etc, we've been over this before) You can use secondary sources to write a paragraph about that and we can place it in the Thomas/Hill section, provided it meets the requirements of NPOV, OR, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The transcripts portion of the book is a primary source; the preface written by Totenberg is a secondary source.--76.7.128.107 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Because the issue here is Totenberg's views, a text written by Totenberg would be a primary source. Regardless, picking out quotes isn't encyclopedic and does nothing to accomplish your stated goal. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this; I thought we had gone through this and you had begun to see the point of WP policies. I guess I was wrong. First of all, the quotation shows no such thing; I'm afraid your already-reached conclusion is quite simply coloring your view so much that the original picture is just not there anymore. The quote you provide is completely banal. It does not speak at all about anyone's objectivity. It could have been said by someone who supported Thomas. Second, granting merely for the sake of argument that the quote did "show" that, you are doing original research when you do this. You are still trying to make a case for lack of objectivity by doing synthesis. You cannot make the case, no matter how you do it. At best, you can report a reliable source making the case, but that's it. That you are quite simply misunderstanding the nature of primary and secondary sources. As the WP policy I just linked to states,

Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.

I simply cannot comprehend how you could argue that Totenberg can be the author of a secondary source about herself. How could she be "at least one step removed"? You are not, after all, making a statement about the hearing or about Hill: you are trying to make (an original) claim about Totenberg, by your own admission. Magidin (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not see the preface generally as a primary source, but I can see now that when discussing Totenberg's views instead of discussing Hill herself, it would be considered a primary source. Do you think that the current use would fit WP policy on use of a primary sources, since I am employing a descriptive use of the quote and not making an assessment in the article?

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 12:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The very act of cherrypicking a quote and putting it in the article is a way of making a claim. As you said yourself, you are attempting to illustrate Totenberg's views on this issue. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see you as employing "a descriptive use of the quote". For example, if your secondary source said that "X has defended her actions elsewhere", you could directly quote that defense (which would itself constitute a primary source), and so on; or you could quote an author on the inspiration of a character in her books, if all you do is state that the author has said the character was inspired in a certain way. That's what that policy refers to. What you are doing, by your own admission, is attempting to show the bias your perceive in Totenberg's reporting by choosing quotes of Totenberg that you believe exhibit that bias. What you are doing is classic synthesis, which constitutes original research. That is exactly what you would do if you were writing a column arguing that Totenberg is biased: you would select quotes of Totenberg that you believe exhibit this bias. The only thing you are doing is cropping the preface and the conclusion of such an argument, hoping that by doing so you can push it under the bar to original research. But in fact you are still trying to make that argument. That is synthesis, and original research. Magidin (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove it entirely.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Magidin (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bork

Totenberg neither initiated nor participated in the event in question (the publication of the rental list). Her opinion was one of many. Was it particularly controversial? Was she alone in stating that opinion? Was she particularly praised or critized for the opinion that the publication was a valid exercise of journalism? If no, then why is this particular item notable? You write in your edit summary:

A Supreme Court nomination is a major story; it is an enormous issue for Totenberg

Sorry, but this is not about a Supreme Court nomination, it is at least three steps removed: it is the report of an opinion about someone else's action during that particular nomination; it was an opinion expressed in terms of the journalism, not of the nomination; and it's about privacy, not about the Supreme Court. Your edit summary is a facile explanation. The reason for its inclusion is pretty clear by now, much like the quotes about Souter, or the one you recently removed: you want to make a case for the proposition that Totenberg is biased, and you want to include quotes that you believe show this; this seems to be the only way to justify the inclusion of these non-notable incidents or words. Find a reliable secondary source that makes that case and quote it. Surely you are not alone in your perception and someone has already made that case for you in a reliable secondary source. And if really nobody has, perhaps you might want to ponder why that may be. Magidin (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the other Talk section.--76.7.128.107 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, your "personal" talk section, where you failed to make a case and instead provided a Tu quoque fallacy based on incomparable situations. I take it, then, that you cannot find a reliable secondary source to make the case for you. But don't want to reflect on what that might mean. Magidin (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions about my search for reliable secondary sources on bias (I'm nowhere near done). So far I have opinion columns by a major syndicator that fit (the news business and the academy are quite favorable to Totenberg). Come now, there is no need to make the argument personal--"don't want to reflect on what that might mean." You don't think it possible that a favorable view of Totenberg by you might color you?--76.7.128.107 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You've made the argument personal all along; you've made insinuations and prejudgments about me based solely on the fact that I didn't agree with you. So do get off that pony you're riding, because it isn't exactly a high horse, dear. I, on the other hand, withheld judgement until your express intentions and behavior made that judgement inevitable. If you have good reliable sources to make the case for you, then when why do you insist on trying to make the case yourself? Why do you insist on synthesis, on selective quoting, on painting pictures? I know for a fact that your personal opinion of Totenberg is not only "color[ing] you", it is guiding your actions; I know that because you said so. No, I don't think my personal opinions of the subject are coloring me, I think it is your behavior that is "coloring" me here. Stop making the case, stop making synthesis, and quote your sources and be done. But instead, you first directed people to look up quotes, you wrote down your own conclusions, you write down your original research, and you now try to nibble the issue to death by doing it one item at a time, hoping that might sneak it through. You have, by your own admission, absolutely no interest in a neutral, secondary-source-based presentation: you want this page to reflect your own personal conclusion about bias. Well, write a blog, then. Magidin (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I did make insinuations and prejudgements about you early on after my first edits. I hope I haven't done that since then.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the verge of giving up

Okay: "has been criticized" is just begging for a {{by whom}} tag. Reference at least three or four specific criticisms by specific individuals if you want to be this generic, or else (if you have two or fewer references) then attribute the criticisms directly in-line ("has been criticized by XXXX"). Neither here nor there (just venting), but I notice she also exhibited a lack of interest in a lot of other charges of sexual harassment on a lot of people; curiously few if any of them related to her "beat". Do we criticize a Chicago Tribune reporter as biased because he reports on the democratic Illinois governor's accusations of corruption, but shows no interest in the accusations of corruption against Alaska's senior senator? Pretty much the same kind of facile argument that's been presented in this and other talk pages. But then, my opinion on the underlying logic of an argument is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia content is concerned. Magidin (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Totenberg wasn't a Supreme Court correspondent at NPR. A legal affairs correspondent's beat doesn't include legal matters involving the president of the United States??Facile, eh?--76.7.128.107 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this? You're not going to sneak this kind of thing into the article. It may stay for a day or two, but we or someone else will remove it. We've explained policy to you numerous times, and you can choose to ignore it or twist it into contortions if you like, but unless you follow it your contributions simply will not stay in the article. Eventually someone will tire of this and just block you or lock the article for a while. You can argue and edit war until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that contributions of the type you are inserting into the article are unacceptable according to WP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is unacceptable according to WP policy about this addition?--76.7.128.107 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know, you haven't been paying attention. We've explained this over and over. You don't cherry pick quotes and seed the article with them, especially ones which are on issues which are related to the subject of the article only in the most tenuous of ways. NPOV, BLP, UNDUE, etc., etc. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a well-cited section that describes criticisms of Totenberg as biased. But it should include more than one citation and the insinuation that there are other criticisms, and it should be in lieu of all these alleged "examples of a pattern." Magidin (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Totenberg reports on cases and controversies of certain kinds, and on the Supreme Court. She does not report on legal matters relating to members of Congress, either, whether democratic or republican: she did not report on Rep. Jefferson, nor did she report on the case of Sen. Stevens or of Rep. Delay. Nor did she report on the firing of Yglesias, or on the prosecution of Scooter Libby, as far as I can recall. So, yes: facile. Magidin (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Totenberg would be amused to find that she doesn't cover legal issues involving the President. As a matter of fact, she DID report on the case of Sen. Stevens. Check the NPR archives.--76.7.128.107 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. As long I check the NPR archives, I note several stories of hers about the allegations against Clinton (e.g., [2] and [3]). Oh well. Clearly I'm not the only one with faulty memory; then again, I don't write columns for living, and my main interest in this issue is the Supreme Court, not Totenberg. Magidin (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No longer on the verge. Bye. I have better things to do than do battle with an anonymous editor (isn't it time you got an actual wikipedia account? You don't have to give your name if you don't want to) who has explicitly said his intention is to evade wherever possible WP's policies in a campaign to have the page reflect his (or hers?) own prejudices. Magidin (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Your criticisms have been constructive, regardless of when I agree or not. I have not said that my intention is to evade WP's policies--I just want to be sure that edits are not removed without a policy basis.--Drrll (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Some numbers

Not for addition to the article, but for the edification of readers of this talk page. Since Totenberg was fired from the Observer in 1972, there have been 12 nominations by Republicans to the Supreme Court (Stevens, O'Connor, Rehnquist's elevation, Scalia, Bork, Douglas Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Roberts, Miers, and Alito), and 3 by Democrats (Ruth Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor). Totenberg has broken damaging stories on two of the nominees (Ginsburg and Thomas). If we assumed that all nominees were equally as likely to be the target of a damaging story, then the odds that two stories would not be about two nominees by Republicans would be $1-(12/15)(11/14)=0.37143...$, or little over 37%; so it would be almost twice as likely that two stories would be about Republican nominees than either two about Democratic nominees, or one each. If we assumed that Democratic nominees were one a half times as likely to be the target of a damaging story, then the odds that two stories would not be about two Republican nominees would be $1-(24/33)(23/32)=0.47727...$, or a little less than 48%; still just marginally more likely that two stories would be about Republican nominees than not. Magidin (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. We'll see just how the odds change as more nominees are named in the future.--76.7.128.107 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it would be even worse if we went back 40 years, or even a bit longer if you wanted to throw in Fortas. And there are a lot of extremely silly assumptions thrown in there, of course. About as silly as concluding that if no allegations were found for Democratic nominees it was because there was no interest in finding them, but that if no allegations were found for Republican nominees it was "not for lack of trying". Magidin (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "controversial"?

From Wikipedia: Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate usually concerning a matter of opinion.

From Wikictionary: Adjective controversial. 1. Arousing controversy—a debate or discussion of opposing opinions.

From Merriam-Webster's: 1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy. 2 : given to controversy : disputatious.

Being cited in USA today may make it notable; it does not make it "controversial". What was the "controversy" about that statement, then? The statement about Helms was controversial: it ignited a controversy and a back-and-forth. The statement about Boykin went so far as to require an official determination by NPR's ombudsman. Other than turning your stomach, what controversy did this egotistical quote elicit? Four weeks in, you still don't get it that this is not meant to be a collection of quotes that you personally find offensive or distasteful. Oh, well, I don't know why it surprises me. While some of us try to edit as neutrally as we honestly can, you've made it perfectly clear you believe your role is to push your bias as hard as possible into the article in the hope that some of it will be retained. Magidin (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You really just don't get it. What is the controversy? Other than the fact that you don't like it; was there a back and forth? Was she criticized for it? Or is it just "bad" in your personal opinion and therefore worthy of mention? I know where my money is, because you've certainly made these sucker bets. Magidin (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point about it being notable but not controversial. I'll remove it.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 16:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not say it was notable. I said that being quoted on USA Today may make it notable (because you cited that inclusion as grounds for "controversial"). Just being quoted in the paper does not necessarily, in and of itself, satisfy the requirements of notablity. Magidin (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

This is a note to warn the anon (who has a rotating IP address and thus I can't leave a warning on every conceivable talk page) about the 3RR, which prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. You are currently in violation of this rule and any further violations will be reported. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're up to 3 (actually more) reversions yourself, including one of which reverted multiple items at the same time.--[redacted per OTRS ticket# 2011082410001801]) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's too much reverting, and too little discussing. Please seek consensus. To expedite diuscussion, I've protected the article for a week.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything is going to change here without the intervention of more editors. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fringe" Sources

Gamaliel, how can you justify calling Bozell fringe when the column is question was published in newspapers by a major newspaper syndicator? At the same time that you dismiss Bozell as fringe, you promote as a non-fringe reliable source the completely self-published left-wing website Media Matters for America. On a discussion page for a BLP entry on a conservative, you justified its use:

"Will Beback suggested a mere 'sentence or two'" (Beback said: "Media Matters does have a POV, but it is also generally reliable and notable.")

Never mind that WP policy on reliable sources states the following about use of self-published sources such as MMFA's website:

"There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.93.56 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion; a single accusation of bias would likely constitute undue weight, regardless of the source. I would suggest having the Bozell paragraph labeled with and {{undue-section}} tag at least for now, and give the anonymous editor the chance to find other reliable sources that make a case for biased coverage by Totenberg, in which case we can have a suitable paragraph citing the sundry such statements. Let's say, a few days to find them? If no further accusations are provided, then we take the paragraph out at least until further appropriate reliable citations are provided. Magidin (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I can go for that. Let's say one week from now?--67.232.93.56 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find MediaMatters to be a reliable source. They are often just as inaccurate, propagandistic, cherrypicking, and petty as the accusations they level at others. It's nothing more than a glorified blog. The fact that David Brock has seen fit in the past to personally attack me and my WP editing in other venues may have a little to do with my opinion of his site, but it shows me how small minded he is, to go after someone like me, who is insignificant. If other reliable sources note MM coverage, then that is another thing. Bozell does seem to be a prominent and notable figure on his own, and he is published widely in reliable sources. I have yet to take a close look at this article, and see the particulars of what we are talking about. I'll do so now. - Crockspot (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bozell is a crank, frankly, and he thinks everyone has liberal bias, including (seriously) Fox News. He is pretty much the definition of fringe. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, honestly, I don't really see a problem with undue weight. The criticisms seem to be legitimate, and are properly sourced. I did find the placement of the controversial quotes and criticism sections stuck in the middle to be not quite ideal, so I have moved both of them to the end of the article. Totenberg has her issues, as anyone who leans right is well aware. She has also received many awards, and has done what people who lean left would consider "great works". I think this article, in its current form, does a pretty good job of striking that balance. I don't see any BLP issues at all, though I may have missed something. - Crockspot (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is a journalist with a 30+ year career and one of the most respected in the business, and half the article is devoted to controversies and accusations and out of context quotes that nobody cares about except the WSJ editorial page and the National Review. I think you know me well enough that I have no intention of whitewashing the article, and you know I think that actual controversies should be dealt with in full, but really - there is no "comments about the special prosecutor at a speech controversy", there is no "calling David Souter weird controversy", and there is nothing significant or encyclopedic about most of the "controversies" the IP editors have tried to introduce. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Totenberg quotes from WSJ article in Clarence Thomas section

The quotes from Totenberg on Peter Fleming are taken in full from a paragraph in the WSJ article, not out of context--every word quoted in the paragraph is included, except for the quote on press articles being like a press release for Totenberg (that can be added if you believe it should be included--or do you think that every single quoted word in the article should be quoted?). Another editor (Magidin)edited the quotes into a single sentence rather than deleting them. Crockspot also did not see a problem with the quotes, so you are in the minority view. Sorry that you feel that every source should be a liberal or left-wing source, but the WSJ is one of the largest papers in the country (much larger than the NYT). You also insist in keeping the sentence about Peter Fleming in the other paragraph even though you have no evidence that Fleming was a Thomas supporter.--Drrll (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, for one you can stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything remotely like I thought "every source should be a liberal or left-wing source". If you are our anon friend, you are the one who is searching for only negative information and only sourcing right wing publications.

• Two, my sentence never labels Fleming a "Thomas supporter", or anything else, it merely says the Judiciary committee hired Fleming to investigate the leaks, which is true. If you don't understand that version of the sentence, feel free to rephrase it in a form you can understand.

• Three, that WSJ editorial is full of quotes, yet you only picked one and constructed a paragraph about it. There is no controversy about that particular quote that you cherrypicked and it doesn't deserve encyclopedic treatment. Gamaliel (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You have not said that in those words. You have made it sound as though there is a risk of the article being full of references to the WSJ editorial pages and National Review. There is currently only one reference to the WSJ editorial pages (would go up to two) and only one reference to National Review, yet you complain about their presence. That is out of 27 separate references and many more duplicate references to those 27. I added the WSJ editorial and National Review reference, but I also added 10 other references, only one or two of which could be considered right-leaning sources. So yes, the implication is that anything right-of-center is illegitimate, while references to liberal sources proliferate in the article.

2) The development of a special counsel to investigate the leaks to Totenberg in a section on the Clarence Thomas hearings is significant enough to deserve its own paragraph. The section of the sentence you edited on Fleming fits within such a paragraph rather than a paragraph that begins with "criticism came from many Thomas supporters" and where the entire rest of the paragraph deals with criticism from Thomas supporters. Besides, its current placement makes it appear that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were solely responsible for appointing the special counsel, when they had no such ability as the minority on the committee.

3) The response of Totenberg to the special counsel investigations is plenty appropriate. Again, I included nearly every single quoted word on the topic of Totenberg & the special counsel from the article and that is precisely the topic of the proposed paragraph. It doesn't purport to be controversial as you suggest (it's not for the Controversies section).

Once again, you have ignored the standard WP practice of keeping disputed items until resolution, while you demanded your edit of a few weeks ago (about Al Hunt) to be retained during the time I was challenging its placement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Sorry, this article is not fully of liberal praise for Totenberg, and I'm hardly advocating that anywhere except apparently your imagination. What we do seem to have is a paragraph for every right wing complaint.

2) The investigation by the judiciary committee should be placed in the paragraph about that discusses the judiciary committee. If you have something to add to that paragraph besides cherry picked quotes that you feel will improve it, please do so.

3) Apparently we have different definitions of the word "appropriate".

4) Any such alleged practice is superseded by BLP requirements that offending material be removed immediately. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

4) Sorry, but there is no basis in WP:BLP for immediately removing disputed material per se--instead the thrust is unsourced or poorly sourced material (e.g. Media Matters). The entire section in BLP about immediately removing certain material is as follows:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.--Drrll (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "disputed", I said "offending", as in material that violates policies like NPOV and UNDUE. Quite frankly, I've been holding back and I could do a lot more under the rules of BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that above we have attacks on me and complaints about my interpretations of policy, but no justification as to why, under WP policy, this material is appropriate, other than a simple assertion that it is. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That the material has NPOV or UNDUE problems is disputed, and not just by me. You are the only one saying it does and NPOV or UNDUE doesn't supersede the standard of keeping disputed material until resolution anyway.

I did give an explanation as to why the material is appropriate (see above)--Drrll (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merely claiming it is "plenty appropriate" is not an explanation. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of multiple parties, you are still the only one that has disputed that the material should be there and you are ignoring the convention of keeping disputed material until resolution. How about a compromise on what's included in the added paragraph, where some of the quoted material is left in place and some is removed, instead of this constant back & forth of versions?--Drrll (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we've compromised enough. You've gotten plenty of negative material into the article already, congrats. Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Combine all of the Thomas hearing material together

Currently content about the Thomas hearing is improperly divided over three sections, The section about Thomas, "Controversies and controversial quotes", and "Accusations of bias, misrepresentation, and conflict of interest". Per WP:NPOV "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself," should be avioded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the book The Great American Gun Debate

The source is a solid reliable source, and therefore does not need third-party verification. Nor does ease of access disqualify it--WP:V#Access to sources clearly states that.--Drrll (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has a bit of a bias against books and non-web sources, but there is some advantage to non-gated sources if you can find them. There's also Congressional testimony from 1995 (published in a gated RS here) over CPB/NPR funding and a 1991 complaint by Bruce Fein to the FCC where Totenberg's factually incorrect and biased statement about the Second Amendment was criticized, but I'm not getting involved. It's one of Totenberg's more famous examples of bias, so I'm surprised that someone is claiming that she didn't say it. THF (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a "more famous" example than why didn't you simply provide a reliable third-party source for it? Please don't remove tags without addressing the problem they are flagging. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've provided three reliable secondary sources. Take your pick, or use all three in the article. The only tag I removed was a cite-needed tag, and I provided a cite. THF (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about the fact that it's a book (vs. an online source). The issue is that the book is a reliable source for his opinion, but not for factual material about a living person. We need a third-party source to verify that she actually said this, not just the claim by someone attacking her that she did. You are trying to state factually, what is merely claimed by one person. Was this so-called "controversy" ever written about in a newspaper or other reliable source? If so, then just provide that cite. If not, well, then why is it even in the article? Then, of course, there is the larger issue of what his criticism even has to do with her notability (answer:nothing). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a scholarly book written by a constitutional law professor. I'm going to love to hear the justification for claiming that a book written by a tenured constitutional law professor for a research institution does not count as a reliable source when partisan media organizations and Al Franken are regularly cited in BLPs of center-right media, but, lately, nothing surprises me when it comes to Wikipedia double standards. THF (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please quote policy that states that a reliable source must have third-party verification to be used in a BLP. If you are referring to this: "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources", he is not promoting a point of view, he is as you said giving "factual information about a living person". And there is no reason to assume that a professor of law and criminologist is being biased, even if he were promoting a point of view. As far as being able to verify that Totenberg said that, see the two references given by THF above (congressional testimony). You'll have to take up the problem of NPR transcripts with NPR--they only provide transcripts back to 1990. As far as notability to Totenberg, why wouldn't a criminologist be notable to someone who reports on crime issues? Who exactly would be notable to Totenberg?--Drrll (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're trying to argue that the Pacific Research Institute is an unbiased non-partisan source (they're not) or that Don Kates is unbiased. I don't really know whether Don Kates is reliable or his opinion unbiased, but that's the point. The fact that he's a retired professor does not confer reliability upon him. That's why we rely on reliable third-parties for this. As for notability, the question is not whether Kates is notable, it's whether he has anything to do with her notability. Clearly, he does not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, he is as you said giving "factual information about a living person" and not giving a "point of view." If a criminologist is not notable to someone reporting on crime issues, I would like to know who you would consider notable to Totenberg.--Drrll (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're just saying I didn't hear that now. He is making factual claims while giving a point of view. But we have no way of knowing whether his factual claims are true or not. And the fact that he is a criminologist does not instantly make him relevant to any biography of a person with any connection to "crime issues" (however labored that connection may be). Per policy, the question is whether her notability has anything to do with him. It doesn't. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:NPOVN: I tried to make this paragraph work and accord with the sources. I read both the congressional testimony and the pages referenced in our sources. I'm not sure whether this is a "famous" instance of bias and it looks to me more like the criticism was being leveled against the media in general (and NPR in particular) more than against Totenberg. In fact, I think that they were more accusing her of being "inaccurate" rather than specifically biased -- though they obviously thought that inaccuracy reflected a continuing bias against gun rights advocates on the part of NPR and the wider news media in general. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's also a dispute whether criticism by L. Brent Bozell III is required under NPOV (see above). The disputed text is: THF (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

L. Brent Bozell III said her interest in the allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas, and lack of interest in those against President Bill Clinton, were an example of bias against conservatives and Republicans.

I think that can be incorporated in the article in this section too. We may end up calling it, "Conservative critique" since it all seems to be from that corner. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the specific policy problems cited above? An opinion editorial by Bozell is not a reliable secondary source and is not in any way related to Totenberg's notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable as his opinion about Totenberg and it is a well-known political complaint that the "other side" cares more about the moral indiscretions of their opponents than they do of their own. The section is becoming a bit laden with commentary, so I'll try to make it more concise. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondary reliable sources criticizing Ms. Totenberg

Right now we discuss the following controversies/criticisms of Ms. Totenberg. I list here the reasons I think that this is appropriately covered in secondary sources.

Conflicts of interest?

1. Hugging her friend who became an assistant attorney general. This was referenced in her friend's biography as well as in a Richard Kurtz article.
2. Getting married by justice Ginsburg. Referenced in a book about journalistic ethics.

Disliked by conservatives?

1. Gigot - a primary source but one that is simply supporting the dispute itself.
2. Bozell - another primary source, but one that is simply supporting the dispute itself.
3. Jacoby - about wishing AIDS on Jesse Helms. Her quote is included directly, so I think the secondary source qualification makes it here.
4. NRA and Kates - This actually made it into Congressional Testimony.

Wishing death on a general?

1. This was directly addressed by the NPR ombudsman. Pretty good secondary commentary if you ask me.

The only two primary sources here are those that serve to illustrate a part of the larger conservative grief over "liberal media bias" and are relatively mild rebukes as we have them listed in this article. I hardly think that they represent the worst of BLP problems, but I could be persuaded otherwise. After all, Gigot just says that she's "partisan" and Bozell's criticism currently reads like the old saw that you forgive your friends and castigate your enemies. They don't look like real character assassinations to me, and since they are referenced to specific conservative commentators they are appropriately contextualized. It's not as though we're telling the reader, "Nina Totenberg is horrible because she did this and that". We're just sharing information that a few people got pissed off at her. That these kinds of attacks happen and that NPR correspondents in particular have been victims of them can be cited by many sources including Jack Mitchell's Listener supported: the culture and history of public radio, L. R. Ickes Public Broadcasting in America, and Eric Alterman's What liberal media?: the truth about bias and the news‎. I'm of the opinion that it is better to simply list the people who have criticized her, though we can think about maybe keeping their commentary to a minimum.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodwin Liu

While this section reveals real shoddiness in journalism and/or a dismissive view of Clarence Thomas, it really needs to be trimmed down and probably included in the Criticism section. The lengthy full quote could be put in the footnote rather than in the body of the article.--Drrll (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, please quote the policy that requires multiple sources for material to be included in an article. The WSJ happens to be the leading newspaper in the US.

While this incident may or may not end up being recentism, it certainly is not non-notable. It goes to the credibility of Totenberg in her career of journalism--Drrll (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is non-notable to a biography of her life and career. Nobody will remember or care about this in six months (actually, nobody knows or cares about it now). This is a biography of a living person, don't forget. The opinion of one person does not rise to the level of notability. The fact that one opinion writer has an ax to grind on this issue doesn't mean that we carry that over to this article. And anyway, this isn't factually sourced. We don't use editorials as sources for anything other than the opinion of their author and the "committee for justice" or whatever it's called is not a reliable source. Please don't add this again without consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it goes directly to her career's credibility, making it very notable. Does anyone remember or care that she engaged in plagiarism almost 40 years ago? Of course they do and it is included in the article and in multiple other places, as is another possible plagiarism 23 years ago. It is also notable given that the source is the preeminent newspaper in the US (may not be notable if just from some small newspaper) and notable given Totenberg's clear animus toward the subject of her misquote--Clarence Thomas.

You have yet to provide a quote from WP policy that requires multiple sources for inclusion (and certainly this does not follow practice throughout WP) or a quote that states that opinion pieces have no place. To the contrary, from WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." It doesn't forbid their use; it just calls for attribution. The material was originally attributed to the author by the original editor that added this, but in trimming excessive sentences I removed the attribution--this can be added back. I think the original editor used the "Committee for Justice" source because that is the official site of the person Totenberg misquoted. That can easily be changed to the WSJ article, since it also includes the full quote Levey made to Totenberg.--Drrll (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is notability which is not established by a brief mention in a single opinion piece. Your argument that it "goes directly to her career's credibility" is simply your opinion, another way of saying "I like it." In order for anything to be included in a WP:BLP, it must have some connection to the subject's notability. This is important because the argument isn't whether the writer is notable, it is whether the writer's opinion of Totenberg is related to her notability. Clearly it is not (or you would have been able to find better examples). Sorry, but every time some pundit spouts an opinion, we don't rush to add it to the biography of whoever they were talking about. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please point me in the right direction if I'm missing something policy-wise, but neither WP:BLP nor WP:N support the idea that coverage of an issue in an article relates to notability. WP:N actually says the opposite: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content". --Drrll (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wading in here: I'm confused about this particular "controversy". The issue is that one blogger on WSJ took Totenberg to task for omitting parts of a quote that illustrate that the similarities between Thomas and Liu is that they're being groomed for the Supreme Court as tokens as opposed to their ideological bent? That's a controversy? It seems more to me like a nitpick. I think that the details here are so peculiar as to maybe warrant only an additional phrase of the sort, "James Taranto criticized Totenberg's reporting as being similar to Maureen Dowd's commentaries." ScienceApologist (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's yet another example of Totenberg treating Clarence Thomas dismissively--as some sort of extremist "very far" on the right, when the person being quoted was instead talking about "being groomed for the Supreme Court." As Taranto said, she could have at least used ellipsis to indicate that she was shortening the quote. The change you made in the article is fine, since a reader can go to the WSJ article in question to see the differences in quotes and decide for themselves.--Drrll (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You really have to read between the lines of Taranto's work to get that, Drrll. Not that I doubt you that this is what Taranto is driving at (he's notorious for inside jokes and preaching-to-the-choir innuendo, as it were) but the casual reader would not necessarily be able to come to that conclusion just from what is written there. That said, I'm glad you like the new phrasing as it doesn't require any interpretation and is pretty straightforward. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of months old material

Please see discussion in '"Fringe" Sources' and 'Totenberg quotes from WSJ article...' section for discussion of use of Bozell source and use of WSJ editorials, especially the material from the outsider Crockspot. Your deletions removed not only the Bozell & WSJ references, but National Review and Vanity Fair (a source you added to the article).--Drrll (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The deleted sentences in question were widely cited during the Juan Williams NPR firing controversy. They seem to now have enough notoriety

and independent confirmation that they should be back in. 67.170.60.77 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. THF (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see no agreement or consensus in either section for inclusion of that material.
• Just because offending material has been in an article for a particular length of time does not give it any protection from removal or exemption from WP policies.
• I did not remove anything from "Vanity Fair". I removed what I consider "fringe" sources, the far-right crank Bozell and an obscure blogger from the NR website. I also removed a quote cherrypicked from an anti-Totenberg WSJ editorial on the grounds that a single quote from a single editorial is not a controversy nor is it encyclopedic.
• I look forward to when you will begin to discuss the actual content at issue here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on Bozell in the above 'Fringe Sources' was about the some of the very material you deleted. Outsider Crockspot agreed that Bozell was not fringe. Fringe authors do not get picked up by major column syndicators nor do they get published in newspapers. Nor is National Review fringe. Talk about fringe sources is rich coming from someone who advocated use of non-reliable source Media Matters for derogatory material in the Mark Levin BLP.

You did remove material quoted from "Vanity Fair" (the Paul Gigot quote).

The quote from the WSJ is notable due to the fact that Totenberg's beat is primarily the Supreme Court and she gave a cutting comment about a SC justice. Thus, the quote from her is quite controversial. Just because you don't like the WSJ editorial pages doesn't take away from the fact that it is the leading newspaper in the US.

How about citing actual BLP policy that this material supposedly violates, especially the policy on supposed cherry-picking (do you advocate quoting articles in their entirety in WP articles?).--Drrll (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• That section doesn't establish a consensus, sorry. You have yet to discuss the merits of the material. Lots of fringe cranks get syndicated and we don't consider them acceptable commentators for a BLP. And I didn't call the NR fringe, just the legion of bloggers on their website. If the print magazine publishes a Totenberg article, then we'll talk. But funny you should mention the Mark Levin article. A vigorous standard was applied to anti-Levin material, and plenty of sources criticizing Levin were chucked, including sources far more mainstream than Bozell and random NR bloggers. The idea basically was that they didn't want to quote every single anti-Levin article, just the significant ones that were commented on by third parties. Why shouldn't that standard apply here? If you don't like that standard, then I look forward to your edits re-adding the anti-Levin material that was removed.
• I never removed the Gigot quote. Try looking before you revert.
• So if this WSJ quote which you personally selected from the editorial is so controversial and so important, then you will no doubt find other sources that have commented on this as well to establish that someone besides you and the editorial board of the WSJ thinks it is important. Gamaliel (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The material excised from the Levin article was from non-reliable sources--most of it from the self-published Media Matters (hardly more mainstream than Bozell or a NR blogger), some of it from the self-published newmajority.com, as well as theamericanscene.com, an unaffiliated blog. The material from The American Prospect should have stayed. The standard of using reliable sources is the one that should be followed. BTW, much of the criticism material now in the Levin article uses primary sources exclusively.

My bad on the Gigot quote. You relocated it and I misread the differences between the versions.

It is enough that the Totenberg quote ran in the WSJ. Besides, the quote came from a public speech that she gave at Stanford University.--Drrll (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue in the Levin article wasn't reliable sources, and if you think it was, then you must have only skimmed the talk page very briefly. The issue was in fact whether or not criticism from a reliable source should be used in a BLP if no third party reliable source had commented about it. For example, criticism of Levin by Frum in a reliable source was insufficient, they deemed that third party (say, Politico) reliable source coverage of Frum's criticism of Levin was necessary. You seem to approve of the removal of such material from the Levin article, so I assume that you approve of the same at this article. Thus on those grounds I have removed non-RS and non-third party criticism. I have retained the Gigot quote since it does have third party RS coverage - Vanity Fair. So clearly the WSJ is not sufficient in this case, and since you approve of the Levin removals, I'm sure now that you understand my rationale, you will approve of my removals here. Gamaliel (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite what's in the Levin discussion, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of material removed from the Levin criticism section was not from a reliable source (by comparing versions of the article)--it was from self-published sources or unaffiliated blogs. I don't agree with such an arbitrary standard as leaving out material from a reliable source because some third party has not commented on it. That standard is not supported by WP policy. Like I said before, The American Prospect material should have remained in the article. Go ahead and put it back in. I'll put it back in when you put in negative material about Totenberg from a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're going to ignore the discussion of several months and decide "no, *this* is what the problem was instead". Really, that's just absurd. The problem was as I described, as any person who would even glance at the talk page would see. If you did actually compare diffs, which I doubt, you would see that your description was clearly false, as material at issue removed was not simply mostly from "self-published sources or unaffiliated blogs", it was also material from sources such as Slate, far more mainstream and RS than a fringe columnist and an NR blogger. But if you want to challenge the consensus on the Levin page and restore the mainstream material such as Slate, I will support inclusion of the same kind of material here. It seems our views on policy are not that different despite our obvious political differences. I look forward to your edits on the Levin page. Once you have made those edits I assume we will have an agreement regarding the material here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word for how the Levin discussion went since you are active in discussions there. I did look through the current discussion and the latest archive, but I couldn't find talk about reliable sources being inadequate without third-party confirmation. That's just a silly standard. You're right that our views of policy are actually pretty similar. I do support restoration of material from reliable sources into the Levin article. I couldn't find the deleted Slate material (although I see that something from Slate survives now in the Men in Black book section and a Salon reference is in the Liberty and Tyranny section). If you point me in the right direction, I'll restore the Slate material and other reliable source material even though I may not care for what's added back and I would take a lot of fire from watchers of the page. I guess I'm for a more inclusive view of what stays in WP articles.--Drrll (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In that we agree, I generally err on the side of inclusion as well, tempered by considerations of NPOV and undue weight of course. It has been some time since I edited the Levin article so I can remember all the specifics. I think this edit may include much of the contentious material. I'll keep looking through the edit history though. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The editorial criticism by a few individuals (on blogs or in print) isn't nearly notable enough to go into a WP:BLP. I'm sure dozens of people are criticized in various National Review editorials every week, but we don't run and add it to their biographies. As a matter of practice, we don't add second-party opinion (especially inflammatory attacks which gets into BLP issues). It would have to cross over into a genuine controversy reported on by reliable third-party sources to be considered. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blog sources should be removed. The Bozell criticism is notable. Compare John Stossel, where the left-wing equivalents of Bozell take up a third of the article. Separately, I removed the Lani Guinier hug controversy per WP:PERSISTENCE: a one-day controversy without any evidence that Totenberg had biased coverage of Guinier, is not notable. THF (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

John Stossel has nothing to do with this article or this talk page. If that's true, and I don't doubt what you say, well....two wrongs don't make a right. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unaffiliated blogs should be removed, but my understanding of WP:RS is that blogs from reliable sources are allowed, especially if it is made clear that it is the opinion of the blog author, which I did. The Guinier hug was not simply mentioned right after the news event. It was notable enough for Guinier herself to write about it in her book long after it happened.--Drrll (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, please quote actual WP policy to back up your claims about use of such reliable sources in a BLP.--Drrll (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It must be relevant to the notability of the BLP subject. Nina Totenberg's notability has nothing to do with the fact that Bozell or some editorialist for NRO don't like her (and in fact nobody who doesn't read their columns would ever even know about that). If, say, a member of congress criticized her, and this made the news, that would be notable but an editorial that was not otherwise noticed is not. On the subject of criticism, WP:BLP states "...insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." So that's what I'm doing. I'm insisting. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what do you do with news sources that engage in criticism or praise under the guise of reporting, but is actually better defined as advocacy journalism? Also, if WP:BLP doesn't allow direct criticism or praise from a reliable source without a third party first reporting on the criticism/praise, an enormous amount of material currently in BLPs would have to be removed. Have you regularly removed such criticism from conservative BLPs and such praise from liberal BLPs, or do you do it primarily just in the opposite cases?--Drrll (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a non sequitur to go from Loonymonkey's quoted BLP language to deletion of the Bozell material. That Totenberg is the subject of criticism from the center-right is relevant to her notability, and Bozell is both notable and a reliable source for Bozell's opinion. THF (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. So you're claiming that Bozell's editorial is an essential part of her biography and relates to her notability? Yet at Richard Shelby, you claim that major news coverage over several days by multiple sources is insufficiently notable? Other than that you like one and dislike the other, what is your rationale for this obvious contradiction? --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PERSISTENCE. RS have been talking about Shelby's hold for one week; in comparison, people have been talking about Totenberg's purported bias for close to two decades. THF (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If these people, whoever they are, have been talking about this for 20 years, surely it should be easy for you to unearth better evidence than a fringe columnist and an NR blogger. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are plentiful to the point that tertiary coverage exists. Bozell isn't remotely fringe; please stop using "fringe" as a synonym for "people Gamaliel disagrees with". When you classify every center-right writer as fringe, it makes one suspect POV-pushing. But in the interests of attempting compromise, who do you view as an acceptable source for center-right points of view? I don't really want to play a game where you're continually moving the goalposts. THF (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not "classify every center-right writer as fringe", I am classifying one particular far-right fringe columnist as fringe. When you make things up and attempt to attribute false views to others, it makes one suspect POV-pushing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bozell isn't remotely "far right", an appellation given to Nazis and Klansmen -- you demonstrate my point quite clearly that you don't seem to be willing to look at these issues with a neutral eye. You still haven't answered my question: what other conservative media critics would you view as an acceptable source? If you name a dozen, I'm confident we can find that one of them has spoken about their perception of Totenberg's bias. THF (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "far-right" only applies to those groups you mentioned, groups which are so far out there that the political spectrum really becomes irrelevant at that point. I also notice you snuck in another comment above, namely "please stop using "fringe" as a synonym for "people Gamaliel disagrees with"". This is clearly not the case. I disagree with plenty of people and I don't call them fringe. My evaluation is that Bozell is a fringe crank, fringe in the sense that he is not in the mainstream, not a reliable source, not worthy of being included in encyclopedia articles. I'm sorry this unnerves you so much, but it's no reason to go around making shit up about me. I suggest you spend more time on editing and research and less on making trying to insult people. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest you review WP:NOT#CHAT and WP:NOT#BATTLE, in addition to WP:RS? I've offered to collaborate with you twice now on this article, and you want to use this talk page to express your irrelevant and incorrect personal opinions about Bozell. THF (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if you are uninterested in my opinions about Bozell, then you should stop discussing my opinions about Bozell. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Given three opportunities to name a center-right media expert you consider non-fringe so we could arrive at a compromise edit, you refused to name any. I think we can conclude this discussion, as you're clearly not interested in doing anything other than wikilawyering to engage in POV-pushing. WP:NOT#BATTLE. THF (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You bring something to the table, we can discuss it, but your grandstanding has nothing to do with the article. What I'm not interested in doing is dancing for you. I don't have to prove anything to you. My 40k or so edits make the case for me, despite your efforts to yank one or two out of context. Your refusal to use this page for any purpose besides that of a troll mudpit makes the real conclusion obvious. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Four. THF (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Until your last comment, on this page you were roughly running a 50-50 ratio of trolling to vaguely productive comments, but this just put trolling over the top. Congrats. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

THF, please respond to my discussion above about the Guinier hug. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bozell

For the record, today's Washington Post calls Bozell a "prominent" conservative leader and singles out his organization for examining "perceived liberal media bias." His opinion on media bias is notable, whether or not you agree with it. THF (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet, even after this decisive refutation of the factual premise of Gamaliel's misunderstanding of policy, he continues to refuse to defend his tendentious edits on the talk page and continues to edit-war. Not cool. THF (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has made a second reversion without coming to the talk page to discuss. THF (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "decisive refutation" is neither. As I've stated in the context of several sourcing disputes with you, I don't feel that popularity is an appropriate gauge of whether or not something is an RS or appropriate for a BLP. You are welcome to seek other opinions on the BLP noticeboard if you like. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "popularity": it has to do with notability and NPOV. Will you please state clearly what your policy-based objection is? You keep changing it whenever it gets refuted. For days you insisted that the issue was that Bozell was "fringe." Now that there's conclusive evidence that he's not, you change your story and say that that's not your reasoning. Maybe it's my fault for misunderstanding, but that's why I've repeatedly asked you to quote from policy what exactly your objection is. THF (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. His "prominence" does not matter. For example, Rush Limbaugh's commentary is popular and prominent but still inappropriate for BLPs. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already quoted policy above. There must be a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" which has not even come close to happening. You seem to be confusing Bozell's notability with his notability to Totenberg. He is notable. But he has nothing to do with her notability. Pundits attack or praise thousands of people every day, but we don't rush to add this to their biographies. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP and NPOV here, a misunderstanding that "balance" is achieved somehow by equal weight between a dichotomy of perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." to mean that it was non-negotiable that all Wikipedia articles had an obligation to represent proportionately significant views that have been published by reliable sources. THF (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If your contribution to the discussion is simply to quote policy, then dig a little deeper than the first sentence. Biographies of Living People have unique rules and are much more strict about sourcing and notability than, say, an article about the French Revolution. In particular on the subject of criticism, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." Neither of those conditions have been met. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd believe you for half a second if you tried to remove Al Franken's opinion from Rush Limbaugh or Media Matters from the dozens of BLPs where it is quoted, but your unyielding interpretation of that single sentence seems to be limited to opinions of conservatives in biographies of liberals. THF (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See Also: The Simpsons?

Why is an episode of The Simpsons in "See Also"? It hardly seems relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.245.17 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Helms quotation

It is claimed in the edit history that the quotations have been "balanced carefully" and to see talk. However, there is nothing there from later than February, and in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, the Jesse Helms comment has become widely noted. It exists on video (see any of a number of YouTube links on any given political blog), *on the air on PBS*.

Articles for other (typically conservative) commentators and writers include a laundry list of often minimally-controversial statements and pseudepigrapha that have little to do with anything beyond hacks with agendas settling scores and flinging ad-hominem poo. This particular quotation -- wishing AIDS upon a *sitting U.S. senator* and upon his (innocent) grandchildren -- is newsworthy and current in that it's the chief ammunition of those saying that NPR has a double standard (contrasted to Juan Williams).

Given that Rich Lowry -- who's not even Rich Lowry's idea of an objective journalist -- has a bit of empty gossip on his page (in essence that he finds Sarah Palin attractive), and given that this currently-relevent quotation wishing AIDS upon public officials and innocent children is hidden in the links section -- given that, can the perception of leftward bias not at least be appreciated? Whining about bias is usually empty, but this seems pretty clear whitewashing.

I have restored the quotation, by the way. There is no good reason that it should not be in there. 98.169.195.207 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This quote is tangential to the biography of Nina Totenberg. It may be relevant to other articles in this encyclopedia, but we are bound by the WP:BLP issues here to be very careful about what we focus on. We're not here to right great wrongs. If you want to "expose NPR's bias", there are other sites that would be better. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of snark, isn't it? I'm not here to "expose NPR's bias;" there are far more important things in this world than to play a trench-warfare game of "gotcha" with whatever media outlets I don't like. Whining about media bias is like whining about hot weather in the summer; I get that. But this particular quote is, if not newsworthy, then eminently current: it's all over just about every blog and has been noticed by right-leaning newspapers. Whether you agree with the premise or not, these outlets certainly are mainstream -- the DC Examiner is hardly lunatic fringe -- and the messenger has nothing to do with the quality of the message anyway. The statement aired in its full context on national television and on its face is vicious and against any standards of decency. This is hardly a manufactured outrage.

The quotation is what's notable (and it's central to probably the great majority of Nina Totenberg searches today and in the next days). Whether anybody cared about the Helms comment yesterday or the day before is beside the point. This is a prominent item right now and a constantly-updated encyclopedia should contain what people are looking for. I understand your point if you think this is just coming out of the blue (which, given the Boykin reference below, it seems you may. The huge majority of people don't follow any given blog or cluster of them), but it's a fairly big deal. 98.169.195.207 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any snark you read in my comments. It was not intended. In regards to the substance of your response: WP:RECENTISM is of relevance here, I think. To be sure, I don't argue with any of the facts you are stating. What I need to understand is, given all that you say, why do we need to include the quote itself in the text? I would think the situation you are describing would be a justification for referencing the Juan Williams story: that would make more sense to me. But just simply arguing that we should include the quote itself here in the text of Wikipedia seems, to me, to be a misguided reaction to a possibly prominent event. Additionally, we need to get the best sources possible. I don't think a blog is very good for this WP:BLP, so if you would point to another more reliable source (even better: one that wasn't editorial commentary but was instead commenting on the proliferation of Nina Totenberg citations with respect to this situation, for example), I'd be most appreciative. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not at all easily offended; I'm a conservative (there's your snark, if you'd like). God knows I've gone off on a topic and (at least unintentionally) belittled a guy before, or too quickly (and incorrectly) read his intentions. I like to imagine, at least, that I'm not a wingnut, so I recognize that asinine blog comments are typical and to be expected of people who comment on things like this (though I'm probably the equal of any of them).

The problem with referencing the Juan Williams story is that it has little to do with Nina Totenberg. If I'm looking up Totenberg, perhaps because I've heard from recent events that she's said some outlandish stuff in the past, I already know my motivation for coming to this page. If I'm looking up Nina Totenberg on a lark, I don't need to be told of a line of attack/defense, or perhaps an apologia for Juan Williams. Juan Williams and his firing have nothing whatsoever to do with Nina Totenberg, but her past statements have made "news" as things in themseleves. It is fair to chronicle controversial statements -- including controversial statements currently making news/commentary -- on a page. I have no problem with fair or relevant records of controversy; it's just that this particular page (again) appears whitewashed. The full text does appear on this page, but as annotation to external links, which are invisible to all but the most scrupulous visitor. Beyond that, what use is there to make a "Nina Totenberg controversies" page when it is clearly ad hoc? It is most reasonable, and most in keeping with current events, to make the topic at hand clear and explicit on the simplest page available.

As to sources, any given right-leaning editorial page for perhaps tomorrow would carry it (Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, New York Post, Washington Examiner, Chicago Sun-Times, etc. etc. etc.). I myself don't see much point in sourcing something so self-evident, but in the past this led me into citation troubles in school. I don't know of many stories about popular stories -- this seems to be several layers of navel-gazing -- but Howard Kurtz is usually good and fair for these things.

I've got to say that your enthusiasm for established directives is a bit... je ne sais quoi (what if they're wrong or absurd, as they so usually are?). I've always believed that rules are one's friend but not one's master, and where they're unreasonably constraining (for no practical purpose) they can be disregarded. This is the essence of restraint: a chronically misunderstood doctrine that allows for a great deal of flexibility and heterodoxy, so long as it is justified by reason. Wikipedia rules are therefore put into place for our use and benefit -- to make things better -- rather than to be slavishly followed. But this is off-topic and probably a discussion for another day, if ever. You're all right in my book. 98.169.195.207 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty highfalutin analysis, if I do say so myself. I'm not sure what to do with it. Essentially your argument seems to be that the quote should be here for people who expect the quote to be here. But what I want to understand is why do they expect this quote as compared to, say, the Boykin quote or the gun rights quote? I think the answer is because they've seen it referenced by their favorite blog/editorial site. I don't think that's a good justification for an article that's supposed to take a larger view. The reason I'm a slave to Wikipedia policy and guidelines is because the alternative has historically led to disaster. WP:IAR works well for cases where there isn't much notice, but high profile biographies of living people need to be kept under careful watch. This is not just the case for Totenberg, but all biographies. If you see problems with other biographies, feel free to take them up with WP:BLPN where other editors who are mindlessly enslaved to Wikipedia idiocy like myself can help you fix them.

But as far as this particular quote goes, I'm not sure what to do still. I still am having a hard time using the justification I see you giving as a good editorial reason for including it in her biography.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why do [people] expect this quote as compared to ... the Boykin quote...? [It seems that] they've seen it referenced by their favorite blog/editorial site." This is exactly correct. Let's take Edward Gibbon; take, for instance: "the various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful." This is the best-known quotation of the entire work and ends up everywhere Edward Gibbon does, not only in Wikipedia but in Bartlett's, the ODQ, et cetera although it is far from the most profound or representative line from the work. (It does work as a convenient nutshell argument although the idea is given an incomparably more detailed and nuanced treatment in the text; where this quotation is cited it is rarely said that this is Gibbon's main argument for the decay of the Empire, to say nothing of the Christian role). How about Byron's "What men call gallantry, and gods adultery, is much more common where the climate's sultry." Don Juan contains a few thousand other verses, many of equally high value. This is the same problem as Vivaldi: the man wrote some 550 concerti. The Four Seasons are very well-known but there is no good reason that Op. 4/8 or the RV 514, equally satisfying or more so, should not be. Haydn's Clock symphony is better known than the (far superior) 102nd; this is often assumed to be so simply because the Clock has a nickname. Popularity, and the use of things as rallying cries, is rarely rational and often arbitrary. The Boykin quotation is generally ignored because it is generally ignored (although in my mind, it's more an obvious Freudian slip than the Helms and is therefore far more forgivable than consciously wishing a horrible death on people who dare to disagree with you. We all have disgusting prejudices which may come out by genuine accident -- for example, I often think the same of Bill Maher -- while the Helms takes the extra steps of premeditation and disregard for decency). In a nutshell: when there is a popular uproar surrounding a quotation, it is of no use to tell the uproarious populace why they ought to care more about something slightly different, or not at all? Current reality justifies the quotation. In a year's time this quotation will be as low-demand as any other reason to visit the Nina Totenberg page and may be removed once people no longer seek it. The sole advantage that Wikipedia has over any other encyclopedia is that it moves in real time to reflect current trends or demands. If I want to get a broad overview of anything in particular, there are much better sources: a musical dictionary, an etymological dictionary, a quotation dictionary, a lexicon, a textbook, etc. etc. etc. If I want to read about something in-depth, there are better sources still. 98.169.195.207 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which indicate that this is Nina Totenberg's most famous quote? I think WP:RECENTISM may be a good reason to not include the quote if your rationale is that it will not be as famous in a year's time. ScienceApologist (talk)

To be clear, I don't know whether including this particular quote in the text is the right thing to do or not, but I don't find this argument to be very good. The Boykin comment, for example, was actually one that received more coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not of concern to me, really. I want to get this biography right. I embargoed the phrase until we can work out a solution to this. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of Argument ad baculum is inaccurate, because Nina doesn't have any authority over Helms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnmisrahi (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by that. Authority doesn't seem to be the issue here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should the quote be excluded? If the fact that she made the comment is relevant enough to be included—which it is—then the specific statement is not only relevant, but necessary. We can't just characterize her statement as controversial. We need to present what she said and let the readers make their own decisions based on the facts. Shouldn't that be the default? --Elliskev 02:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an quote collection. What is of interest, to the reader, is the fact that she was criticized. The particular form of the quote is not really of relevance and if the reader is fascinated by this question, the source is easy to find and a quote from the source is included. The problem is that the controversy section runs the risk of suffering from excessive bloat if we include too much text. When we last dealt with this issue, we tried to summarize the criticism of Totenberg as best as we could. Expanding these summaries now in response to recent dust-up does not, in my opinion, seem all that warranted. Mentioning the dust-up itself may be warranted, but that's a different matter. The question really isn't on Wikipedia as to "Why shouldn't the quote appear?" The question is really on the people proposing we include the quote. Why is this particular quote out of all the other quotes that people have noticed Totenberg to have made the one that we should be including verbatim in the text? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing for a collection of quotes. We're talking about a single quote which is specifically relevant to the current reference to some latin words thing which is apparently notable. It only makes sense to provide some context to what has already been deemed relevant to her biography. Bloat is not an issue here; clarity is.--Elliskev 03:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm, in a way, pushing for a collection of quotes. I'm saying that I think that the right approach should be all quotes or no quotes. My absolute preference for encyclopedia articles is no quotes because I think all quotes is unwieldy. The alternative to my all-or-nothing approach might be choosing a few quotes which are illustrative, but to do this, we need to consider all the quotes and then decide which ones are illustrative. If you want me to list all the possible quotes for you, I can do that. Then you can explain why this particular quote compared to all the others deserves mentioning. Alternatively, if you could just make the case somehow that this quote compared to all the other quotes is the most notable, that might help me understand. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote isn't any more or less notable than any other quote. The incident is what is notable. The quote is the incident. It only makes sense to use the quote. It's the factual representation of the incident. This is going to end up going in circles and I'm not going to invest that much effort into it. I've said as much as I think I need to. --Elliskev 22:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of notable incidents that have been noticed. You can read about them in the controversy section. Why does this incident need a direct quote? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the threshold of newsworthiness has been crossed to include the quote in the main article text. This story has been a huge one this week, not just in the conservative press. It is a story that may have long-ranging implications, from possible congressional hearings on the management of NPR to possible federal defunding of NPR to possible pressure on Totenberg to give up her commentary gig on Inside Washington. And the quote has been provided in multiple sources--not just opinion sources, but news sources; not just conservative news sources, but non-conservative news sources. Perhaps we need to supply some of those non-opinion, non-conservative news story references to show the noteworthiness of the quote. Drrll (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sources will help a lot to allow us to decide how to describe this situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources I found, all of them news sources (except for the last). The recurring theme seems to be a double standard that NPR applied to Juan Williams vs. Totenberg:

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/22/national/main6983495.shtml
• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/williams-fires-back-npr-signs-expanded-role-fox/story?id=11954997
• http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1010/Hume_race_had_role_in_NPR_firing_Williams.html
• http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/10/22/entertainment-us-npr-analyst-fired_8038480.html
• http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/22/internal-dissension-npr-over-williams
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/24/brit-hume-juan-williams_n_772960.html
• http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-is-mara-liasson-the-next-juan-williams-and-why-isnt-nina-totenberg-being-scrutinized/
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ambush-journalist-confronts-npr-ceo-32410
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/juan-williams-npr-%E2%80%98wanted-me-32203
• http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/juan-williams-offends-npr/

Drrll (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources. There's a revenge motif that seems to be developing here, but it also looks to me like the Nina Totenberg quote is acting more as a talking point. There seems to be a clamor on the part of some pundits that NPR should be fair and treat Nina Totenberg the same way as Juan Williams, but it isn't clear from these sources whether they've actually petitioned NPR to do this or what. Can you find out whether this has been done? A lot of argument and talk is interesting, but the sources you are citing seem to use the Totenberg quote as an incidental issue rather than a central controversy. How would you write a sentence about it? Let's workshop one below. (Also, I don't really like any of those sources: they're all reporting on what third-parties claim is important rather than what is actually developing in this story. Perhaps this is better suited to the Juan Williams page?) ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as the commentary class, it cleary is a controversy--that is as a prime example of out-of-NPR-bounds personal opinions by Totenberg. The commentary class in my view would have little influence at NPR, even if they directly petititioned NPR to take action. As far as actual developments in the story, so far I've only seen two small news items. From Fox News: "Responding to an inquiry from Fox News, NPR spokeswoman Anna Christopher says her organization is not considering any change in Totenberg's employment status." From ABC News: "An NPR spokeswoman said Totenberg has repeatedly apologized for her comments." In addition, Vivia Schiller, NPR CEO was asked directly about Totenberg's comments by a Fox News producer, but she didn't address the issue directly.

Another possible area of development is in Congressional hearings regarding NPR funding and/or management. There have been some rumblings about this, but it's far too early to know what if anything will be said or done there (I believe some members of Congress, such as Erik Cantor and John Boehner, have made initial statements about looking into NPR--I could do some research on that).

This is getting closer to an acceptable addition. I'm intrigued by the ABC News source which states that Totenberg apologized. If this is the case, we should document this in the controversy. Can you find the source where she apologized? I could not. If not, we could source ABC news about the apology. This is a different matter, however. I continued our discussion regarding the Juan Williams connection below. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source which says she apologized and I was about to wonder if such a claim by the spokeswoman was apocryphal until I saw a blog posting on the NPR website tonight. This source definitely needs to be used for what we add: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/26/130838719/totenberg-on-helms-remark-stupidest-thing-she-s-said-on-tv . In the blog posting, it refers to multiple letters she wrote back to people complaining of her comments about Helms. My take is that she privately apologized to individuals about the comments, but didn't do so publicly (I think we would be likely be able to find such a public apology if it existed). Drrll (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition

In October 2010, following the firing of Juan Williams by NPR, several commentators have asserted that NPR exhibited a double standard in handling controversial comments by different members of its news staff. Senior News Analyst Williams was fired for comments about being nervous over seeing individuals dressed in Muslim garb at an airport; Correspondent Totenberg was not fired, reprimanded, or warned for saying about Jesse Helms, "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will."

Drrll (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's my problem with this proposed addition: it seems to me to focus way too much on Juan Williams and not enough of Nina Totenberg. I'd prefer something along the lines of

That Totenberg was not disciplined by NPR for her comments was offered as an example of a double standard by Fox News commentator Brit Hume in the wake of NPR's firing of Juan Williams.

That still doesn't sit right. Is Britt Hume the most famous commentator to make this claim? His claim was really more about race and Bill Cosby liberalism, right?

What do you think, Drrll? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hume is one of the most famous commentators to make the claim. Others include Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer (who, while not specifically referring to the Helms incident, directly challenged NPR and Totenberg herself about NPR's double standard on Inside Washington), and let's not forget Juan Williams himself. As far as Hume's comments, they do speak a good bit to a claim of NPR's double standard (I can provide the relevant excerpt from the transcript if you'd like). I still think that we need to include the Totenberg quote, but we could also include the context to her remarks (referencing the moderator's quote of Helms) or Totenberg's response in today's NPR blog posting. I can live with the other part of your proposal, except I would change the reference to Brit Hume to "commentators", as jheiv has mentioned below. Then at the end of your proposed sentence I would reference a couple of the commentators and perhaps include quotes by the commentators down in the references. Drrll (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Drrll's proposed addition -- I thought for a while about a way to give background to the quote without such emphasis on Williams, but really could not avoid it. Also, the proposal involving Hume certainly minimizes the number of commentators who have made this claim. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I really like to eschew quotes from encyclopedia articles. The context is often the key here and below it seems that context is broad. I was not aware that Juan Williams brought up Nina Totenberg's quote. Maybe I missed that in the list of sources above. If you could find that source for us, I think that might be the best way to proceed. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A story that mentions Juan Williams bringing up the quote is the CBS News story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/22/national/main6983495.shtml). Do you agree that we should give Totenberg's response to the controversy as given in yesterday's NPR blog story (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/26/130838719/totenberg-on-helms-remark-stupidest-thing-she-s-said-on-tv)? Drrll (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That CBS news soource is good. I am beginning to see how to proceed. I think that the NPR blogpost might be good along with the ABC news source above to illustrate that Totenberg has regretted her phrasing of the helms quote. I'm going to post a new suggestion below. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Partial transcript, with context, of Totenberg's comments

MS. GULLAND: Gordon Peterson is off. I'm Tina Gulland. Senator Jesse Helms suggested this week Congress should consider reducing the amount of money spent on AIDS research, but of course, as is often the case with Senator Helms, it's the why behind the suggestion that made headlines. The senator said, "We've got to have common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts." Helms also claimed that AIDS gets more federal money than other diseases that kill more people. Charles, let me begin with you and ask you what you think of the senator's comments?

MR. KRAUTHAMMER: I think his remarks are bigoted and cruel. The issue here is not what's natural and unnatural, but there is a real issue as to how to rationally allocate our research money. Heart disease affects 100 times as many people as AIDS, and yet AIDS is getting twice as much research money. There's a real question here as to how we distribute our money, but unfortunately Senator Helms is only muddying the waters in that debate.

MS. GULLAND: Carl?

MR. ROWAN: Well, I think Senator Helms doesn't understand that this is a particularly fearsome disease because people worry about getting it by going to the dentist, or getting a transfusion, or the heterosexual sex act, and one of the reasons the money is being spent is in the hope that AIDS will never approach the kinds of numbers we've got with cancer and heart disease.

MS. GULLAND: It's also, as I understand it this week, the leading cause of death of 24 to 44 year olds. Tony, what do you think?

MR. SNOW: Well, Tina, I agree actually with Charles that it really has muddied up an important debate about how you allocate the dollars. The other thing it's done, ironically, is expose Jesse Helms to the charge of hypocrisy. After all, here's a tobacco state senator and I've never heard him in the well of the Senate getting up and saying, by God, it's time for us to cut off funding for cancer research because these smokers brought it on themselves.

MS. GULLAND: I don't think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?

MS. TOTENBERG: Not me. I think he ought to be worried about the -- about what's going on in the good Lord's mind because if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it.

Drrll (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition (2)

That Totenberg was not disciplined by NPR for her comments was offered as an example of a double standard by Juan Williams in the wake of his firing from NPR for comments he made on Fox News. Totenberg expressed regret about the Helms comment

I think those two sentence are good to include. If we were to include the Helm's content, I think the context would be necessary. E.g.

Totenberg suggested that the sitting Senator would get AIDS because of his opposition to AIDS research on the basis of his opposition to homosexuality.

I'm not sure that this is warranted. The content of the comment is less important than the fact that a comment was made which caused offense (this is the unifying thread between Williams and Totenberg, after all). There's something I like about not descending into histrionics of particulars. What Juan Williams or Nina Totenberg said is probably not as relevant as the fact that they said something. Since Totenberg didn't get fired for making that comment and she's documented to have made other comments (I'm surprised that no one is bringing up Boykin, actually: I wonder why that is) the actual content is not as instructive as the analytical comparison. See what I mean?

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the analytical comparison is more useful than the actual quote or description of the quote. I also agree that if we quote or summarize what she said then the context needs to be included. I prefer that we include the quote, but if we don't, I'd like another reference to the Jeff Jacoby article, where the quote is fully provided. I question whether other people could live with that solution.

I accept the first two lines of your proposal. If we include the third sentence, I would add "or his grandchildren" to "that the sitting Senator...".

Does anyone else have input on this? Drrll (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Helms quote

Okay, we've now included some text regarding the Juan Williams incident. There is a major outstanding question, however: do we include the quote or the content of Totenberg's attack on Helms? Let me summarize my thoughts.

1. The quote is included in the footnotes. I generally like to avoid using quotes in the article text-proper unless there is no other way to get across information. In this case, I think it is possible to get across the information without using the quote as evidenced by the attempt I made above to write a sentence about the quote.
2. The quote's content seems relevant only inasmuch as it has been used as an object lesson in reference to the Juan Williams firing. Thus, the reason the content of the quote is important is because it is considered a considerable (perhaps comparable?) affront to decency when contrasted with Juan Williams comments. To make this clear to the reader, we would need to discuss what Juan Williams said and be very careful to provide proper context and neither laud nor vilify his person in the process per WP:BLP. We, obviously, cannot draw conclusions for the reader as to whether these two quotes are comparable or not, we can only offer them the chance to review the evidence for themselves, in context. However, I'm not convinced that this article is the place to do it. Is there an article on the Juan Williams firing incident yet? There is mention of it in three different op-eds in the New York Times today, for example. That would be the proper place to include such a long-winded analysis. The quote of Juan Williams is extremely incidental to the Nina Totenberg biography, IMHO. But, I don't think it fair to include her quote without including the Juan Williams quote since the whole reason we're having this discussion right now is because of Juan Williams.
3. Providing context may be tricky as can be seen from the NPR blog which points out how others also criticized Helms for his stance. Is there a comparable context for Williams' quote? Perhaps. But I'm not sure how to deal with this problem.

So I'm in a bind. We've mentioned Juan Williams now, but we haven't yet lifted the embargo on the quote. I'm inclined for the two reasons I listed above not to lift the embargo, but I'd really like to hear other opinions on this. For example, if we lift the embargo on the Helms quote, should we also life the embargo on the Williams quote? What about the dozens of other people Totenberg has commented on? There are third-party sources which may have, for example, noticed that she praised a particular newsmaker. What about WP:RECENTISM? I'd appreciate a wide-ranging discussion on these matters. As I've said, I'm not convinced either way whether the quote should be in the article. I hope others can offer some analysis that will help resolve this issue.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The readers of this article do need to know in the mainspace of the article what could have risen to the importance of possible discipline by NPR. I think that what's most important is that the user can immediately see what sort of comment Totenberg made, rather than the exact quote. They can follow the references to see the exact quote if they are interested in seeing it. Again, I don't think that some editors will be happy with that solution since the quote has been in the news a good bit, but we can try it that way. I don't think that we have to characterize what Juan Williams said, as they can visit his Wikipedia page to see it. As far as recentism goes, Totenberg's quote generated mentions in the media the year she made it and much more so in the past week, being tied to the big story of Williams' firing. I don't think that the things she has said about other newsmakers have generated media mentions (except for the Boykin comment). I do wonder if including mentions of thing she has said about Supreme Court justices deserve mention in the article, since they so prominently figure into Totenberg's beat. Drrll (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. For the time being let's see what it's like to keep the embargo. I think we've documented fairly well the main things that we both agree the reader needs to know. I was looking for references which may have indicated that she apologized for the Boykin quote to not imply that she didn't regret that comment too. Let me know if you find any references in that regard. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Totenberg immediately sought to clarify her comments. She said, "No, no. I mean, in his job. In his job, in his job, please, in his job," after someone asked her if she was "putting a hit out" on Boykin. Her clarification is in the same article as the original quote. Maybe we should include both the original quote and her clarification in that footnote? Drrll (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Was going to put it in & I saw that it was already there. Drrll (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence I proposed above on looking at this morning looked very problematic. I removed it because I don't think it is technically true. I'm still not clear as to what the rationale is for explaining the quote's precise wording since we don't include Williams' wording/context. Therefore I removed the explication of her quote. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see that the previous sentence didn't precisely convey what Totenberg said or the quote from Helms. I feel strongly that we should convey the essence of what she said in the article because of the numerous mentions in the news media of the quote from the year she made the remark up until recent weeks (where the number of references in the media probably exceeded all previous ones combined), and because it was used as a point of reference for over-the-line remarks in the major Juan Williams story (e.g. the Williams story led the evening newscast on two of the three networks). I lean against including describing the Williams quote in this article, since this is the Totenberg article and the Juan Williams article is wikilinked for anyone interested in seeing his quote, but I don't strongly oppose its inclusion. How about replacing the sentence with something that more closely tracks with what Totenberg said and with what Helms said. Something like:

In response to a quote by Sen. Jesse Helms in which he said that people get AIDS from participating in "unnatural acts", Totenberg said that "if there is retributive justice," Helms or his grandchildren will get AIDS.

I feel strongly that we should convey the essence of what she said in the article because of the numerous mentions in the news media of the quote... I don't really understand this justification. The news media mentioning the quote is grounds for discussing the quote in our article, which we do. That does not, however, seem to me to be grounds for needing the content of the quote to be made extremely explicit in the text. I need some elaboration to understand perhaps. My issue is that the quote itself is exactly what we describe it to be (similar to the Boykin quote).

To put it another way, is it possible to quantify how important this quote is compared to all other possible quotes to justify weighting it heavily in our article? This and this to me, give starting point references that would seem to indicate this quote isn't in the top-five well-known Totenberg quotes. Notice that none of the quotes listed there are found in our article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked in the Proquest newspaper archive for this quote. It gets 24 hits, including letters to the editor. Five of those hits are to op-ed pieces written by Jeff Jacoby. Four are to copies of two op-ed piece written by Don Feder. Four are to op-ed pieces in the Washington Times. There isn't a single straight news story that quotes it.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I went back to LexisNexis and did searches again on the Totenberg quote. I came up with the following for references in the past two weeks:

• Opinion reliable sources (not including letters to editor): 2 magazine refs, 5 newspaper refs, 10 cable news refs
• Straight news reliable sources: 3 newspaper refs, 2 broadcast network refs (1 of them on website), 3 AP refs, 3 cable news refs (incl. CNN), The Hotline

In addition, there are some additional news sources a few subsections above in the discussion (see the list of 10 sources) and a NPR blog story by David Folkenflik.

LexisNexis references from 1995 to two weeks ago:

• Opinion reliable sources: 4 magazine refs, 20 newspaper refs (4 of them repeats), 2 cable news refs
• Straight news reliable sources: 1 magazine ref, 5 newspaper refs

Drrll (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're comparing apples to apples - are these sources that repeated the Totenberg quote, or just those that referred to it? I was searching for the quote itself.   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as the newspaper straight news references, they use at least parts of the quote. They include articles from The Washington Times, Politico (newspaper), Investor's Business Daily, and The Mobile Register. Drrll (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, what is the Washington Times article you found? When I looked all I saw were op-ed pieces.   Will Beback  talk  09:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

They are:

• October 21, 2003; INSIDE POLITICS; Pg. A06, By Greg Pierce
• August 24, 2001; INSIDE POLITICS; Pg. A5, Greg Pierce
• September 13, 2000; Conservative Jews decry 'intolerance' on the political left; CULTURE, ET CETERA; Pg. A2, Larry Witham
• December 19, 1995; INSIDE THE BELTWAY; Pg. A8, John McCaslin

Drrll (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

To me it comes down to the content of the quote being referenced many times in a variety of reliable sources (please see just above), and to the content of the quote being readily available in the main text to the reader who wonders why a statement by Totenberg could be compared to something that gets Juan Williams fired by the same employer (I would guess that only a small minority of Wikipedia readers look closely at footnotes). As far as the other quotes attributed to Totenberg at the ThinkExist and BrainyQuote websites, I think it again comes down to reliable sources. Those quotes just don't get the same type of references that the Helms quote gets. Drrll (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the rationale is still that you want readers to be able to compare Totenberg and Williams. However, if we don't include Williams quote here how can they compare? This seems fairly peripheral to her biography. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true about readers not being able to readily compare the Totenberg and Williams comments. How about adding "about being nervous when seeing people on a plane wearing Muslim garb" to the end of the current "for comments he made on Fox News"? Drrll (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But that just doesn't seem relevant to her biography. I think this is better discussed on another article. For example, we link to Juan Williams, but if there was a better pipe directly to the controversy that might be better.

I think that the closest thing to that on WP is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams#National_Public_Radio . It looks like we are at an impasse as to whether to describe the Helms quote within the main text. Drrll (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The impasse is disappointing. I just wish I could understand the rationale being offered, but I cannot. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess my argument for inclusion of the quote description in the main text boils down to the number of reliable sources that quote or describe it over a period of 15 years. I don't know of anything else about Totenberg that has received as many mentions in reliable sources except, of course, her role in the Anita Hill saga and the Douglas Ginsburg nomination story. Will Beback seems to be the only other editor involved in discussions here at the time. Will, what's your take? Drrll (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of amazing -- that the only explicit mention of Totenberg's AIDS comment is relegated to the footnotes. "...her comments about Helms" does not suffice if you ask me and I'm worried there are underlying political motivations for excluding the exact quote. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can live with wording that describes the quote as long as it closely tracks with the quote and as long as that description is linked to the exact quote in the footnote. Can you live with something like, "In response to a quote by Sen. Jesse Helms in which he said that people get AIDS from participating in "unnatural acts", Totenberg said that "if there is retributive justice," Helms or his grandchildren will get AIDS."? Drrll (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can. It seems common practice in WP to provide the exact quotation, or at least the notable part of it (it would seem that it would be the derogatory part in this case, for whatever that's worth), rather than trying to gloss it over with an explanation of the quote. For example, Mel Gibson, Dog "the Bounty Hunter" Chapman, Elvis Costello. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 01:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think this quote deserves explicit explanation in the article? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It deserves being included explicitly, not necessarily being explicitly explained. As a general rule, it doesn't make sense to editorialize exact quotations from others in cases where the exact quote can be included. Adding an explanation of context behind the quote might make sense, depending on the context. In cases where the quotation is unreasonably long to be included verbatim, such as an entire speech, I can see where editorializing might be more appropriate, but I think verbatim quotes should be used to justify it. It is becoming increasingly worrisome to me SA that the only objection to including the quote verbatim, and instead editorializing it, is not an objective view on the quote or WP policy, but a subjective attempt to "soften" it. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern about "softening". Let me try to explain where I'm coming from: generally I find including simple quotes to be problematic because I don't find them particularly encyclopedic. The difference between an encyclopedia and, say, a newspaper, is that I think we're supposed to explain a subject, not report it. This is also a WP:NOT#NEWS point, for example. Justification for including a quote in a biography should be, in my mind, that the quote itself is vital to understanding the biography of the person. The Elvis Costello biography you cite above, for example, does a good job of including a quote that seems to have generated a lot of interaction with the Costello biography itself (vis-a-vis relations with others, public apologies, awkwardness with other celebrities, etc.) This doesn't seem, to me, to be the same with Totenberg's quote. I see the Costello quote as being relevant and found in many sources (including Graeme Thomson's biography of him) enough so that the actual content of the quote is meaningful to the biography. Totenberg's quote, on the other hand, is subject to a different kind of relevance that, it seems to me, stems mostly from her critics. Critics of Totenberg are obviously relevant to her biography, but the actual content of the quotes they criticize are, in my reading, only relevant to the critical commentary. By picking-and-choosing the most salacious quotes of Totenberg's to include here, we could unwittingly becoming a mouthpiece for criticism rather than explaining the context of the criticism itself and run afoul of WP:BLP rules about how to handle primary source criticism. Including the verbatim quote, to me, seems unwarranted because the environment surrounding it is tuned very much toward Totenberg criticism rather than being particularly biographically relevant. If she had lost her job over that quote, we would absolutely include it. If she had declined to meet with Helms over the quote, we would include. If there were parallels at all between this quote and Costello's quotes, I'd be totally on board with this comparison and think the content of the quote was of main-text relevance. But as it is, I think it's only the controversy surrounding the quote that is relevant and not the quote itself.

Drrll's script of the context of Totenberg's comments is useful to consider: she was in an echo-chamber of anger directed towards Helms and a Totenberg-apologist's view of the situation (and indeed the one she apparently holds to if you believe our NPR blog and ABC News source) is that she got carried away by the rhetoric of this television program and regrets the style/content/wording etc. I'm not convinced that we are in the position to parse Totenberg's words or put them into proper context that they would need at this WP:BLP.What worries me is that by focusing overly on the quote's content, we're missing the event's relevance to Totenberg's biography — namely that she is a lightning rod for this sort of criticism. Would critics still be upset with Totenberg if she hadn't said that quote about Helms? In light of Thomas-Hill, her commentary on the second-amendment, and her exclusive hobnobbing with liberal jurists and politicians, I'd have to say that the answer is likely "yes". That Totenberg made rhetorical threats to the life and limb of various conservative politicians is, to my mind, a more content-rich explanation of the controversies surrounding Totenberg and more relevant to a biography of Totenberg than what precisely was in the quote. And I'm certainly not shy of what she said: I just don't know how to put it succinctly enough so that it isn't overly-weighted in light of the many other quotes we could possibly include here but choose not to out of respect for WP:IINFO.

The reason this quote is on our radar screens right now is because it is being invoked in the Juan Williams firing. What I see is that people want to include the actual quote here because Juan Williams' actual quote is what got him in hot water (he said as much). But this feels a bit like righting great wrongs to me and, though relevant for a discussion of the Juan Williams affair, is not relevant necessarily for a biography on Totenberg. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, Jheiv. I'm really not trying to "censor" the quote at all. I think it has a place in this article. I just am not convinced that the actual words themselves are encyclopedic enough to be the only quote we include in the main text of her biography. I do think, alternatively, that including the actual words in the Juan Williams article (or a spin-off article about the NPR firing fiasco) may definitely be appropriate.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for what is obviously a very well thought out and comprehensive explanation. With respect to your argument about whether including the exact quotation rather than a mention of it is crucial to understanding Nina Totenberg, I have to agree, I don't think it is (at least at this point). In fact, the level to which one's understanding of Totenberg increases by reading the exact quotation rather than a mention of it (if at all), is debatable, I'm sure. To be honest, I much prefer your concept of what should be included in Wikipedia, or at least, how it should be presented. But consider the Dog "the Bounty Hunter" Chapman article. The section about his racial slur incident makes up about 25% of the article. Does mention of the incident help you understand Chapman? Absolutely. Does including the exact quotation, rather than just discussing the situation, help increase that understanding? Perhaps, but its not clear to me that it is by any significant amount. I would find a argument similar to yours, reformulated for the Chapman article, that argued for changing the huge section discussing the incident into a smaller, single paragraph section mentioning the incident and linking to news reports or transcripts, quite compelling.

However, regardless of the quotes in other articles, I can appreciate your guidelines and opinion that inclusion of this quotation isn't necessary. I agree that it doesn't necessarily increase understanding of Totenberg by any significant amount, and with that in mind, don't see the need for its inclusion. Thanks again for your thoroughness. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dog the Bounty Hunter article should not devote so much to the racial slur. That is a WP:BLP violation, for sure. However, I don't really have time to fix it myself, so I'll post about it on WP:BLPN. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

SA, you've made quite a compelling case against inclusion of the quote or a specific description of the quote, so let's just leave things as they are. Drrll (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nina Totenberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I've given the article a read-through and made two minor edits. I think overall we have an excellent candidate here and I foresee no problems; minor revisions should probably be enough. Within a day or so (barring winter storm problems) I'll go down the checklist in detail. Reviewer: Drmies (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some of the references can be handled better; I'll comment below in more detail.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers career sufficiently, in my opinion.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Controversies are handled fairly, in a neutral manner, without undue weight (which is always a problem with this kind of biography; see also article history and talk page).

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   It is stable now, at least.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Article could do with a portrait, of course.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few comments.

• The lead ought to be expanded and should probably be doubled. Without doing the math for lead vs. content, I think it ought to include some major events of her career, like the Watergate and Hill stories.
• The article needs a good scrubbing throughout; I'll probably make some of those edits myself. The word "notorious" should be replaced, for instance.
• All references really should be done with templates, incl. such stuff as date of retrieval.
  • footnote 1 (Paley Center) needs proper template/info  Done
  • the bare URL for the IMDB, currently footnote 20  Done
  • missing information in others, such as the ALA citation, currently footnote 15  Done
  • footnote 30, for the NRA, needs proper citation, and quote should be unindented  Done
  • quote in footnote 29 needs wikilinks removed (no links in quotes)
  • footnote 37 (Williams on O'Reilly) has formatting problems  Done
  • footnote 34 and 35 probably should go inside the parentheses, no?  Done
• Also, the end of the second paragraph of the "Acclaim" section, the Cate Edwards stuff, should not be there--maybe it shouldn't be in here at all. This does not yet establish that this is interesting or notable. If it was a big deal, it should be referenced and explained as such, and it should be moved to the "Controversies" section.
• Bibliography: wikilinks should be removed from article titles, and books need full bibliographic information. If there are reviews, they could be added as footnotes. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Drmies. I expanded the lead as you suggested. I might try out citebot later today to fix the citations. jps (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So far so good; I think the lead is fine. I wonder if anyone would fall over the "activities and politics" of the Supreme Court--I personally don't doubt that there are politics involved, and a broad definition of 'politics' can certainly apply. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what citation template to use for congressional testimony, so I just used the standard outlined at LexisNexis, where I obtained the cite: [4]. jps (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a rationale for why wikilinks shouldn't be included in the quote for footnote 29? jps (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• MoS, basically. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am closing the GA review. The article at this time cannot pass, for two main reasons. First of all, the nominator was blocked indefinitely, leaving me without someone who can answer questions and function as a kind of primary editor. Second, the disagreement (see talk page) on the criticism and controversies stuff are so serious, and so unlikely to be deal with quickly, that it's little use keeping this open. I hope that a next GA nomination will look at this page; I think there's a few helpful suggestions that have not yet been followed up on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Added Religion to biography

She is a Jew. 74.62.164.163 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for her religion? Drrll (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Google it. http://jwa.org/feminism/_html/JWA071.htm is a article written by her. 74.62.164.163 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a source that gives her ethnicity, but not necessarily her religion. Drrll (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of non-jews write for the Jewish Women's Archive all the time I'm sure. 74.62.164.163 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98558201 help? Tyler's Boy (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversies and criticism summary in the lead

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should "include mention of notable criticism or controversies." Since this is one of the most contentious parts of the article, I wanted to get some feedback about what to include in the lead about this. How about something like:

Totenberg has received criticism for her friendships with some prominent individuals in the legal profession and has been accused of practicing a liberal bias and partisanship in her reporting.

Drrll (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I"m not sure that these criticisms warrant inclusion in the lead given the lack of third-party discussion. They certainly aren't as notable as the three instances of exposing the dirty laundry surrounding the Supremem Court cited in the lead. Is Totenberg known for being more chummy than other reporters? If so, can we find a source that does this comparison? Then I might be more amenable. As it is, the lack of third-party sources who have no irons in the fire reporting on the controversies make me think that we are already over-weighting the controversies as it is. Maybe Drmies can weigh-in. jps (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Her notability has nothing to do with criticism. It's probably over-weighted in the article anyway, but it doesn't belong in the lede. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a valid point. I think inclusion here hinges on the term "notable." Loonymonkey is right in saying that she certainly is not notable for being criticized, and jps has a good point as well: there is, right now, not a wealth of sources with in-depth criticism directed at her. Still, one cannot deny that there is some criticism, though it's not much more than the accusation that she has a liberal bias--but such accusation (liberal or conservative) is probably normal in her business. I'll be honest, I'm kind of struggling with it: simply stating, in the lead, "she is accused of having a liberal bias," is a bit silly, unless it's balanced by something else. For instance, mention one or two of the awards--one could pick the biggest of the awards (by the ABA, the AJS, and the NPF) to create a sentence like "Though she has been accused...her reporting was recognized by..." What do you think?

On that note, having another look at the "Distinctions" section, I've already mentioned the Cate Edwards thing in the review, bu the passage starting with "She has written articles" and ending "Rachel Maddow Show," those aren't really distinctions or acclaim, unless one wants to say that appearing on Maddow is a 'reward' of some kind. I propose that another short section be added, under the "National Public Radio" section, containing that information. (And I think Cate Edwards should go.) Thank you all for helping to improve the article, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking another look at that section a good portion of it is in violation of WP:BLP. Criticism in a BLP must always be sourced to a reliable secondary source. However, everything about Bozell, Kates, Taranto, and Jacoby is simply sourced to the primary opinion pieces by the writers themselves (Gigot is sourced incorrectly to begin with). This means that not only does it fail BLP, but it fails Notability because it hasn't been established that this criticism is at all noteworthy. Even more egregious, the NRA bit is simply sourced to congressional testimony which makes it WP:OR. The whole thing looks like somebody just googled whatever criticism they could find, however marginal, and put it in the article. All of that is going to have to go as a BLP violation unless much more work is done on the sourcing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the criticism section could be improved with some tightening, but some of your contentions are not precisely on the mark. "Criticism in a BLP" must be covered in a way that conforms to WP:NPOV. The best sources for doing that are reliable secondary sources, but they aren't the only sources that do that. As for "failing notability", you should read my essay on WP:Notability vs. prominence. What you are arguing, probably, is that these criticisms are not prominent enough for inclusion in Totenberg's biography. Yet, it seems reasonable to me that some criticism is notable enough for inclusion. How much is what we are required to consider. I'm definitely amenable to hearing arguments that the criticism section is overly weighted, but wholesale removal of the section seems like a disservice to the reader who wants to get a complete picture. jps (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the lead goes, I agree that criticism of her is not as notable overall as other things she's known for, but I do think it's notable enough as far as "notable criticism or controversies" goes. I'd be curious how criticism is represented in other encyclopedia-type references. In one, Current Biography Yearbook, criticism of her is mentioned in the lead paragraph of her article.

In looking over this WP article, I did find quite a bit of third-party discussion of controversies and criticism. The following items are sourced to third parties (this accounts for most, but not all, controversies/criticism):

• plagiarism at the National Observer (Vanity Fair, Current Biography Yearbook, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal,TIME)
• charge of plagiarism at NPR (Vanity Fair)
• charge of divulging information on S.C. proceedings from her friend Justice Potter Stewart (Current Biography Yearbook, Listener Supported)
• criticism of Totenberg's reporting on Clarence Thomas (Current Biography Yearbook, TIME)
• criticism of Totenberg taking on Cate Edwards as an intern (Washington Post)
• criticism of Totenberg as a partisan (Vanity Fair)
• criticism of Totenberg hugging Lani Guinier (Washington Post)
• criticism of her friend Justice Ruth Ginsburg officiating her marriage (Public Radio: Behind the Voices, Groping for ethics in journalism)
• criticism of Jesse Helms comments (ABC News, NPR, CBS News)
• criticism of William Boykin comments (NPR)

As far as her friendships with newsmakers, she is probably not much different than other reporters. Where I think she is rather unique is her friendship with people she regularly covers in her legal affairs beat (e.g. Potter Stewart, Lani Guinier, and Ruth Ginsburg).

I think that balancing the criticism in the lead with her awards is a good idea. Drrll (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you indicate where this criticism comes from? That would be an essential step for other editors to form an opinion on whether and where it should be mentioned. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Vanity Fair piece actually quotes numerous prominent people praising Totenberg, and frames much of the criticism of her in terms of sexism (the Potter Stewart thing) or partisan fury from Republican supporters of Clarence Thomas who were attempting to shoot the messenger and divert attention from Anita Hill's allegations. To the extent it reports on partisanship, it's in the context of framing Totenberg's critics as motivated partisans. Paul Gigot's criticism is highlighted as an example - he claims that Totenberg only attacks Republican Supreme Court nominees - but Gigot's charge is quickly exploded as ridiculous by the Vanity Fair piece, which explains that all Supreme Court nominees from 1980-1992 were Republican nominees and that Totenberg published critical material about Jimmy Carter's judicial nominees during the last Democratic administration. I'll look at the other sources, but let's keep in mind that our goal is not to mine them for criticism of Totenberg, but to accurately reflect their overall content. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. Accolades for Totenberg should be included from the Vanity Fair piece as well. I included one in the lead, but more could be found in that piece. Feel free to add them. jps (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit on the sexism angle to the controversy section. jps (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The "shoot the messenger and divert attention" bit is from Totenberg, not Bardach herself. Likewise, so is the response to Gigot's criticism. I think Gigot's comments were prescient because in the 10 years of Democratic administrations since that article, there hasn't been a single Supreme Court nominee, lower court nominee, or Justice Department nominee that she has cast a critical light on (instead she actually attempted to salvage the Lani Guinier nomination and has very favorably covered her friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg). The single Carter judicial nominee that she reported negatively on is so obscure that it didn't even merit a mention in The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument that I'm sure is made, but it doesn't really answer the question as to how we might want to discuss the controversies in the lead. I think, from my reading, Bardach is at least sympathetic to the possibility that there are sexist undertones to certain bits of the criticism — at least the bits that are accusing her of being unethical in gathering sources which, I'll note, are not really mentioned in our article as much as the criticisms for chumminess and partisanship are.

In short, I'm sort of on the fence about how to discuss criticism/awards in the lead. It will need to be done very carefully.

jps (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Drrll, the Vanity Fair piece states: "After Totenberg made Hill's charges public, Thomas supporters went into an apoplectic fury over the leak and sought to divert the focus from the substance of the charges to the evil of leaking." Thus, you're incorrect - it comes from Bardach. Perhaps we could focus on what the sources actually say - since there seems to be some confusion - rather than injecting our personal opinions about whether they were "prescient" or not. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The "partisan fury" part is from Bardach; the "shoot the messenger" part is from Totenberg, as is the response in the article to Gigot's criticism. My comment about "prescient" was in response to your statement that "Gigot's charge is quickly exploded as ridiculous by the Vanity Fair piece." Drrll (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, okay... whether Gigot was prescient with his sentence or not is not really all that relevant to article content, I think. A case could be made for either point. I think that we have two issues to deal with: 1) do we want a sentence in the lead about acclaim/controversies? 2) can we tighten up the controversies section? My answer to 1) is that I'm not sure. My answer to 2) is that I'd like to see some proposals. jps (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as 1), how about:

Totenberg has received criticism for her friendships with newsmakers she covers and has been accused of practicing a liberal bias and partisanship in her reporting; however, she has been recognized for her reporting with numerous awards, including by the American Bar Association, the American Judicature Society, and the National Press Foundation.

Also, within the lengthy positive paragraph in the lead about her career, I think that there should be a short sentence about her firing for plagiarism, given 1)that plagiarism in journalism is a big deal and is often a career-ender, 2)the article body devotes two paragraphs to this event, 3)it is sourced to five separate sources, and 4)numerous other reliable sources are also available that discuss her plagiarism. Drrll (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the paragraph is all the positive? I'm not sure. As to being fired for plagiarism, I've read up on this matter and it seems clear to me that there are a lot of sides to that story. Totenberg seems to indicate that the focus on plagiarism was due to a changing ethos in journalism and some issues relating to sexual harassment. This is too much detail for the lead and the story of plagiarism is probably too incidental for inclusion there. Also, it's pretty clear that the plagiarism incident was, in part, dug-up by her critics. It belongs in the article, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the lead because to appropriately cover it would require far too much emphasis on what ultimately turned out to be an incident that was, well, incidental to her career.

On to the proposed sentence. I think it's too big and perhaps slanted away from what would be prominent about Totenberg's career. How about:

Totenberg has been recognized for her reporting with numerous prestigious awards, but has also been criticized by politically conservative commentators for what they call a "liberal bias" in her reporting indicative of a problem they say is present throughout the mainstream American media.

This isn't precisely the best, but it's at least well couched and shorter.

jps (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence of that paragraph is positive; the rest of the paragraph is not.

I agree that her defense of the plagiarism for the two reasons you mentioned are represented in sources. I don't agree that her critics are even partly responsible for the many sources discussing the plagiarism (such sources as the American Journalism Review, New York Magazine, the Washington Post, and TIME could not be characterized as being amenable to being fed by conservative Totenberg critics). As to Al Hunt bringing up the plagiarism issue, although he was employed by the Wall Street Journal at the time, known for its conservative editorial page, he worked for the WSJ's news division, supported Anita Hill, opposed Clarence Thomas' nomination, and is no conservative. I believe that a short summary of the plagiarism firing, discussed by so many reliable sources from 1991 up until 2010, is appropriate in a lengthy paragraph about her career. Something like:

While working at the National Observer, Totenberg was fired in 1972 for plagiarism; she disputes that she was fired over the plagiarism.

As to the the other sentence you proposed, I like most of it (even though Don Kates is not a conservative commentator). I don't think that the last part of it, "indicative of a problem ..." can be supported by the main body text or sources, and I believe that Totenberg is viewed as especially biased among mainstream reporters. I also think that the criticism over friendships with people she covers should be mentioned, since it takes up a full paragraph in the controversies/criticism section and is mentioned in another section. The criticism over her friendships was not limited to conservative commentators. My updated proposal is:

Totenberg has been recognized for her reporting with numerous prestigious awards, but has also been criticized by politically conservative commentators for what they call a "liberal bias" in her reporting. She has also been criticized for her friendships with news-makers she covers.

Drrll (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the critics are responsible for the sources, I'm just saying that her critics were the first ones to dig up the plagiarism story. That this is the context casts something of a pall on the prominence of this issue on the subject. Enough of a pall for me to say it probably doesn't belong in the lead. It's interesting that you think Totenberg, you believe, is viewed as being especially biased among mainstream reporters. I see the issue slightly differently: Totenberg was influential in the Hill-Thomas affair which continues to be a serious touchstone for the conservative movement. Before that time, she was on the radar screen, but after that time the vitriol and particular distrust of Totenberg from conservatives had something of a meteoric rise. I base this on the Nexis-Lexis search I did last night which had a huge increase in the number of pieces critical of Totenberg after the Clarence Thomas hearings especially based around the the idea that she was getting her information from leaks. Bozell was really pissed off about that, in fact. I believe that's what really got Totenberg on his radar screen, or, at least, it seems that she featured much more prominently in his polemics after that incident.

The "criticism" over her friendships in many cases didn't look all that much like "criticism" to me. For example, the bit in the book on journalistic ethics took something of a laissez faire approach to the matter pointing out the seeming impropriety but never going as far as to "criticize" her for it. That Totenberg's friendships were noticed and harped upon by her critics is not particularly remarkable to me and certainly doesn't strike me as a fact that is lead-worthy. Washington is kinda chummy like that. She was one of the first women to be offered a membership to the Cosmos Club after it went co-ed, for example.

jps (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know and based on searching Lexis-Nexis, it was Al Hunt who first dug up the plagiarism story. As a journalist who is anything but conservative, I don't think that he can be characterized as a Totenberg critic (see above). Do you have sources that say otherwise as far as her critics' role in bringing this up? I haven't found any.

You're exactly right that the Hill-Thomas affair had an enormous impact on the scrutiny of Totenberg by conservatives. My search of mrc.org (Bozell's organization) shows exactly the same thing. From the end of 1987 through September 1991, there are exactly 0 results for a search of Totenberg (the MRC wasn't around during the hearings for Chief Justice William Rehnquist or the nomination of Douglas Ginsburg). While I agree that the Thomas-Hill affair was the impetus for the close scrutiny of Totenberg, there has been many things she has done and said since then have kept her under scrutiny by conservatives. So much so that a MRC search results in 403 hits on her since October 1991. That puts her in the same league of criticism with much higher visibility journalists like Bryant Gumbel.

As far as the friendships issue goes, how about something like Questions about conflict of interest have been raised over Totenberg's friendship with news-makers she covers.

Drrll (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything of that sort is seriously undue weight in the lede. It hasn't even been established that these criticisms by a few partisan pundits (who make their living criticizing people, but we don't necessarily put it in biographies) is even notable to this article. As I outlined above a good number of them violate WP:BLP and I'm preparing to remove them as such. The lede describes what she is notable. She is not notable for being criticized. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states that the lead should "include mention of notable criticism or controversies." Do you see any criticism or controversies of Totenberg that are notable? BTW, according to reliable sources on her, she is known for criticism and controversies. Drrll (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? A reliable source states that she is known for the criticism against her (as opposed to her work?) I would be very interested in seeing this reliable source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I was saying that if you look over the various reliable sources about Totenberg, a large portion of them discuss criticism or controversy about her. Drrll (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first sentence you proposed above is absurd and contradictory. If she disputes that she was fired for plagiarism, you certainly can't state factually that she was (thus implying she's lying). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, she doesn't actually dispute she was "fired over plagiarism". She only claims that the circumstances surrounding her dismissal were not standard for the time. She took full responsibility for the plagiarism but pointed out that the standards were unevenly applied and perhaps motivated by other issues. Could you, Loonymonkey, list all the sources you dispute as being reasonable for the criticism section? Surely it's not 100% of them, is it? jps (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I outlined it above, I'll paste it back here. No, not all of them are bad. For instance, the Juan Williams bit is fine because it's not coming from him, it's being reported on by a second party (CBS News). (from above) Criticism in a BLP must always be sourced to a reliable secondary source. However, everything about Bozell, Kates, Taranto, and Jacoby is simply sourced to the primary opinion pieces by the writers themselves (Gigot is sourced incorrectly to begin with). This means that not only does it fail BLP, but it fails Notability because it hasn't been established that this criticism is at all noteworthy. Even more egregious, the NRA bit is simply sourced to congressional testimony which makes it WP:OR. The whole thing looks like somebody just googled whatever criticism they could find, however marginal, and put it in the article. All of that is going to have to go as a BLP violation unless much more work is done on the sourcing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would stop short of calling this a BLP violation, but otherwise I agree with Loonymonkey that this is poor editing, and seems to stem from a desire to make Totenberg look bad rather than a good-faith attempt to identify and reflect the best available sources. It's also bad writing, as Loonymonkey notes. Totenberg was fired for plagiarism; she disputes that she was fired over the plagiarism doesn't make sense, except perhaps as an attempt to editorially disparage the subject of this biography. Worse, it appears to be a lie, or at least extremely careless, since I don't see that Totenberg actually disputes that the plagiarism case played a role in her firing. MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What would you consider "the best available sources" on criticism/controversies? No attempt was made to disparage Totenberg over the sentence; I was attempting to give Totenberg's side, but my memory about one of the sources was faulty. She didn't dispute the plagiarism played a role in her firing. Instead, she implied that sexual harassment also played a role in her firing. Her implication resulted in Al Hunt writing an article saying that she was fired for plagiarism. Drrll (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use the words "BLP violation" lightly. It violates the specific guidelines laid out in WP:BLP. I'm going to go ahead and remove them. If somebody wants to come up with better sourcing and re-write it, we can discuss it here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If it "violates specific guidelines laid out in WP:BLP", then I assume you will be able to quote specific language in WP:BLP that demonstrates that. I am going to revert your unfounded deletions. Drrll (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded? Come on, you're an experienced editor. You should be more familiar with WP:BLP before hurling accusations. To quote: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." (emphasis mine). You can't just put an editorial by so-and-so in a BLP that says they don't like the person. A secondary source (ie., an article about the criticism) must be included. This is not only for reliability, it's for notability. If nobody bothered to mention that Taranto criticized Totenberg, then it's not notable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at a version

I thank Loonymonkey for offering a version of the article for our consideration: [5].

I'll make some comments about it.

I think, first of all, the last two sentences listed are a little abrupt and confusing. What were the Helms and Boykin comments? In the current version we say they are a kind of rhetorical device and give links, but in this version we don't say what they are. I think that's a little confusing. Can you, Loonymonkey, maybe offer some prose that would explain what those comments are.

The other things missing are the Gigot, Taranto, and NRA criticisms. The Gigot criticism seems really mild to me, but I'm interested in Loonymonkey's assertion that it is "sourced incorrectly". The Taranto criticism is one of style, I think. Is it a notable criticism? Perhaps not. But it's certainly an example of one. Finally, the NRA criticism. I'm wondering what Congressional Testimony isn't considered a good source for the article. Surely it doesn't happen often that a journalist's name gets into Congressional Testimony. Am I misinformed about this?

jps (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the sentence can be re-written to make it clear what those quotes were about (although there really doesn't seem to be a lot of non-primary opinion on that so its notability is in question as well). Taranto was a primary source, thus not appropriate for a BLP and there's no establishment of notability. We don't change the rules in order to fill out some "examples" of criticism. As for the NRA bit, it's original research and completely inappropriate. We would need a reliable source that went through the congressional testimony and reported on the fact that she was mentioned. Editors can't do their own reporting and source it to primary documents. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you really saying that we cannot report what is found in congressional testimony? Or are you just saying we can't use what's in congressional testimony in this fashion? jps (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the NRA criticism, linked as it is to a primary source, shouldn't be used. I also don't think it's that relevant--and to flip that around, if if was all that relevant, we would have seen secondary sources reporting on it. I also don't think that the plagiarism thing ought to be in the lead, for various reasons pointed out above--it was not a great sentence, to begin with, and I'm inclined to think that in the overall picture of her career it's not the most important thing. It was pointed out that it takes up two paragraphs in the article: looking at that section again, I think the paragraphing needs to be restructured.

It seems to me that while this discussion is ongoing the article cannot be promoted, unfortunately (and some other issues still need to be addressed), since the article is not stable. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Another note: Loonymonkey removed the reference to this article by Taranto, containing the "Dowdification" criticism, and I think that the reference and the critique it contains have no place here. First of all, it is very much an opinion piece, a primary source, of the kind that I think ought not be in here; second, this accusation of misquoting is made too quickly. The opinion piece does not spend much time on Totenberg, it does not do so objectively, and I am not at all convinced that we have a proper reading of the issue. Without secondary sources, this isn't even an issue. I hope editors can agree at least on this (minor) point. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this seems like a reasonable direction in which to go. I'm glad that these incipient issues were discovered. In part, I was hoping that that might be the result of the GA process. jps (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of "primary" sources in 'Controversies and criticism' section

A couple of editors have asserted that opinion pieces are primary sources. Please quote the specific WP policy language that supports that contention. WP:RS allows opinion pieces as shown here:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

In the cases of Bozell, Taranto, and Jacoby, all three of their opinions have been explicitly attributed to them. BTW, if opinion pieces were primary sources, then there are an awfully large number of opinion pieces that need to be removed from WP articles.

It's completely wrong to say that Don Kates' (a criminologist and former law professor) book on public policy is an opinion piece. Likewise, Gigot is quoted in an article by another author, not quoted from an opinion piece of his.

As to the single instance of a primary source, the Congressional testimony of James Warner, WP:BLP allows use of primary sources in limited cases:

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

A Cleveland Plain-Dealer article references this congressional testimony about Totenberg's reporting:

James H. Warner of the National Rifle Association complained about a National Public Radio report that "deliberately misrepresented our views."

That "National Public Radio report" is Totenberg's. The primary source should be used "to augment the secondary source." Drrll (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You're completely misreading that. An editorial (or other opinion piece) is a primary source for someone's opinion (otherwise all opinion would be secondary, in which case why would they have specified it in WP:BLP at all?) As stated before, this is for both reliability and notability. If the fact that the author stated an opinion wasn't reported on or noticed by disinterested second parties, then it's certainly not notable enough for inclusion in somebody else's BLP. That's why the Juan Williams part rise to that standards. It was reported on by others as news.

The part of WP:RS that you quote above would apply to articles about the authors stating those opinions but it doesn't change the rules for a BLP. If it were important to Bozell's biography that he criticized Totenberg, that could be used as a source. But it would need to rise to a higher level of notability to be placed in her BLP. Which raises a good point. Bozell's opinion of Totenberg isn't at all notable to his biography. So why would it be notable to hers?

And finally, if after scouring the internet for stories about the congressional testimony all you were able to find is a "Cleveland Plain-Dealer" article that doesn't even mention Totenberg (but you have somehow connected it to her through your own synthesis and original research), then that's completely inappropriate sourcing for a WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that OR and synthesis are really the issue here--I think that's overstating the case. I agree that a reference in the Cleveland paper does not help make the comment rise to the level of notability (and I am well aware that this is a judgment call), but I am also interested in toning down the temperature of the rhetoric here. JPS, thanks for your remark above. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it is not clear that opinion pieces are primary sources (I have yet to see policy or even guidelines that assert this), I have updated the sourcing for most of the material that was removed and did some rewriting. I expect that editors that support the standard of opinion pieces as primary sources will now support the removal of such sources across the board in other articles. Drrll (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary-vs.-secondary thing is a bit off base. It's more a question of whether we should use this article as a platform for op-eds, or whether we should use partisan opinion pieces sparingly in favor of more encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, op-ed pieces (or transcripts from talk shows in which pundits give opinions) have absolutely no place in a BLP. That's long since established. It's simply not notable to the biography what some random pundit thinks of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Loonymonkey removed a couple of things on the basis that they were "opinion pieces." The NPR ombudsman column about Boykin may be an opinion piece. I'll add it back with a Washington Times or Fox News reference. The Kates reference is not an "opinion piece." Don Kates' (a criminologist and former law professor) book on public policy hardly fits that description. I'll add that back as is. Drrll (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Kates' book was published by the Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think-tank. It's a pro-gun-rights polemic which purports to counter the "demonization" of guns in the peer-reviewed medical literature. It's a partisan source. I'm not saying it should automatically be disqualified on that basis, but let's at least be honest with each other. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an oversimplification to call the book "a pro-gun-rights polemic." Have you read any of the book? Nor is it accurate to describe it as a partisan source. Both Kates and Gary Kleck are respected academic criminologists. Drrll (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One can both be a respected academic and write a polemic. If you wanted to cite work that Kates published in the peer-reviewed academic literature, then I would be less concerned. Instead, you want to cite work that he published through a conservative, pro-gun-rights think tank. The book was published by a partisan advocacy group to counter the prevailing scholarly opinion in the medical literature (according to its own self-description). Let's not pretend it has the same standing as a piece from the reputable academic literature. That's what I mean about being honest. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got a point that it's not peer-reviewed academic literature. Nonetheless, the book is by experts on the subject of gun rights and should be a perfectly acceptable reliable source for an article that's not on academic topics. Drrll (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but in America that's always a loaded topic. I agree with MastCell that the publication, even if the guy is notable enough to have his own article, should not be treated as if it were a neutral publication--it's not even published by a press. So neutrality is out the door to begin with. I would say that the gun-reporting issue is dead unless there is reliable, independent secondary sourcing that there is something approaching a controversy. That stipulation is, right now, not met, and so all we have is a man criticizing our subject. That in its own right is not enough, certainly not for the sought-after GA status. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP does not demand neutral sources; it demands neutral wording in the article text from reliable sources (which would include the Kates book). "So all we have is a man criticizing our subject": no, we have a respected criminologist/law professor very familiar with the legal literature on the Second Amendment pointing out a wrong characterization of that literature. As far as reliable secondary sourcing on this issue, there is a book review of the Kates book by a Cornell University professor of government that mentions this very controversy:

Don Kates reports in another chapter on the relentless misrepresentation of gun stories in the mass media. For example, a National Public Radio series by Nina Totenberg reported that the NRA's view of the Second Amendment can find no support in "America's law schools or its scholarly journals"--when, in fact, of more than 60 law review articles on the subject since 1980, "only a handful" deny that the Second Amendment was intended to protect individual gun-ownership. (Kates provides all the citations for anyone who wants to review this now impressive body of literature.) (American Spectator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't "demand" neutral sources, but it does demand that we use the best available reliable, encyclopedic sourcing, especially on biographical articles. There are actually quite a few high-quality, reputable sources covering nearly every aspect of Totenberg's career, so I'm unsure why you're pushing so hard to lower the bar and include partisan commentary. If we start with the best-quality sources and follow where they lead, we'll end up with a good article. If we try to force low-quality, partisan sources simply because they make points we find ideologically appealing, then we'll end up with a poor article.

Along those lines, you're now citing a book review from the American Spectator, a partisan conservative periodical best known as the front for the "Arkansas Project" and for publishing a scurrilous hit piece on Anita Hill which famously suggested she was both insane and a slut. Really, do you think these are the best available sources? If not, why the push to force this stuff into a biography of an NPR commentator? MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't at all see the book as a "low-quality, partisan source." I see it as higher quality than many of the sources currently employed in the article. The single downside to the book is the book publisher. An upside to the book is the credibility of its authors. Another upside to the book is its citations in high-quality academic journals such as the Harvard Law Review and Criminology (see Google Scholar). From WP:RS, "One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."

The reason I mentioned the American Spectator book review was that Drmies asked for a reliable secondary source that referenced the criticism. Although I'm not pushing for the reference to TAS in the main article, ideological publications like The Nation have been deemed reliable sources on WP:RSN. And the author of the book review is a Cornell professor of government.

Totenberg's mischaracterization of legal sources in her reporting is very relevant to the biography of a reporter. Drrll (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the sourcing overall for this article is fairly solid, which is why this particular push sticks out like a sore thumb. I suppose one could make a case to consider the book as a source of pro-gun-rights opinion in an article on gun control, but I take issue with the strenuous effort to mine a single critical quote from the book and push it into a biography of Nina Totenberg. I think it gives the snippet undue prominence and is a borderline WP:BLP violation.

I'm all the more concerned because you seem to have started with the belief that Totenberg mischaracterizes her sources (a serious accusation to make against a journalist, and one which you state as fact) and are proceeding to find sources to back your belief. If there is a serious belief among reputable sources that Totenberg mischaracterizes her sources, then surely we can find it mentioned in mainstream, reliable sources dealing directly with Nina Totenberg? Why do we have to dig into tangential snippets from books published by conservative think-tanks? Doesn't that suggest that maybe this concern isn't particularly widespread or encyclopedically notable? MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What arbitrary threshold that doesn't exist in WP policy should be met before references to individuals in reliable sources can be used? A page? A chapter? The whole book? You didn't address the fact that numerous academic journals cite this book, which would not be the case if it were a "low-quality, partisan source." How many of the other sources in this article are cited by journals?

No, I didn't start with the belief that Totenberg mischaracterizes sources. I came to believe that Totenberg mischaracterized (unintentionally or intentionally) the sources in legal literature on the Second Amendment in this particular case after I read the reference to her in this book (whose author is expert on Second Amendment legal literature). And I don't think that she regularly mischaracterizes things. Drrll (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use as many peacock words as you like to describe Kates, but the fact remains that this is a partisan piece published by an extremely partisan organization. Are you really going to argue that his book is impartial? That his opinion is neutral? And for that matter, why do you feel that a mention of her name in his book rises to the level of notability in her biography? And, as a side note, please stop repeatedly adding it back in without any consensus. That's getting rather pointy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, partisan pieces do not get cited in numerous law journals and criminology journals, as this book has been (Kates himself has been published in numerous law journals and criminology journals). Neutrality is not the issue here; academic reputation in his field is. The "notability" policy you reference has nothing to do with whether this content belongs in the article. From WP:NOTE, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list" (emphasis in original). Drrll (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is easy to overrate the 'cites' of the book that show up in various database searches; see User_talk:Drmies#Nina_Totenberg_and_book_on_2nd_Amendment for a review of some of those articles. Having said that, Drrll's American Spectator article verifies, in my opinion, that there is at least a noticeable and therefore notable critique of Totenberg's reporting in regards to the scholarship on gun ownership. I don't think that either the book (The Great American Gun Debate) or the article (and neither of them are impartial, as far as I'm concerned) can reliably serve to state that Totenberg made a mistake, but I do think that the book, supported by mention of the salient fact in the article, raises a notable point of criticism and warrants inclusion. If there is a specific BLP reason for excluding it, I'd love to hear it--in the most concise manner possible, please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that if there were a substantial, notable controversy over Totenberg's Second-Amendment coverage, then we would see evidence of it in neutral, reliable sources. After all, the American Spectator criticizes a lot of people, and in general I'm not sure that their criticism rises to the level of inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. I'd stop short of calling this a BLP issue - it's more a matter of editorial judgment as to whether this is notable enough for an encyclopedic biography (WP:WEIGHT). That's my view, but I'm willing to be overruled if there's consensus to the contrary. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid point also. I think it's totally borderline; it wouldn't have been if there had been evidence of the kind you refer too. I'm not going to fight to include it, and maybe my "noticeable and therefore notable critique" was worded a bit too strong. It seems, from gauging the comments on this talk page, that there is no consensus for including it. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)