Talk:Timothy Noah

Notability tag

Someone posted a notability tag and did not explain reasons in talk. That is bogus, any issues should have been explained in talk before tagging. Noah is a senior journalist at one of the major online magazines. That makes him notable by most definitions. --66.31.39.76 12:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The tagger should have explained the reasons in talk but I would not describe this oversight as "bogus", particularly as a simple flagging is a restrained action. I don't see any indication in the bio or the explanation above that solidly shows Noah is encyclopedically notable. I think its reasonably justified for someone to tag the article as having notability issues - or even submit to afd and have it out there (at least that would actually give some belated grounding for, to put it politely, Noah's complaining yet dramatically misinformed article about his supposed "eviction" from wikipedia) Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww, you're just PO-ed because he nailed on the head the biggest problem with online cliquery, which, though full of good and knowledgeable people, Wikipedia certainly has. No comment on whether Noah's "notable" or not, all I know is I read his column every week.--Ben Applegate 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I too am a daily reader of Slate and other publications but don't make the facile proposal that every journalist I read on a regular basis has a claim to encyclopedic notability. I note that Noah's baseless Slate article on wikipedia is now the banner headline on the Slate front page today - complete with the ridiculous cartoon of an mean old wiki-fascist-cop giving the oppressed, mournful Noah his marching orders (and the headline "Whacked by Wikipedia" as if Wikipedia was run by triggerhappy gangsters). And this is not dramatically misinformed? Neither Noah nor the Slate web team seem to have bothered to check the accuracy of his claims since the piece was published several days ago - he has merely added an update claiming that a Wikipedia sysop gave him a "stay of execution" after reading his article - again this is an inaccurate version of events. Noah has been quite snooty and presumptuous about "Wikipedia sysops" but apparently has yet to bother to find out how the afd process actually works (he still thinks its down to a discussion amongst admins for instance). I would be able to take Noah's accusations about so-called cliques more seriously if he actually bothered to get his basic facts right about Wikipedia Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's really not about the afd process. It's about the notability guidelines. And the cartoon was funny and accurately reflected the thesis of the article. But I don't see what any of this has to do with the article. As to notability, I'm going to venture the guess that any regular columnist on a major U.S. news publication deserves a Wikipedia entry.--Ben Applegate 11:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah’s alleged snootiness is besides the point, and your mentioning it makes it hard to maintain the assumption of good faith. He’s obviously notable and the tag was obviously incorrect; the process that lead to it probably needs rethinking.

FlashSheridan 17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even worse, Bwithh, he's apparently talked to a sysop and given a corrected version of events, but the incorrect one is still the banner headline at Slate. FlashSheridan, the process that leads to what? Putting a banner on a page suggesting the notability of the subject has not been made clear? That sort of tag isn't at all a big deal. Noah just made it into one. JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't this question of notability be resolved by finding and citing a couple of links about Timothy Noah? In his "eviction" essay he claims that there are none, but wouldn't something like this NPR story count (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5034363)? Or here's a CNN article about the "Washington Zoo" book in which Noah is interviewed (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/05/10/williams.noah/index.html). I'm guessing there are other interviews with Timothy (about the book) out there. Wouldn't they count as well? Lastly, here's a published essay whose subject is a criticism of one of Noah's articles (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14968). Taken together, isn't that enough to meet the notability standard? Vandelay 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Then just add that to the article or raise it in afd. It's no big deal tagging articles with notability or references tags or taking them to afd. I think it is a big deal when people (not you) try to browbeat others from refraining from this kind of important oversight action. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any validity to the following claim by Noah: "I note with interest that Stacy Schiff, author of the excellent New Yorker article cited above, failed to impress Wikipedia's arbiters of notability by winning the Pulitzer Prize in biography, writing several other well-regarded books, and receiving fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It wasn't until she wrote her Wikipedia piece that she became sufficiently notable to be written up in Wikipedia."? This was in the article he wrote about his "eviction" from Wikipedia.Jlujan69 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article he wrote brings up a lot of good points about notability standards and some of the paradoxes that operate therewith. For example, I've always considered Wikipedia to be a treasure trove of knowledge about porn stars, profesional wrestling and Star Trek. And yet, acclaimed journalists and broadcasters are ignored because they are not public figures, apparently. Is this to suggest that there needs to be a separate Wiki for these people? I think while syops may b**ch about some fleeting details in the (Noah's) article that show a disregard for minutiae of the admin/enforcement process, they can't ignore some of the issues it raises. This article needs to stay, and I wouldn't be opposed to including the slate article as a source (or at least slate as an external link.) Xwoodandwater 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issues he raises are legitimate. I doubt the need to include everyone (Noah's cleaning lady example, or me for that matter -- not yet anyway), but certainly important journalists, Pulitzer Prize winners, etc. ought to be here. I'm pretty much a newly-minted Wikipedia editor, though I've used it to look stuff up for a long time. Seems to me that one reason it has the kinds of gaps Noah refers to -- such as a Pulitzer Prize winner -- is because editors are interested in what they're interested in. They tend to put their efforts into what fascinates them.

Another issue may be the dependence on the Internet itself as a source of information: has anyone thought to look Noah up in Who's Who? -- maybe his birthday & place of residence are there! When it comes right down to it, some of the best information on many topics is found in books, in the library, that you have to physically go look at and take notes from. Look around & you'll find some of the best articles on Wikipedia are written by people who took the time to go to the library & do that work.

Another problem: A lot of attention has been paid in this discussion on making sure we can source where Noah lives, when he was born -- better take those "facts" out until we can verify them with real sources. But what we've failed to note is hat unsourced "facts" are endemic in Wikipedia. Not necessarily because they aren't factual -- but because the editors who placed them there failed to source them. While assessing bios for WP Biography, I've come across numerous articles, even top-notch articles, that fail to properly source their facts.

In short, some of the failings we've got here are do to the mixed nature of Wikipedia culture... maybe just to the nature of volunteerism. We're not getting paid to learn how to do a proper footnote or reference, after all. Those who do it right do it because what's the point of doing it unless you do it right. But not all Wikipedians, unfortunately, take that attitude. -- Yksin 19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the part that I have reinstalled several times deserves to remain: wikipedia needs to be a self-conscious endeavor, and thus it is noteworthy that Noah's recent article reflects on the notability criterion. Frodeman 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an absolute non-sequitur. Wikipedia's almost ridiculously self-conscious; the question is whether Noah's articles about Wikipedia are notable to his biography. It's been said before and I'll repeat it: if this biography were anywhere besides Wikipedia, we wouldn't even be discussing whether to include these articles. JDoorjam JDiscourse 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text

This was removed on Feb. 24:

"On February 24 2007, Noah wrote an article for Slate concerning the impending termination of this Wikipedia entry [1]. Minutes after doing so, its deletion was provisionally halted. Noah's article pondered why in an infinite (cyber) space, Wikipedia would police the question of whether someone is notable enough."

I think it's interesting enough to leave in. Thoughts? PRRfan 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah has written lots and lots of Chatterbox articles; the only reason to view this as more interesting than any other is that it mentions Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself making that distinction would sound my bias alarm. EldKatt (Talk) 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only rationale that I can think for leaving it in is because the article is specifically about the wikipedia entry itself. Since there has been a published work about this article, shouldn't that be mentioned on the page? But I agree that it does seem to give off an impression of bias. Are there any guidelines on something like this? MrBleu 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah's article about Wikipedia's notability policy does not significantly represent Noah's overall work as a journalist. This does not mean that there's anything wrong with his article per se, just that it's not a particularly typical or noteworthy example of his writings. The only reason that it even seems noteworthy enough to include here is that it's about Wikipedia. (If Noah had written a column about the Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial policies, would we even be considering it for inclusion?) I think his article may be worth including as a reference somewhere else — perhaps on the notability policy page? — but not on the Timothy Noah article itself. --Sheldon Rampton 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why err on the side of excluding information rather than err on the side of including it? It's true that this article could certainly stand to be fleshed out quite a bit more, dealing with Noah's more frequently-covered topics, but the bottom line is that Noah's WP item is interesting, there's no reason to leave it out, and Wikipedia is not paper - editors don't have serious space constraints that prevent them from leaving stuff like this in. Which is, ironically, the very point Noah makes in the article people are trying to delete. Fumoses 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This has more to do with WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects than notability. The additions relating to the notability Slate article are more related to this Wikipedia article than Noah or his work as a journalist. I also think that WP:NPOV#Undue weight might be relevant; is the blurb on the notability article being included because it is representative of his work as a journalist and warrants mention in an encyclopedia article on Noah or is it being included because it very recent (see Wikipedia:Recentism) and relates to Wikipedia? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The section isn't self-referential, and Noah's piece isn't strictly about his own Wikipedia article. It's about Wikipedia's broader policies on notability and how they're rooted not in necessity but in the need to maintain certain social codes. As Noah himself notes, my aim was not to reinstate myself but rather to argue against Wikipedia's "notability" standard itself and to use it as a newfangled illustration of our society's love affair with invidious distinction. http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2/ Fumoses 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah has written 100s of articles and said many things, why is this one being given special attention? It doesn't belong in the article because we have rules against that kind of thing, please read WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects. You need to justify why this article deserves special attention to be noted, much less have its own entire section. -- Stbalbach 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you're the one asking "why is this one being given special attention?" when you're the one going out of your way to delete this section, and doing so not on the basis that it's inaccurate information, but on the basis that it's just information you don't want there. It seems pretty clear that this topic strikes a nerve here, especially looking over at the talk page on notability. Noah basically said that Wikipedians spend hours and hours deleting factual, interesting material in order to make themselves feel big. I can understand how leaving that in an article that was only recently spared from deletion would be merely adding insult to injury for the deletion zealots. Fumoses 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach is right. If we split to an article called Timothy Noah's views on Wikipedia it would fail WP:N, because there would not be multiple independant sources covering the topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I initially thought that the reference should be included, but upon reading WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects, I think it's clear that it doesn't meet the criteria. While Noah's criticisms may be valid, this isn't an issue of people deleting things based on their whim, this is an issue of following the established guidelines. That's all we have to go on in cases like this. MrBleu 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fumoses if your unable to say why Noah's opinion about Wikipedia is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia article (any encyclopedia article, not just Wikipedia) than you really have no case. Attacking me and other Wikipedians by suggesting we are not operating in WP:Good faith and have some sort of intentional bias only shines a bad light in your direction - what's your bias? The rules are clear on this WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects. Occasionally these things are notable enough to be included, but in this case it is not. If you really still object then follow the conflict resolution guidelines. -- Stbalbach 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That section of the Noah article did not violate WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects because it wasn't purely self-referential. As I pointed out before, Noah's Slate piece isn't just about this article or its potential deletion; it's a broader argument about Wikipedia's standards and how they're ultimately rooted in the need to maintain status and reinforce social hierarchies. This is a broad subject with broad implications for how we continue to reinforce social codes long after technology has made those social codes unnecessary. If Noah keeps writing on this subject - and I have a feeling he'll get at least one more piece out of this - he could go somewhere very interesting with this.

As far as good faith goes, the subtext of this entire debate is that this isn't merely an article about Noah, nor is it a section about Noah's article being up for deletion. It's a section in which Noah mocks Wikipedia's standards and those who set them as pompous - and it appears in an article that was recently pulled from AfD to the disappointment of those who wanted it gone. That Noah's article appears to have been saved in part by that same piece in Slate can't have endeared Noah - or his Slate piece - to the people who wanted to scrub the entire article in the first place. If I were being uncharitable, I might conclude that some people saw the inclusion of the section on Noah's piece as an insult to them and how they do things on Wikipedia, and responded accordingly. If I were being uncharitable. Fumoses 13:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time a Slate article about Wikipedia lent notability to subject, and then we wrote about it in Wikipedia -- we saw that sort of self-referential effect on the Cyrus Farivar article and the whole Wookiefetish thing. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination).  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

argument about Wikipedia's standards - it is not notable what Noah thinks about Wikipedia. Let me ask, if you were writing a short biography article about Noah anywhere else besides Wikipedia, would you include Noah's opinions about Wikipedia? Of course not, he is a pundent who issues opinions on everything every day. Wikipedia articles are copy-left meaning they can be re-produced in print form, on CD's, copied into other works, etc.. we are not writing articles for Wikipedia, that is why we have a self referential rule, these are generic articles.

Your making Noah's opinion about Wikipedia into some kind of "statement" that Noah is "mocking" Wikipedia and therefore people who want to delete it are biased - which is wrong on a number of accounts: 1) Noah is not mocking Wikipedia he is making an honest attempt to understand the issue 2) It really doesnt matter what he says, that is not why it is not included in the article - aks yourself why I personally went through the trouble to link to the Slate article with a footnote in the article, and at the top of this talk page, and in the Wikipedia in the News article - I went out of my way to spread the Slate article all over Wikipedia. Your theory is just wrong and frankly you seem to be taking this very personally, I wonder what your connection is. -- Stbalbach 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The typical text about his "Eviction" piece for slate takes about a third of this article. Timothy Noah has been writing 100s of columns for many journals for many years, how we can justify giving this one column such undue precedence is beyond me. Timothy Noah is notable, a single column in Slate magazine is not, it really is that simple. --Xorkl000 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an argument for expanding the Noah article to include more information, not an argument to exclude information which is already present. Fumoses 12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an argument to exclude. Obviously, my preference is to expand the article, but not if doing so violates undue weight. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, on reading the above it appears to me that you are also taking this personally. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia to argue from experience. However, I do know that I signed up in order to ensure that Timothy Noah's views were expressed on this forum. I read Slate daily and can recall the articles he posted about his wife. I have read the undue weight link that was provided to myself by Jersyko. My question is - if I was to summarise a large portion of Noah's work such that his entry was expanded and the wikipedia article was restricted to a few lines, would this satisfy you? If not, why? (please provide a detailed explanation or, to be perfectly honest, I will think it is because you now have an emotional interest in ensuring it is not present).PhilistineWA 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see the article expanded. The two relevant policies are WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects and undue weight. So long as the notability bit is carefully worded to avoid self-reference and does not take up an inordinate amount of the article, I'm fine with including it at some point. However, I'm a bit wary of including it at all at this point given that the article discusses very few of Noah's other articles, signifying recentism in my view and granting undue weight to the notability subsection (as opposed to the Iraq subsection, which is undoubtedly an issue of great importance to pundits over the last several years and should likely be discussed in any such article). Ideally, the article would be expanded exponentially over time to cover many of Noah's views. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a good compromise to me. Stblabach - are you of a similar opinion?PhilistineWA 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable. Fumoses 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A recently article in my local weekly magazine Carta Capital I read an article about the countless historical errors related to Brazilian history, places and notable personalities. It is a mix of sadness and confusion that now I see Wikipedia's sysop trying to remove an article that is right, but 'not notable'. Sure, Playmate of the Month biography is much more important to the world.Saturnonostropicos 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He wrote one short article. One. He is not known as a Wikipedia commentator, he is not widely quoted as one, it is not something he normally covers. If that changes and he becomes a Wikipedia pundent and starts publishing more articles about Wikipedia than it becomes notable enough to mention. How is that for a compromise? -- Stbalbach 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, keeps coming back. Oh well, I'm unwatching this page. Whoever is left once this is no longer WP:RECENT, please clean this up. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But wait, what about when Colbert had that segment where he told people to edit the African elephant entry? That made it in. I can see the arguments of the people who want to exclude it, but on the other hand, doing so seems to be trying to ignore an issue that has already come up. What I'm trying to say is, shouldn't someone looking at the article be aware that there was this issue that was made public, which sparked a discussion about notability standards, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baligant (talk • contribs).

Made it into what? It's not in the Colbert Report article, either of the articles on Stephen Colbert, or the elephant article. I believe it's in Criticism of Wikipedia, as it was an extremely notable example of that, but it isn't anyplace else. JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed AfD

I've closed the AfD on Timothy Noah, as it would only serve as troll magnetry. He's notable enough, and enough crap has been stirred up about this article, that it better serves the project to attempt to improve the article via discussions on the talk page than running it through AfD. If you disagree with the close and wish to discuss it, drop me a message. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a guideline proposal that could help to avoid problems like this altogether. Its at Wikipedia:Notability (journalists). Its similar to the pornograhic actor guideline but with guidelines specifically for journalists. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed this article went from normal, to AfD, to speedy keep, to journalist responds in the press, all in the same day. I'd say to Mr Noah, notability is at the heart of Wikipedia, it is why people use it, to filter out the ocean of data available on the internet - otherwise everyones wife, kids and pet would have an article on Wikipedia. See Newpages to see how quickly they are rolling in. -- Stbalbach 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it went from normal, to journalist responding, to AfD, to speedy keep. The article wasn't nominated for deletion until after Mr. Noah said it had been. JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your right. It was flagged as non-notable on Feb 18th [2], and then the first edit on the 24th was a link to his Slate article. It was then actually AfD'd by User:Kendrick7 around 5pm. Since then it has become a real battle ground over a number of content issues. User:Jersyko is making the best edits and holding it together. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I can't see how anyone can say the AfD was closed properly... but I'm not going to do anything 'till this cools off. I don't want Noah whining about us again. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo, you didn't get to delete something! And it's Noah that's whining? Fumoses 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, remain civil, and do not make personal attacks against other editors under any circumstances. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

David Fuchs - personally, I thought his article was quite insightful.PhilistineWA 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the article was insightful doesn't really matter, the question is whether this entry meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion Maracle 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand this close. I don't see a WP:POINT violation, so I'd say closer wasn't assuming good faith. I also see a bunch of arguments on the page which basically are either hand waving or "he might not meet our standards, but I don't care so I'm gonna say keep anyway." Not exactly sure where any of that meets criteria outlined for a speedy keep, but whatever. GassyGuy 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes no difference. With this news mention, whether he was notable before doesn't matter -- he's notable now.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. Reverting should always be a last resort, and if you must revert, please use a meaningful edit summary. There has been almost virtually no discussion going on between those people reverting one another - not even any attempt to communicate through a meaningful edit summary such as "please refer to talk". This is not how we should be resolving article disputes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to protect the article to stop the continued edit warring, but I'm hesitant to do so given the potentially bad face it presents to new users (which is why articles on the main page aren't protected while there). In any event, if the edit warring continues, I will be more amenable to protecting the article (regardless of the content of the revision) until the discussion is completed on this talk page. That said, we would all be wise to discuss, not edit, for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have seen the locking of the page as an attempt by wikipedia to suppress criticism. As it is, seeing my edits deleted prompted me to sign up and find this page.PhilistineWA 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war section

Removed this section as I don't see why (and the article made no effort to indicate) why Noah's published opinions on the Iraq War are encyclopedically notable, and this was a possible WP:SOAPBOX violation. I'm sure he's written many more-or-less informed articles on numerous serious and non-serious subjects - unclear why this was singled out for inclusion. He is not a specialist political commentator on the Iraq War nor has his journalistic identity been characterized by his position on the Iraq War. If there are articles or books which are representative of landmark, watershed and/or celebrated work by Noah, and can be shown to be so, these are more appropriate for the article than summaries of random short op-ed articles Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Noah's stance on the Iraq war notable for the same reason any other pundit's stance on the Iraq war is notable - because the Iraq war is one of the major defining political issues of the current decade? A Wikipedia user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like Mickey Kaus and Matthew Yglesias. I also fail to see how including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed fairly dramatically over time - is a WP:SOAPBOX violation. Fumoses 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If Noah is notable as a pundit, so are his views on the big issues. An anonymous editor removed the Iraq War section, writing in the Edit Summary essentially: "Why this subject and no others?" The answer, of course, is that other subjects might well be included. Wikipedia's not paper. PRRfan 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this is worth including. Obviously, it should not be given undue weight, but because this is undoubtedly the biggest issue to be dealt with by American political pundits over the last several years, surely it warrants some mention. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I would submit Noah's comments on the Iraq war are "celebrated" given a) his notoriety as a journalist for one of the most well known (and well read) online magazines; and, b) the dramatic change in his views over time.PhilistineWA 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Glad to see someone call out the arbitrary, even childish nature of the deletion process

---

Re: the above.

The trouble is, Noah isn't interesting enough - or prominent enough - to require descriptions of his views on individual issues. He hasn't played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War, nor on anything else. He is significant enough to have a small entry; but it's total overkill, and rather preposterous, to start cataloguing his opinions on numerous events, major or otherwise. Unless they significantly, and notably, and provocatively relate to his own status or person as a writer - or have impacted public opinion, government policy, intellectual trends, etc - there is no point at all in detailing the information. An encyclopaedia should aim for a proportionate depth, and relevant breadth, in all its entries; the only difference between an online and an offline one should really be that the former doesn't require the often damaging omissions or brevity of the latter, not that it can offer a thoughtless, automatic, totalistic chronicling of everything to do with anything. This is why Wikipedia entries on Presidents are not as long as whole books written on Presidents. See? - I also believe the Wikipedia reference in the entry, now that Noah has written again on it, and now this continued squabble has arisen, has become too much a matter of tedious self-referentialism, and on reflection offers little or nothing substantial (trivia or otherwise) to the piece for all the crap that's been thrown about because of it. Can we delete it please? -- Best, CAWP (chris.a.w.parker@gmail.com)

The section in response to the question of Noah's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. His forceful agreement with Powell's speech to the UN, and his subsequent withdrawal of that agreement are the most notable, or at least most noted, aspect of his career. This sequence of articles is certainly more notable than the fact that he lives in the Takoma Park neighborhood. His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War." Ray 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, because there's a discussion on point on this talk page, please discuss here instead of merely removing the Iraq paragraph (consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion right now, in any event). · j e r s y k o talk · 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-- More notable than where he lives? Yes. But an encyclopaedia is a reference work: essential facts like that must be included. I'm sure the year in which Reagan was born isn't notable - as in of especial importance - but it is an elementary fact and therefore has to be there. What's your point? It makes no sense.

It's dumb to use such a confusing argument as the basis for including this completely irrelevant section. Noah's switch did NOT have an effect on public opinion. Not a bit. His views on the Iraq War are one of any number of average, unexceptional, insignificant facts. For someone like Christopher Hitchens - central and prominent in the public debates over the war - it of course would be perfectly correct to include it. But not Noah. Just leave the entry as it is: modest, covering the essential facts, well-referenced and accurate: exactly the proportionate length for such a mildly important figure.

cawp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.230.9 (talk • contribs).

His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War." That grandiose statement from above and the idea that his response to Powell's UN speech was some kind of landmark event in the American public sphere comes across as absurd puffery - can the commentator prove this? I doubt that even Timothy Noah himself would claim this. We shouldn't be turning articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues or highlighting ones we subjectively think are "the issue of the day". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and whether the Iraq War or the all his major issue oped columns (which are generally brief columns, not detailed papers) are summarized, this comes across as boosterish undue weight/ WP:SOAPBOX promotional content. Hence the balance tag I've added. Noah is a moderately well-known columnist, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he is influential enough to be treated as if he is some remarkable political thinker of the moment . Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're jousting with a straw man. No one is even remotely suggesting "turning articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues." If Noah is notable as a pundit, then it is entirely appropriate to include a few lines in a short bio describing one or more of his positions on important issues (and I think we can agree that the Iraq War is a biggie). Wikipedia is, after all, not paper. In any case, I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that the inclusion of the two Iraq War sentences boosts/gives undue weight to/promotes Noah? Anti-war sentiment? I can't see how it does either. PRRfan 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah is not notable enough to have his own article entry, I think. However, if he is to have one, then this issue of the War is one that should not be excluded, esp. given his 180 degree turn around, like a lot of others. This fact is notable, and so is the question of where one stands on this major defining political question of our time.Giovanni33 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-- I sense grotty politics in the increasingly desperate and silly attempt to include the Iraq War section. The "major defining political question of our time"? Who thinks like that? Who writes like that? Stop being absurd. The Iraq War, whether you disagree with it or not, has only been going for 4 years. "Our time" is, I trust, slightly larger or longer than that. So get rid of it. He wasn't jousting with a straw man; you are. PRRFan said earlier that Wikipedia isn't paper, and suggested that articles like this should essentially contain "summaries" of what they think on "major issues". And that's an absurdity.

Debate in good faith, or go away. Justify the Iraq War section as anything other than a politicised attempt to colour the war in a certain way - central, defining, key to understanding this whole era, worthy of mention in all possible entries, even if particular people (like Noah) have unexceptional, boring positions - which is plainly absurd - or it'll go.

CAWP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.230.21 (talk • contribs).

Your comments lack arguments. You think its silly, I don't. You think its desperate, I don't. What is your argument? Grotty politics? As if there is something called clean politics? Politics is always going to be offensive for some but that is no reason to bury it. You make lots of proclamations, i.e. "absurd," yet you fail to say why you think its absurd. The reasons you do give don’t hold up very well. Lets see, you make the point the Iraq War has only been going on for 4 years. This is not relevant, since time itself is only one factor, and does not define an events importance on the political and social landscape, but the other point is that it’s still ongoing. Take 9/11. Does it matter less because it occurred in an instant one morning on 9/11, defined even by the date 9/11? Of course not. This shows that it’s your argument that is absurd. We are still facing the ramifications of this event, which has repercussions throughout the world. The War is part of the "war on terror," and tied in to the 9/11 event, since it was used to justify this illegal war. The world before has never seen the outpouring of the millions in the streets of the capitols of the world before as it has seen with the Iraq War. But you say its not a defining issue? It certainly is for the political leadership not only in the US but the rest of the world, if you follow the news. Noah's position is not notable only because Noah is not really notable. But if we are to accept him as a writer and journalist who is notable enough for an article then his position on the War is also notable, because it is a central issue that defines ones stance within the world we live today. The fact that he changed his mind gives the reader essential information on his ability to think clearly and his ability to correct himself.Giovanni33 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Justifications have been presented, whether you accept them as convincing arguments or not is entirely another matter. Regardless, be more civil, please. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-- I'm afraid you really give your political agenda away when you use partisan phrases like "this illegal war", and claim "The world before has never seen the outpouring of the millions in the streets of the capitols of the world before as it has seen with the Iraq War". That should be enough to condemn your position: political agendas should NOT come into encyclopaedia contributions. Of course, the fact that these opinions of yours are also false is pretty bad too (the world has regularly seen millions in the streets of capitals: VE Day, VJ Day, heck, every New Year's Eve. What's your point?).

I'm sorry, but unless there's a better argument for the Iraq War section in this article than saying it's important to and for everyone, I think it has to go. It's self-evidently immature and pathetic (to how many other people has this policy of Giovanni's been applied? Is it going to be Wikipedia policy that every living person who has an entry must also have a section on their stance on the Iraq War? Are you serious?)

It's just a rubbish little way of weedling some political material into an otherwise fine entry.

P.S. I never said duration was the test of an issue defining our time, but that our time is surely longer than four years. And, heck, given the fact that opponents of the War like you believe the US can pull out immediately with little objectionable or significant effect, I would suggest that you implicitly recognise how it has and will have little significance outside of its duration (however long that will be).

So can we cut it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.230.21 (talk • contribs).

One can just as easily argue that it is a "political" decision to cut the subsection from the article. Regardless, such accusations aren't going to help us decide whether or not to include it. Finally, please sign your talk page posts with this: ~~~~. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the coordinated outpouring of anti-war protest in more than 600 different cities across the globe was unprecedented in world history. Over 10 million and then 30 million people protested on a single day. Even the millennium parties doesn't match that, besides that falls in a completely different category. As a protest event, it was the largest protest in history, only comparable to some of the protests against the Vietnam War. Still, this is besides the point. You say I betray my political agenda. This is a straw man arugment. First of all, I am not attempting to conceal political views so nothing is being "betrayed," However, this is not the agenda, and not the issue. My political views not withstanding (and yours which are pretty clear also), does not matter. My only agenda is to argue that inclusion of Noah's stances on this historic dividing line political question merit inclusion. And, if my phrases like "illegal" war are partisan, thats fine, but that doesn't make it any less true or factual a statment, It was against international law. This is basic, but also besides the point since this is not an issue that needs to be presented in the article. The only issue is that Noah's view, and then his reversal, be mentioned. Any figure notable enough to have his own article, and who writes on politics, soicety, culture, and who expresses a stance on this issue, must not have this information suppressed. To exclude it on grounds that its political is absurd, esp. when we consider that everything is poitical, esp. a desire to exclude an articulated stance of such an important political question that shapes our current world political reality.Giovanni33 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Very tedious, often meaningless and circular, almost complete nonsense from beginning to end. I don't care enough. But I believe it obvious to any impartial person - regardless of your views on the war - that Giovanni and his ilk, and the inclusion of the Iraq War section, is frankly nothing more than embarrassing. It isn't political to say it is irrelevant; for its relevance is being justified purely on the basis of it being relevant TO EVERY LIVING PERSON. Isn't this insane? It's certainly not a universal principle being applied universally. Sorry Jersyko, but it's silly to say otherwise. I leave it up to the people with the authority, but I think Wikipedia looks stupid with this entry as it is. - I don't wish to argue about the Iraq war. I am not interested, qua Wikipedia contributor, whether it is right or wrong, legal or illegal, etc, etc. Noah's stance couldn't be less relevant to his entry, however, and no can or has yet proven otherwise. The only way to justify it is to have a similar section for, as I said, EVERY LIVING PERSON.

163.1.230.21 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What you say applies to what you wrote, not me. To make clear the obvious new straw-man you are setting up, its not "every living person,"-- that is not the standard that I have expressed. I clearly said, "Any figure notable enough to have his own article, and who writes on politics, society, culture, and who expresses a stance on this issue..."Noah is a writer, a journalist who helps to create public opinion. He is a political commentator. Any major event that is a defining, MAJOR, political issue of our times, and one in which SUCH a writer writes about (not every living individual!), should not be failed to be mentioned. As another editor said, a Wikipedia user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like Mickey Kaus and Matthew Yglesias. Including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed dramatically over time - is not a WP:SOAPBOX violation but essential on the writers views and thinking. Thus, its appropriate and expected by reasonable standards. Giovanni33 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Make your mind up. You know I meant every living person who has an article. And you also know that the vast majority of writers on politics, society or culture who have entries in Wikipedia, do not have an Iraq War entry. It looks ridiculous, and overly politicized, to have this section. And if it's political to say the Iraq War isn't significant enough, and political to say it is important enough - why on earth is that a rationale for ignoring the argument it should be excluded, and not a rationale for ignoring the argument it should be included? It is a WP:SOAPBOX violation, and you know it. You clearly hate the war. Fine. But it's seedy and obnoxious to impose your views as de facto Wikipedia policy. 163.1.230.21 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's enough. If you make another uncivil comment or make another personal attack as you did in your last comment, I will block you from editing. If this argument is to continue, it is going to be more civil. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil? In what way? Verbally? Fine. But there are other forms of civility, and I would suggest that continued, obdurate ignorance is itself an act of malice. Chris111222333 15:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and incivility. Surely you understand that one cannot describe someone's arguments as "continued, obdurate ignorance" civilly. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen (LOL) Dougieb 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Nah, still looks dumb. Very unserious; and I suspect it wouldn't survive any competent and senior editor.163.1.230.3 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

References Question

According to the Slate article[3], Noah himself has made several changes to this article.

Apparently those are this one[4] documenting his position at Slate and this series[5] documenting other aspects of his career and his residence in the Takoma Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

This appears to be within Wikipedia guidelines, but is there any mechanism to supply these contributions as the needed citations? Ray 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Might want to add this reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/?GT1=9129 Harvardy 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he edited Wikipedia, but whether he lives in Takoma Park. We'd have to twist ourselves into a self-referencing pretzel and violate original research rules in order to tie the article to a specific set of edits and then use that as a source. Under a strict interpretation, we need a secondary source that specifically states he lives in Takoma Park. If he mentions it in a future article, that'd be perfect, but for now we're short a reference for that. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not ignore all rules, & use some common sense? If it appears that he anonymously editted his own bio to add the fact he lives in Takoma Park, & there is no reason to suspect his word (e.g., it gives him some kind of self-promotion), why not simply accept that he knows where he lives & accept the edit as reasonably plausible? -- llywrch 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for certain that it was Noah who made the edits, first of all. Second, the information remains in the article, just with {{fact}} tags. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is more easily solved by the "favor privacy" principle within Wikipedia's policy for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, meaning that since the number of children and his neighborhood of residence is not relevant to his notability, it should be deleted. 66.167.49.179 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

If it's not verifiable by a secondary source, it has no business being included in a tertiary source, no matter how important it is - and I doubt Noah's place of residence is that crucial. Johnleemk | Talk 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tim provided a reference for where he lives; it's now in the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's WAR!!!

According to the top banner headline for Noah's article on Slate.com, he's personally at "War with Wikipedia" and the war is "Raging On". According to the article headline for the same article, he's been "Rescued by Wikipedia". Defcon 5!! Man Overboard!!!! Outstanding. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget The Sopranos-esque headline from yesterday: "Whacked by Wikipedia." They're not subtle, but I imagine they get more clicks that way. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Accurate Birth Date?

I think by now the relevance of a small bio on Timothy Noah is beyond debate: he is a public figure and his omission from Wikipedia would now be seen as picque, considering the attention he's brought to the selection process here. One of the virtues of Wikipedia as an information source is the ability to find out information about people whose biographical details are otherwise unavailable or hard to find.

Nonetheless I can't help but wonder if the date of birth listed here--February 11, 1967--is inaccurate. His late wife was born in 1958, and while it's not impossible that she was 9 years older than he, it would be unusual. Similarly, the Wasghington Monthly bio referenced in the article indicates that he was working as an editor there in the mid-80s: when he was 15 years old?! Finally, I recall in an article on Slate a year or so ago that he claimed to have gone to high school with mega-corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was born in 1958. Is "1967" a typo?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zarafan (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Good points. I removed the birth date, as we didn't have a source for it in any event. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah on NPR

Timothy Noah was on National Public Radio this morning discussing this article (& his articles of course) -- which led me to this talk page. Interesting timing for me, because I had just been reviewing the latest in an AfD discussion on an article I have an interest in, & had been reflecting how AfD nominations can sometimes prompt article improvement, and also on questions of "what makes someone notable for Wikipedia." If anyone does take the time to do real research on Noah to improve this article (I'm sure for example that one could locate his birth date in one of the "Who's Who" volumes, for instance), & includes a section on this little tempest in a teapot, his appearance on NPR might also be mentioned. --Yksin 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the NPR story in 2007 press citations box at the top of the page. -- Yksin 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Journalist manipulates Wikipedia and causes controversy and gets name in press. Story at 11. What the journalist is missing is the Real Story, that notability is the single biggest issue on the Internet, where anyone and everyone has equal voice, what is "notable" is a question worth billions of dollars (see Google search ranking). But I don't think Noah has the vision and is instead wrapped up in the minutia. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War section

Why is the section about the Iraq War in this article? It does not seem very fitting or notable to Timothy Noah, unless I am missing the context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milkyface (talk • contribs).

There is a discussion on point just a few paragraphs up on this talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is write-protected now, but in my opinion this Iraq War section is irrelevant to his biography and gives undue weight to something which is really not that important.

I'll expand down here on something I said above: if Noah is notable, it's not for where he grew up or where he lives; it's for what he writes. Therefore, his positions on notable issues such as the Iraq War are useful to have in a WP article. PRRfan 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

^ Timothy Noah's comments in "The Fray," Slate's online discussion forum, regarding his place of residence. Accessed 2/27/2007.

The access-date is not correctly given. It should be given on the Wiki-format (so I can see it on the ISO 8601-format, not MM/DD/YYYY). Can an admin. update it? Nsaa 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How's that? [6] --Interiot 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, regards Nsaa 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respect WP:ASR

If the Encyclopedia Britannica decided they needed an article on Timothy Noah, would they say "Gee, what do people who need to look up Timothy Noah need to know? Oh -- he criticized Wikipedia once!"? No, they wouldn't -- and therefore, neither should we. Wikipedia should not cover a subject's interactions with or feelings about Wikipedia just because we are Wikipedia. Are John Siegenthaler, Sr.'s well-publicized criticisms of Wikipedia notable enough that any source covering him would regard them as integral to the article? Yes, absolutely. Is the fact that Timothy Noah is upset at Wikipedia this week similarly notable? No. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally 100% agree, as do several people above. I don't really have an opinion about whether the Iraq War stories should be mentioned, but his Wikipedia stories are clearly much less important than those. --Interiot 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Banner headlines aside, he's not really MAD at Wikipedia. If you actually read the article, his criticism of the notability policy is reasonable even if his own article hadn't been a victim of it. If anything, I detect a tone of bemusement in his writing at all of the infighting his articles have caused on these talk pages. Anyway, I don't see the harm in refering to this bruhaha in the article. Every Wikipedia article is an ongoing project, and I think more information is better than less. He's a journalist; he writes articles about things for a living. It doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to me that you'd want to include information on those articles in the entry. Sure, it might be a little weird mentioning one or two of his pieces and not, you know, the hundreds of others he's probably written. But maybe someday someone will come along and add some more, and other will do the same. Like he said, it's not like Wikipedia lacks the space to include these little tidbits. More information! Information wants to be free! (And, apparently, anthropomorphized) 66.51.222.19 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)K.

The information isn't being removed from Wikipedia altogether, it's being moved to Wikipedia:Press coverage, where it's far more appropriate. Countering systemic bias and general article balance can call for excessive detail to be trimmed, especially when Wikipedia would otherwise be overrun with references to itself. Are there any journalist's articles on Wikipedia that discuss their most significant story on a weekly basis over their entire career? Many journalists would end up with discussion of more than a thousand of their stories, which would swamp their article unless the rest of it was greatly expanded. I just don't see that level of detail as encyclopedic (though I suppose there are counterexamples). --Interiot 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The information isn't being removed from Wikipedia altogether, it's being moved to Wikipedia:Press coverage, where it's far more appropriate.

So why not link to it from his own page? Basically more information is better. Ideally, an encyclopedia would give you access to everything you could possibly want to know about any given subject. Why impede that vison by constantly using a "real" encyclopedia as a frame of reference for what's appropriate? Real encyclopedias suffer length limitations that will eventually contribute to their extinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.22.82.185 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I don't know if this is an important enough episode in his career to deserve a mention in this article, but it's definitely crazy to write more about it than about his opinion on Iraq or about his "biography" in general.Prezbo (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timothy Noah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zaOym6OE?url=http://www.slate.com/id/117517/ to http://www.slate.com/id/117517/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)