Talk:Ramesh Ponnuru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] NPOV tag

I feel that this article goes out of it's way to defend his book when the book isn't even that well explained. There certainly isn't enough supporting information or references. And the references that are used come exclusively from self described conservative publications. --waffle iron ^talk 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Pointless and thus offensive grammar correction by 198.144.195.203 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 May 2006 198.144.195.203 has been reverted. Don't fix grammar in talk when the meaning is clear. --Jerzy•t 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The end is obviously a bit lacking in what some might call "truthiness." As a liberal Democrat, however, I'd probably say the same thing about his book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.86.17 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Waffleiron needs to spend less time arguing the merits of when life does or doesn't start and spend more time mastering the fine art of the apostrophe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.110.43 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention to illogical quirks of English orthography and grammar during a causual discussion is usually a sign of either a small mind or a desire to distract attention from matters of substance. The IP 151... needs to spend less time in anonymous personal attacks, and more paying attention to how to be a colleague here (and perhaps elsewhere).
--Jerzy•t 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How is the phrase "In a memorable appearance on The Daily Show, Ponnuru's attempts to reiterate the premise of his book were repeatedly assailed" a NPOV? Wasn't Stewart trying to make the point that Ponnuru (who admitted during the interview that both sides on the abortion issue had valid arguments) was putting people of the pro-choice persuasion on the defensive by alarmingly titling the book, "The Party of Death", and that abortion is not a black and white issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddster2005 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 00:07, & 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement purports to be statement of fact (perhaps with the mild exception of "memorable", which is neither as verifiable nor as to the point as would have been "widely remarked upon".) Is Toddster's possbily rhetorical question asserting that it fails to satisfy NPoV? Or that someone was mistaken in asserting that it was an NPoV-rule violation?
--Jerzy•t 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log Cabin Republicans?

Why is there a link to the website for the Log Cabin Republicans at the end of this article? As far as I know, Ponnuru isn't gay.
Pjones 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I did some cleanup and copyediting. I didn't see much POV in the version I edited, so I didn't change most of the established facts or links. I filled in some information about his book and added a link to it. I also fleshed out a description of his interview with John Stewart and the public backlash from it. Consolidated some information (we had publication year, publisher, editor, and title in 3 different places), merged some sentences. It's still a pretty lightweight article. I removed the NPOV tag, I think it's pretty objective now. As ever, please discuss if you have any objections. Or just change what you don't like and I'll come discuss it if I disagree. Bjsiders 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Check

Are we sure about that 15 year-old number? I heard 16 on NPR today, but couldn't find the age elsewhere online—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.44.178 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone might also want to fact check that he grew up in Kansas City, Missouri. His highschool, Shawnee Mission East, is a public highschool in Prairie Village, Kansas. It's far more likely he grew up in Kansas, either in Prairie Village, Fairway, or Mission Hills.

[edit] Inherant Confusion Hazard?

I wouldn't add anything about this without discussion, and preferably verification that it has been discussed off WP:

_ _ In listening to NPR, i noted he was going to be on the show at some point, and kept waiting to hear who the female native-speaker of English, and convert to Catholicism, was, who seemed to be there as an enthusiastic sympathizer with this ideas. The mid-program break came, and i said "OK, they'll be done with her, and introduce him, but she came back. Finally i realized that he (i was pretty sure the given name Ramesh is as masculine as is Robert) was the possessor of the "accentless" and feminine-sounding voice, and of the history of relgious affiliation that is atypical for people whose names the cultural tradition that his does.

_ _ While none of this is discreditable in an American, and some of it is admirable, it wouldn't take much editing to make it into a personal attack, so i feel it's important to be sure it's notable before anyone tries out inserting it.

_ _ If this isn't just a quirk of my casual listening while editing, speeding the dispelling of confusion like mine may well be an encyclopedic task.
--Jerzy•t 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ponnuru's voice

Ponnuru's voice is noticeably effeminate. Can this be discussed on wikipedia? - ShadowyCabal 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's especially pertinent, considering most of his public facing stuff is written works. Could come off as an ad hominem attack. --waffle iron ^talk 20:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He is a writer. He has appeared on television, though. His voice is one of the most memorable things about his image, especially because he's conservative. This is probably what prompted the Log Cabin Republicans discussion above. I don't think it's fair that the tone of his voice matters, but it still matters. - ShadowyCabal 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with ShadowyCabal, Ponnuru's voice is one of the most memorable things about him however unfortunate that may be. Discussing his public image hardly constitutes an attack, but merely showcases an attempt at creating a complete and objective article. Information should not be disregarded simply because there is the chance that it might be taken wrongly, that is the first step towards censorship. It should definitely be included in the article. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be POV, though. I don't know how much it matters in a real sense how he talks, than where he stands on the issues. Is this a real issue that people actually think about other than you guys? I mean, he talks like a little girl, but it doesn't seem to matter to me. --66.106.60.11 07:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well he was on The Colbert Report a few nights ago, and I had my back to the TV when he came on. I heard the voice and thought it was either a woman or an effeminate man (gay != effeminate)... but then I saw it was him, and recognized him from other things. It's definitely even more noticeable if you have your eyes closed. I imagine it's most noticed on any radio appearances he might do. (Corby 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

His voice matters? I didn't find it that distinctive at all and even if it was, it certainly is not relevant or notable. Would it be reasonable to describe everyone's accent as well? There are better ways to invest our effort that writing about the tone of people's voices. -PullUpYourSocks 14:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

His voice is irrelevant if you are discussing the morality of abortion or The Party of Death. His voice IS relevant if you are discussing TV personality, Ramesh Ponnuru. He chose to appear publicly, and the public noticed the tone of his voice, that is factual. Yes, it would be reasonable to describe everyone's accent if it's unique, and Ponnuru's is unique. After all, there's plenty of talk about Truman Capote's voice. - ShadowyCabal 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On that note, do we actually need evidence that his voice has been discussed outside wikipedia? Or is the actual record of his voice evidence enough? - ShadowyCabal 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because they are public figures does not make every personal characteristic notable. Capote was partially famous in part because of his voice; it was part of his public persona. To include things like voice timbre does harm to the article and wikipedia in general. When someone goes to read about who Ramesh is and why he is important they come out knowing useless things like the timbre of his voice. -PullUpYourSocks 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, on this particular case, it seems to me that the subject's voice is an extremely notable part of his public persona. Although I'm sure Mr. Ponnuru has had considerably less attention for his effeminateness than Mr. Capote , the fact still stands that his effeminate voice is one of his most important identifiers. If it is not noteworthy this reason, than what is noteworthy?. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, his appearance on the Daily Show is one of the major contributers to the book's popularity/infamy. - ShadowyCabal 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If he were known to the general public as "that guy with the high voice" in a similar fashion as Capote, I think it would make it a reasonably notable characteristic. From what I gather the characteristic is unusual but not to any extent that he derives fame from it. I get the impression that is has been singled out because a number of Daily Show viewers thought "gee, that's kind of an effeminant voice". Perhaps there is more to it, but I don't seeing it. I have trouble distinguishing this case with say adding a line on John Malkovich's effeminant voice to his article or comment on John Kerry's large chin in his article. To me, it goes too far. In any event, unless someone else feels the same way I will leave my objection at that. --PullUpYourSocks 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Something is up with Malkovich's voice! I don't know if I'd call it effeminate, but somethings weird about it, and yes that should be addressed. And a picture of John Kerry does the job. Maybe we should have links to voice samples, and have every person say the same thing to keep it objective.- ShadowyCabal 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a term used for debate. This article is about a person and there is no subject being debated here, so there isn't a question of relevance. Only relevance to the person. This person has a high voice and it should be noted. - ShadowyCabal 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not very relevant to his person. He's been on television maybe twice. The phrasing of the sentence implies then that it is abberant to Republicans because his voice is higher than normal. The only conclusions a casual reader would make is that you're implying he's womanly (effeminate) as some sort of gay slight. None of which is true so it's POV. Unless you can present it in a NPOV way, I'll keep removing it. --waffle iron ^talk 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Time will proove me right. - ShadowyCabal 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He's actually a pretty frequent guest on public affairs and debate programs, although criticizing the tenor of his voice seems like an extremely supercilious tangent, which doesn't have any bearing on the article in question. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When we use words like "tangent" and "ad hominem" it makes it seem like the only aspects of his life that are relevant to his biography are his stances on various political issues. I think there should be a lot more to his biography. Also, no one is criticizing the tenor of his voice. It is merely being noted. His voice is womanly. That may carry gay connotations, but that does not constitute an attack. Only a hate monger thinks pointing out gay characteristics constitutes attack. - ShadowyCabal 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are other interesting aspects of his life beyond his political opinions and history as a conservative writer/pundit, but I don't see why they would merit inclusion in this article.

Aside from purely biographical details, e.g. the fact that he's married, grew up in Kansas City, graduated from Princeton University, etc., I don't see why any personal details, much less speculative, conjectural assertions that have no verifiability, should be included in this article.

Whether or not his voice is "womanly," or effeminate-and that is purely a subjective, unverifiable assessment on your part, not a verifiable fact-is immaterial to the article in question.

I would even object to placing a sentence related to the fact that he wears glasses in this article-even though that is a documented, observable fact, and not merely idle speculation-upon the basis of relevance. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, whether or not imputing feminine characteristics to a male constitutes an "attack" is immaterial to this discussion.

The point is that the assertion-even if it is not disputed, which in this case it is-is not worthy of consideration for inclusion in an article about this particular individual.

If Ramesh Ponnuru were a reasearcher into human vocal patterns, then perhaps it might merit inclusion, but since he is not it doesn't. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Would a picture of him be acceptable? Even though his appearance is completely irrelevant? - ShadowyCabal 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why there wouldn't be a photograph of him included in the article, unless there are copyright issues involved. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But he's not a model, or a movie actor. What does it matter what he looks like? Anyone who puts a photo on the article is trying to use Ramesh's ugliness to distract people from the real issues. - ShadowyCabal 23:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Publicly available photos are customary when there is an article about a public figure who makes numerous television appearances or is a well-known pundit.

I could honestly care less that you have some pre-existing political ax to grind against Mr. Ponnuru, but I strongly suggest that you keep your prejudices out of this article. Ruthfulbarbarity 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I resent the accusation. I honestly don't care about The Party of Death, or pro-life or pro-choice, or any political debate. All I care about is wikipedia and its unrelenting honesty. Now tell me, why is it customary that a TV personality requires a visual representation and not an auditory one? It seems to me that there is an unspoken arbitrary value judgement that looks are more important than sounds. - ShadowyCabal 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone is relevant to wikipedia. You must have some sort of glamourous profession or have gained notoriety by some other means. But if someone does earn a spot on wikipedia, everything about them is relevant. Does he put jam on his toast? Doesn't he put jam on his toast? If not, why not? And since when? If we had info on what car he drove in college, it should be in there. It's subjective to decide that certain aspects of his life are more relevant than others. When someone steps into the public eye and points fingers, he no longer has personal info. This is why its perfectly acceptable to talk about Cheney's gay daughter. There's no such thing as an ad hominem when you are giving someone's full biography.

Anyway, Ponnuru has an effeminate voice. Everyone I know who's heard him has noticed. You haven't noticed? Are you deaf? - ShadowyCabal 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You can resent it all you want, so long as you heed my advice.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia does link to the audio archives-or to websites hosting them-of radio personalities.

See Rush Limbaugh and Mike Malloy.

Since Ramesh Ponnuru is not a radio personality I don't see what exactly you're suggesting we do.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And no, you do not need to hold a "glamorous" profession in order to merit an article on Wikipedia.

Eric Rudolph and Charles Manson do not have glamorous vocations-or any vocation at all, unless being an incarcerated murderer is a vocation-and yet they still have Wikipedia articles devoted to their lives.

So on that count your reasoning fails.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they would fall into the "gaining notoriety by other means" category but that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is no matter how a person became suitable for wikipedia, EVERYTHING about them is suitable for their article. Not only do I think Ramesh's voice is not a personal matter, he doesn't have the right to personal matters. His voice is high and its not a matter of opinion, so why isn't it in the article? - ShadowyCabal 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not the case, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.

If we were to put every aspect of a person's life-every minute interest, every single even marginally notable accomplishment-into that person's article then editing Wikipedia would be a nearly impossible endeavor.

Differentiating between important and unimportant information, or distinguishing between vital and peripheral information, is one of the duties we are tasked with as Wikipedians.

Even if we were to create a "trivia" section-which is appropriate in certain biographical articles, although probably not in this case-the inflection of Ponnuru's voice would not meet the criteria for inclusion under that category.

Ruthfulbarbarity 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/m/Talk%7ERamesh_Ponnuru_e2fe.html"

Categories: Unassessed India articles | Unassessed India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | Biography articles of living people | Unassessed biography articles

Talk:Ramesh Ponnuru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents