Talk:Dana Priest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

Contents

[edit] Above the fold

I reverted an edit that struck this phrase, which I believe was based on a simple misunderstanding. The above the fold article did not mention an important -- imo most important -- meaning of this phrase. For highly respected papers, like, the Washington Post, placement of an article above the fold reflects a decision on the part of the editors that this would be one of the day's most important stories. Their judgement has certainly been proven true. The story was very widely quoted.

The old version of the "above the fold" article only offered the interpretation that editors placed articles above the fold as a cynical sales ploy. The edit summary of the editor who removed the phrase reflected this cynical, IMO, minor meaning of the phrase.

I modified the "above the fold" article to include this important meaning. -- Geo Swan 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Please, stop talking about yourself in the third person. You ARE "The Author". And so far you've proven yourself to be a fairly intolerant and hypocritical editor. It's irrelevant. Unless you offer some supporting context...I.E. - "the decision to put it above the fold was somewhat vindicated by the continuing controversy and coverage", then it goes. Otherwise it's practically a non-sequitur. Kade 18:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please indent your followup comments as per the convention, as a courtesy to readers who try to follow our discussion.
Please don't level angry accusations at me. I have been civil to you and I call on the same from you. I completely deny the accusation that I have shown you intolerance or hypocracy.
Please confine your discussion to the issues in the article. Please refrain from making personal reflections.
I want you to recognize that I showed you the courtesy of assuming that you initially cut the phrase "above the fold" based on a simple misunderstanding, an honest mistake. I considered responding to your second, unexplained excision last night with a second reversion. I decided not to. I am not going to struggle over every single unimportant phrase. But, I won't put up with personal attacks.
You have called me "anti-American". Take a look at this article. Think about it. If I really was an editor trying to use the wikipedia to push an "anti-American" agenda, I would have gone to town with repetitions of loaded phrases about torture, the suspension of rights, the use of tainted evidence. Ms Priest has written about all these things -- in a professional manner. If I was truly a bad editor, pushing a POV agenda, I would have gone to town, harping on those aspects of her publishing history. Did you check this article to check my contributions for expressions of an anti-American bias? You didn't find one, did you?
While I aim to confine my contributions to a neutral point of view, I won't try to fool myself, or anyone else, that I succeed 100% of the time. But no one does. I am sure that you or Zoe don't succeed 100% of time. In the last couple of days I have encouraged you, several times, to be civil and specific about what you find questionable. I am going to encourage you again, to be civil and specific about your concerns. And I going to encourage you to refrain from leveling angry accusations.
As for your complaint about my use of the third person... Are you sure you are complaining to the right person? I checked my edits and edit summaries in this article. I don't see where I have misused the third person. -- Geo Swan 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "foot soldier" != "regular infantry"

You aren't familiar with the term "foot soldier"? Take a look at google's response when you search the news for "foot soldier". My rough count is that close to half of the links to foot soldier use the term to mean something other than "regular infantry". You have never heard of the phrase "mafia foot soldier"? Are you saying you really didn't understand that I used the phrase to distinguish the 30 al qaeda suspects in CIA custody who are believed to members of the top ranks of the al qaeda leadership from those other suspected al qaeda members, in CIA custody, who were not believed to be members of the al qaeda leadership? If you really didn't understand, then maybe other readers won't understand. So, that passage should be rewritten. No better phrasing occurs to me. I'll think about it. Maybe you can think about it too.

Meanwhile I am going to restore the phrase "foot soldier", because your replacement phrase is more confusing because it is simply incorrect. Al qaeda didn't have any regular infantry. I am only going to change the phrase once. I am not going to be dragged into a pointless revision war. Please don't merely replace your alternate wording, without making a good faith to explain yourself on the talk page, as you did with your second revision of "above the fold". -- Geo Swan 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant to me. Have your little page of POV, I'm done trying to clean up after your garbage. Kade 00:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Ms Priest's husband's occupation really that relevant?

Is Ms Priest's husband's occupation really that relevant that it should be included in an article about her? Ms Priest is a notable person, because of her record of notable articles, books, and her television appearances. But her husband isn't. Even if he is doing significant, important work, his work hasn't met the wikipedia's criteria for notability, in its own right. It is not like he is a CIA agent who has been outed by rogues. I suggest, as a courtesy, we comply with the request to excise the information about Ms Priest's husband's occupation -- unless someone can come up with a good explanation why it is important. -- Geo Swan 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user from User:143.231.249.141 has made three edits to this article;
  1. On December 4]] 2005 they described Ms Priest's husband's occupation.
  2. When that information was removed, at a family member's request, they restored a more limited version of that information, on December 22, 2005.
  3. On January 6, 2006 they removed the adjectives "important" and "prestigious", claiming they were POV.
Well, it turns out that this anonymous IP address is registered to the US House of Representatives, and has a history of being blocked for vandalism. Every single edit to User talk:143.231.249.141 concerns vandalism or questionable edits. Note to my American friends -- your tax dollars at work.
I removed the information about Ms Priest's husband's occupation. -- Geo Swan 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ms Priest's husband is very notable, and he is already indirectly referenced in Wikipedia as Executive Director of the Center for International Policy. His name isn't linked in that article but that will undoubtedly change as more facts come out.
Could you give us more info on "a family member's request"? As you know, I've advocated respect for maintaining privacy of non-public figures.
As for our "tax dollars at work," perhaps that other poster's activities should be honored as whistleblowing. :-) -- Randy2063 04:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see that "edit requested by member of family". It's very intriguing but I don't know what to make of it. -- Randy2063 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I added back the info about her husband. He's a lot more noteworthy than a lot of the non-public figures who've gotten their own articles based on minor incidents. I've also looked at the other contributions from the user who deleted it based on a supposed request from the family, and I see no reason to trust their intentions, given the later activities. Interestingly, it's from a Virginia IP, although that many not necessarily mean anything. -- Randy2063 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As for the credibility of edits from User:71.241.232.151 -- do you use a whois page? If I am interpreting the result it offers when I searched for whois info on 71.241.232.151 I think it is saying it is an IP address assigned to Verizon's dialup pool. The three questionable edits you allude to were all made within one five minute stretch about three weeks after the edit from the contributor who said they had received a request from a family member of Ms Priest. I believe what we have here are two edit sessions from two distinct dialup users, on two separate occasions. In this case I don't believe it is possible to learn anything about the edit history of these two contributors other edit sessions.
Doesn't Verizon serve subscribers from across the USA -- not just Virginia?
I am trying to pick what I will spend energy disputing. But I will say that I find your position here puzzling. -- Geo Swan 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree that those other posts don't necessarily mean anything. And even if it was the same office or home, they could still be two different people. Whether that IP means it really came in from around Reston is another puzzle. That might make it more likely that the family connection wasn't a put-on, if only marginally so.
But my first point is still true. Her husband is not an otherwise anonymous person. His business interests are in the public sphere, and they intersect with hers. It's very relevant to her job, and no different than if her husband was another kind of activist or lobbyist. Such a connection shouldn't be covered up. He's not simply on the left. He's waaaaaay out there.
I actually find your position puzzling. William Goodfellow is far more of a public figure than Carolyn Wood.
-- Randy2063 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I revised the use of the loaded words "claim" and "allege" in order to gain a more NPOV. I noted that the descriptions of the content of Priest's articles had these words, but the descriptions of contradictory articles did not. This is not NPOV. Zaslav 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated/dead references and external links

External bio links #1 and #2 seem to be several years old. External link # 3 on Mary McCarthy is no longer supported by the Washington Post (although it should be available via the Post's archive search function for a fee). References list item # 4 is a dead link. (Catawba 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC))