Talk:David Brock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Changing the beginning sentence

I have a problem with this line: "...now works to dismantle the conservative media machine he was once part of." That doesn't sound like a NPOV line. It someone's "opinion" if you think the media is mostly "conservative" or "liberal." -- DraQue Star

Surely it's not a comment on the media as a whole, but on the sections that Brock was a part of. Unless one subscribes to the belief that the media is wholly or mainly conservative or liberal, we all have to admit that both blocks have their own media machines. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.78 (talk • contribs) .
I took that sentence out while transfering the phrase "conservative media machine" (I'm guessing it's Brook's.) to the next sentence. The introduction makes it clear enough that he is working against the conservative media. I also made a couple minor changes to wording without removing information. I hope that gives a more neutral tone. BTW in general I think an article should have a positive tone towards its subject. That makes it more interesting to read. Steve Dufour 14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - older

I removed the "nuetrality of this article is disputed" label left by 4.158.63.161. Because, really, the neutrality of this article hasn't been disputed--apparently not even by him! Not one posting was added to this page, let alone one which accused the article of a non-NPOV. If he wants that label added, let him contest it here. Ex1le 06:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found that the following statement "and describes how it operates in The Republican Noise Machine," lacks the NPOV. It would be more neutral, I believe, to say, "and describes how he believes it operates..." because otherwise, it seems like it's affirming his statement that there really is a "Republican Noise Machine" as he says there is and/or that it opperates just the way he describes in his book. I'd change it, but I'm afraid of being charged with vandalism. User:Epiphone83 22:07, 28 August 2005
Added "his book" before "Republican Noise Machine" to make it clear that it is his book being referred to, not any proposed "Republican Noise Machine" itself. Tzepish 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - March 2007

If a user inserted the label, that means he has disputed the neutrality of the article. In any event, this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a press release that merely echoes Brock's own recent revision of events. Adding a ghetto of "critical" links does not change that. Heck, even many Democratic journalists currently consider Brock dishonest. 70.23.199.239 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that between my changing the tag and writing my explanation for doing so, my change has already been censored. Somebody is stalking me. 70.23.199.239 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's review events:
  • At 20:24, 3 March 2007, you deleted the cleanup tag and added an NPOV tag to the article
  • At 21:08, 3 March 2007 - 44 minutes later, I removed the NPOV tag for lack of any explanation on the article talk page and put the cleanup tag back up (if you think the page doesn't need any cleanup, then say so in the section below, please).
  • At 23:00, 3 March 2007, more than 2 1/2 hours after you posted the NPOV tag, you posted an explanation on the user talk page.
Precisely why do you think that you're entitled to post a tag without explaining it? Or is your argument that other editors should wait several hours to see if you're going to come back and explain?
May I suggest that next time, you post on the talk page first, saying the article is NPOV, and then put the tag up? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just restored the NPOV tag, while leaving in the Cleanup tag. Any wagers on how much time passes, before my edit is again censored?
70.23.199.239 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to explain your problems with the article so that we may better address its neutrality? Tzepish 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed Epiphone83's concerns in the section above, and as it stands now, all NPOV complaints on this page have been resolved. 70.23.199.239, please post here again explaining your concerns with the POV of this article, if indeed you still have any. If this is not done, I will go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. In the future, please post an explanation when adding a NPOV tag so that editors may address your concerns. Tzepish 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dropped links

Dropped this link:

The WP has presumably moved this article to their pay-per-view archive. Ellsworth

Dropped:

New Yorker has apparently taken down a lot of its recently-published material, presumably in preparation for the rollout of its archive page. Ellsworth 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

This page is a mess, with many redundancies, syntax errors. Help me clean it up.Rhinoracer 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What a mess.

[edit] Mental breakdown?

Didn't Brock have a mental breakdown about the time that he was under pressure to produce a book and subsequently came out of the closet? I think so. Some of this should be in his biography. --Blue Tie 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Brock was reportedly institutionalized for a period of time (source --->"I am not going to comment on private medical matters," said Brock.). But good luck getting this published in the article. The liberals will never allow it. D323P 18:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anti-Anita Hill book

Sure, he would agree today. But when he wrote it, he would likely have said that it was merely an exposé, not an attack. (And while he does characterize it as a hatchet job today, he has not pointed out any factual errors in it, his self-criticism has been limited to tone and slant.) Anyway, the point is, this sentence works perfectly fine without the prefix "anti", it is indisputably NPOV if the prefix is left out, and no information is lost by doing so. The fact that it's "anti" Hill is pretty easy to pick up by reading the whole paragraph. Anyway, those are my thoughts upon this occasion of reversion. As always, I am open to more discussion if you disagree. Unschool 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adopted?

The article says he was "adopted as an infant." Although it is uncited I am sure that this was added in good faith that it is true. However it does seem like a kind of odd thing to say when almost nothing else is said about his life before college. Steve Dufour 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the reason for saying this to imply that his being adopted contributed to his homosexuality? Otherwise I don't see why it is so important that it was put back, without a cite or any discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The source for this info was probably his book Blinded by the Right.Reelm (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)