Talk:Judith Regan

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.

Contents

[edit] Rumour

It is rumored that Ms. Regan is manipulative, agressive, and/or vindictive in her business practices. Perhaps this could be addressed in an objective manner. 21:26, 20 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqmillar (talk • contribs)

We can just cut and paste whatever is under Donald Trump. I dont know what I had written before, bacause it was deleted as being "not notable" 21:56, 20 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

[edit] Referenced/Sourced in the Washington Post

This article was mentioned in a recent Washington Post article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401237_3.html

Just thought I should mention it. --Joewithajay 11:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link?

The link to the Vanity Fair article referenced here doesn't work.

[edit] Revert war

Why were my edits reverted? I sourced my material from the New York Daily News. Everything I wrote was NPOV. 01:13, 21 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk • contribs) .

This is not an appropriate addition: Their affair was consummated many times in a New York apartment that was donated for the relief of 9/11 rescuers. At the time, Kerik was shtupping Jeanette Pinero in the same apartment. That's salacious and unnecessary. Depending an entire paragraph describing an affair gives undue weight to that episode, which really figures more in the life of Bernard Kerik than in Ms. Regan's. I also think I was entirely justified in reverting an edit to a talk page in which a user (me) was described as a "wiki Nazi." Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it is pertinent to the article (although perhaps not in such "salacious" terms) because an affair with the now very very troubled Kerik is another example of Regan's really awful judgment. Read about in an article about Kerik, immediately connected it to the OJ book and considered it a pattern.--208.58.3.202 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firing

I think we should get the termination out of the first paragraph, where it currently plays a far too prominent role -- her career still outweighs her termination; the focus should be on big picture, not the story of the day.

Also, I'm not so sure we should be saying she "was" a publisher - just because a pitcher gets cut from the Yankees doesn't mean he "was" an athlete; there are other baseball teams and there are other publishing houses. Given Regan's status, talent and profile, I'd be surprised if she didn't quickly find work elsewhere.

Any objections before I make these edits? Editor Emeritus 06:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article, including removing the firing (per se) from the lead section; I also agree that she still IS a publisher, albeit an unemployed one at the moment. Feel free to edit further, of course. John Broughton | Talk 16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semetic people?

I also removed the Anti-Semetic people category that was applied to her name. It is unclear at this point if she is guilty of making the statements that are claimed and Wikipedia policy is careful to avoid putting information in a biography of a living person that could be libel or slanderous. 66.75.8.138 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that Ms Regan could say things of that nature when she hangs around the likes of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and sometimes goes to his house on Sabbath. NiceDoggie 13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if what is quoted in the article is truly what she said, these are hardly the words of a virulent antisemite (though Regan is already loathsome for a whole host of other reasons). "Ganging up", "finding common enemies" and "telling the big lie" are clearly intended as references to past actions against Jews (by the Nazis): the statement is comparable to saying "one would think African-Americans, of all people, would understand that people must not be treated as slaves."
Comparing your Jewish supervisors to Nazis is clearly not a wise move, but I can't see any sensible interpretation of her words that could be taken as a slight against Jews generally, or against individuals because they were Jewish. --Saforrest 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article really neutral?

First of all, I'm not saying that I find this person sympathetic or that I, personally, like her or the people similar to her in the City, but this article reads like a smear campaign. People are even using the NY Daily News as a source. Now, I understand, if you're not from NYC, you might think that this is a credible, well-regarded newspaper. It's not. It's yellow journalism at it's worst, full of rumor-mongering and gossip. This is not the kind of source that a serious encyclopedia should be using.

Why is her personality discussed here? Why is she called a plump, angry woman? I mean, how does this actually help someone doing research? Why aren't there any quotes from her (hypothetical) Jewish friends, telling me how she would never have said anything anti-Semitic? I assume such friends exist and have said such things in support of her. Instead, all we get are nasty comments about her weight and temper.

This is a horrible article. I would have expected better from Wikipedia, based on its rhetoric for being neutral and having no POV. Maybe this woman deserves the criticism that she's gotten in this article (I make no statement for or against this), but an encyclopedia is not the place for character assassination, rumors, or insults; when Wikipedia is striving for credibility in the world, this is doubly true.

I would fix the article myself. However, I fear that my edits would simply be reverted, as this article seems to have a pretty long history of heaping on the abuse with no reversions. So, I will argue my case here, first, in an attempt to gain some support for my position.

Why this article?; because I ended up here and I was annoyed by it. No other reason. 69.11.189.85 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

This page needs to be re-edited quite a bit for neutrality. A source that would be quite helpful is her recently filed complaint for defamation against her former employers. This includes many instances of inconsistencies and changes in the stories behind her firing, many of which she documents with reference to other neutral sources. The NY daily and other sources cited here that portray her negatively are owned by News Corp, so that probably should be pointed out somewhere. One could also add that the O.J. book went on to be released anyway and was a bestseller. The complaint also details the praise heaped on Regan and the many awards she received prior to being fired and attacked by fox et all, which aren't really necessary, but would help make this more neutral. The complaint only has a few lines about Giuliani, explaining that the link to him is motivation for the campaign against her. It is mainly describing all the defamation. A

s far as the complaint goes, in my mind her allegations there, even if not independently documented, have a higher degree of credibility than many news sources. She could face major problems (i need to research to find out exactly what; it may be that civil complaints have tort liability, but i am sure she would be liable for SOMETHING if she made it all up) if it's just a bunch of lies. Perhaps more importantly, her lawyer could face sanctions if later on it's shown that her factual claims were falsehoods that the lawyer did not investigate or investigated insufficiently. Finally, I do not think that Regan, as a sane person, would file a complaint taking on a powerful corporation with control over a media empire unless she was sure she could back it up and defend herself against the onslaught she is about to face.

I will do this when i get a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McCabe H (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a general cleanup, but well-sourced statements should be left in as long as they conform to WP:BLP, whether they're positive or negative. I'd be against letting this recent lawsuit take over the article.
Wellspring (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Regan herself is Jewish."

Is there any evidence of that? Footnote 15 contains a quote from the director of the ADL stating that Regan "clearly stepped over the line by employing the age-old anti-Semitic canard that Jews conspire against non-Jews." Why would he phrase his criticism like that if she were Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.154.224 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)