Talk:Sidney Blumenthal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| 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. | ||
I am wondering if prehaps someone could go into some details about his feud with Christopher Hitchens?
I thought the feud was between Sidney's son, Max, and Hitchens
Since so many articles about journalists devote considerable space to the alleged political leanings of the subject (see, for example, Brit Hume), I wish someone could document the highly politicized nature of Mr. Blumenthal's writing. WBcoleman 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ive added a little bit on his political leanings, which are liberal (though I think its inappropriate to ascribe a word to describe someones political leanings. To address this Ive just written that some people say his work as controversial and it is generally critical of the Republican party. LordHarris 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blumenthal and Starr
The claim that Blumenthal's criticism of Kenneth Starr caused a drop in support for the Starr is sourced to Blumenthal's own book. WP wouldn't let Blumenthal edit such a statement into his own article... why should a book written by him be a sufficient source on an arguable point? --207.230.140.240 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- An IP user just removed this claim. I think that is a fair call. Blumenthal's book could be cited for the proposition that "Blumenthal claimed in his book, xxxxx, that..." if the fact that he claimed it merits mention, but it shouldn't be used as a source for the proposition that what Blumenthal claimed happened actually did happen. If Blumenthal's statements caused a loss of public support for Starr, we should look to a third party source to confirm that. Wikidemo (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DWI
Let's keep a sense of perspective here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Many people have a DWI arrest, and in nearly every case it isn't appropriate to mention because it bears no significant relationship to their notability, or why anyone would want to read an article about them. Thus, going in to specific details is almost certainly unnecessary, and in a short article about an important person is unbalanced. This is a current news story. In the long run he will be exonerated or not, receive a particular sentence or not, and that will be that. Covering the case, the evidence, the possible penalties, etc., is unimportant in the end. It's probably worth mentioning in this case because he was on official business working for a major presidential candidate, it was widely reported, and there is some logical connection however tenuous between the process of running for president and the discipline and moral / legal behavior of the candidate's staff. But only a very slight connection 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Those comments are all just matter of opinion. Wikipedia HAS to treat everyone fairly equally. Now, there are tons of examples where Republicans get a DWI and there are long, long paragraphs on the incident. This is a fact. Now, Blumenthal is known by most everyone as the Clinton enforcer. He was summoned every time there a "bimbo eruption" to track down dirt on the woman coming forward to complain about Bill Clinton's aggressive behavior toward women. The DWI is notable and it should have its own section. It should not buried as a little footnote at the end. There is no way that Blumenthal himself would have let Linda Tripp get away with a little tiny footnote mention of a DWI, if he was editing Wikipedia. Also, you are dead wrong in your statement that "Many people have a DWI arrest, and in nearly every case it isn't appropriate to mention because it bears no significant relationship to their notability". For example, the Bush Twins are notable because they are daughters of the President. But for the longest time their article was dominated by the beer drinking incident of a 19 year old. No, they did not get ticket with a Aggravated DWI, doing 70 in a 35, (which is much, much more serious offense) but drinking beer at 19. Other examples are too numerous to mention but let's just over a few: (1) Britney Spears, (2) Al Gore III, (3) George W. Bush, (4) Mel Gibson, (5) Lindsey Lohan, (6) Patrick Kennedy, (7) Dick Cheney, (8) Gordon Campbell, current Premier of British Columbia (complete with mugshot), (9) Paris Hilton, (10) Tony La Russa, (11) Robert Downey Jr., etc. Wikipedia has even dedicated a whole article to Mel Gibson's DWI. See Mel Gibson DUI incident. Why? Well, how about the fact that he is a conservative? Yes, the way that different people are treated across Wikipedia does matter. Consistency will apply. We are not going to bury the Enforcers' Aggravated DWI just because he is a liberal and he is working for Clinton. What is good for the conservative goose is good for the liberal gander. Besides, it does not fit into "Post Clinton Years." It has nothing to do with his work, but everything to do with his driving and the FACT that he was leaving a Clinton rally. It has notability written all over it: (1) his past behavior toward his political opponents, (2) the seriousness of the offense, (3) the fact that he was driving from a Clinton rally to his hotel while he was hammered, (4) not only was he drunk but he was significantly over the speed limit.--InaMaka (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's no reason for this to have its own section. A subsection is not the equivalent of "burying it in a footnote". It's there for all to see in the table of contents. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I was writing a comment but you commented before me. I agree with your compromise edit. However, let's be clear I NEVER stated that your edit was "burying", but I did say and I stand by it that Wikidemo's move of the info to the end of Post-Clinton years without some kind of markings was "burying." You made a good compromise, but once again I never commented on the "subsection" because you just made the edit a few minutes AFTER my comments of 23:05 14 January 2008 (UTC).--InaMaka (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's no reason for this to have its own section. A subsection is not the equivalent of "burying it in a footnote". It's there for all to see in the table of contents. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those comments are all just matter of opinion. Wikipedia HAS to treat everyone fairly equally. Now, there are tons of examples where Republicans get a DWI and there are long, long paragraphs on the incident. This is a fact. Now, Blumenthal is known by most everyone as the Clinton enforcer. He was summoned every time there a "bimbo eruption" to track down dirt on the woman coming forward to complain about Bill Clinton's aggressive behavior toward women. The DWI is notable and it should have its own section. It should not buried as a little footnote at the end. There is no way that Blumenthal himself would have let Linda Tripp get away with a little tiny footnote mention of a DWI, if he was editing Wikipedia. Also, you are dead wrong in your statement that "Many people have a DWI arrest, and in nearly every case it isn't appropriate to mention because it bears no significant relationship to their notability". For example, the Bush Twins are notable because they are daughters of the President. But for the longest time their article was dominated by the beer drinking incident of a 19 year old. No, they did not get ticket with a Aggravated DWI, doing 70 in a 35, (which is much, much more serious offense) but drinking beer at 19. Other examples are too numerous to mention but let's just over a few: (1) Britney Spears, (2) Al Gore III, (3) George W. Bush, (4) Mel Gibson, (5) Lindsey Lohan, (6) Patrick Kennedy, (7) Dick Cheney, (8) Gordon Campbell, current Premier of British Columbia (complete with mugshot), (9) Paris Hilton, (10) Tony La Russa, (11) Robert Downey Jr., etc. Wikipedia has even dedicated a whole article to Mel Gibson's DWI. See Mel Gibson DUI incident. Why? Well, how about the fact that he is a conservative? Yes, the way that different people are treated across Wikipedia does matter. Consistency will apply. We are not going to bury the Enforcers' Aggravated DWI just because he is a liberal and he is working for Clinton. What is good for the conservative goose is good for the liberal gander. Besides, it does not fit into "Post Clinton Years." It has nothing to do with his work, but everything to do with his driving and the FACT that he was leaving a Clinton rally. It has notability written all over it: (1) his past behavior toward his political opponents, (2) the seriousness of the offense, (3) the fact that he was driving from a Clinton rally to his hotel while he was hammered, (4) not only was he drunk but he was significantly over the speed limit.--InaMaka (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I also cleaned up the mention of the Blumenthal v. Drudge incident. The claim of spousal abuse was clearly false so using the phrase "beat up his wife" is unwarranted. The case is not a significant libel law case. It was resolved on very common principles with no change to the law, and is not any kind of watershed - the sources do not support the claim that it was "portentious." The issues in the ruling had to do with personal jurisdiction and common carrier law. The ruling did not require the apology or settlement, which was over a sanction for missing a deposition. Wikidemo (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't have a problem with these changes.--InaMaka (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] April, 2008
Look, the blow-by-blow account of which test he passed and failed, how fast he was driving, how long he lost his driver's license, the dates of each judicial process, the amount of fine he paid, etc., are utterly irrelevant and unnecessary details. This is supposed to be an article that explains the salient details of the person's life and career. We do not need to know all of that. It is entirely out of proportion to the coverage of other details of his life. Creating a heading out of it makes it one of only a few headings in the article. I'm tempted to say it shouldn't be included at all. I just looked up a statistic that as of 2000 there were 1,400,000 DWI arrests in America per year. Making some assumptions and taking into account 50% are repeat offenders, that means 20% or so of all Americans will have a DWI arrest at some point in their lives. Do we want to add full DWI arrest coverage to 1/5 of all the biographical articles on Wikipedia? I think not. The only relevance here is that this became a (very) minor scandal and news story, particularly among the conservative press, because he was a top advisor to Hillary Clinton and was out on the campaign trail when it happened. So it's probably okay to mention it in that context, but it's a rather significant WP:BLP violation to use a single relatively minor misdemeanor conviction a primary focus of a biography article, or as a way of disparaging him or the presidential candidate he was working for at the time. One question about the notability of articles and relevance of information is "would anyone care to read about this 100 years from now"? 100 years from now somebody might care about Sidney Blumenthal, but nobody will care one bit that he was convicted of DWI. Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree. In the context of being on the campaign trail, one small sentance is enough, to report the fact. Any more is blatant defiance of WP:BLP. LordHarris 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Dear Wikidemo and LordHarris: You might be right, but until this article: Mel Gibson DUI incident then Mr. Blumenthal's drinking and driving habits are fair game. Philsophically, I agree with your points of view. But the Mel Gibson article points out clearly that by Wikipedia standards long detailed discussions of drinking and driving are not beyond the pale of Wikipedia. Now, I know that in good faith both of you are more than willing to argue to have the Mel Gibson article removed if you both are so determined to clean up Mr. Blumenthal's image--because it is clear that both of you are truly worried about the image of Wikipedia and not the partisan reputation of a well-known Democrat. You both want to see the reputation of a well-known conservative like Mr. Gibson protected to, don't you both?? I'm sure that you do.--InaMaka (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're talking about but please don't edit war over inserting BLP violations into Wikipedia. I am removing again. Please DO NOT keep adding this. Wikidemo (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that Wikidemo seems to believe that it is ok to engage in an edit war. He has not responded to the drinking and driving issues raised by the Mel Gibson article. I will be reverting to the previous version. Please take your desire to eliminate new information to arbitration. Please DO NOT keep removing new reliably sourced information about Blumenthal's drinking and driving habits. Please read: Wikipedia does not censor.--InaMaka (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're talking about but please don't edit war over inserting BLP violations into Wikipedia. I am removing again. Please DO NOT keep adding this. Wikidemo (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not for censoring the information! I just think it needs to be more concise, so as not add weight in relation to the other areas within the article. At the end of the day , whats there is not libel (so long as it isnt out of proportion), its the truth so there should definately be a mention of it. As to its extent, I think that requires further discussion here, rather than with edit reverts. Lets keep the page as it is for now and discuss here, before making any changes. Hopefully we can avoid a real edit war! LordHarris 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted again as a BLP violation. Even if we were working on consensus there is no consensus to include the information; however, BLP as a policy that is not up for debate. The state of the Mel Gibson article has nothing to do with this one so I won't comment on whether that article follows policy or not. However, Mel Gibson's situation is completely different. His conduct at the arrest itself was notable, and one could not convey the significance of the event without saying what he did. Here, the only thing that made the event notable was, as I said, that it involved an advisor to a Presidential candidate and we are in an election season. Throughout Wikipedia people seem to be bent on adding material that disparages the various candidates and political operatives and we need to take a firm line on that. InaMaka is trying to debate aggressively and his/her points about censorship and Mel Gibson don't make a whole lot of sense. I cannot imagine that the proposed addition would pass any kind of administrative oversight or review process.Wikidemo (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- "BLP as a policy that is not up for debate". Ah, but it is. Since you are such a champion of the policy, why don't you come over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#the_slippery_slope_of_having_a_.22distress.22_policy_over_and_above_a_reliable_source_policy and defend it?Bdell555 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted again as a BLP violation. Even if we were working on consensus there is no consensus to include the information; however, BLP as a policy that is not up for debate. The state of the Mel Gibson article has nothing to do with this one so I won't comment on whether that article follows policy or not. However, Mel Gibson's situation is completely different. His conduct at the arrest itself was notable, and one could not convey the significance of the event without saying what he did. Here, the only thing that made the event notable was, as I said, that it involved an advisor to a Presidential candidate and we are in an election season. Throughout Wikipedia people seem to be bent on adding material that disparages the various candidates and political operatives and we need to take a firm line on that. InaMaka is trying to debate aggressively and his/her points about censorship and Mel Gibson don't make a whole lot of sense. I cannot imagine that the proposed addition would pass any kind of administrative oversight or review process.Wikidemo (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Wikidemo and LordHarris: You might be right, but until this article: Mel Gibson DUI incident then Mr. Blumenthal's drinking and driving habits are fair game. Philsophically, I agree with your points of view. But the Mel Gibson article points out clearly that by Wikipedia standards long detailed discussions of drinking and driving are not beyond the pale of Wikipedia. Now, I know that in good faith both of you are more than willing to argue to have the Mel Gibson article removed if you both are so determined to clean up Mr. Blumenthal's image--because it is clear that both of you are truly worried about the image of Wikipedia and not the partisan reputation of a well-known Democrat. You both want to see the reputation of a well-known conservative like Mr. Gibson protected to, don't you both?? I'm sure that you do.--InaMaka (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
