From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Comments

Wot no mention of her assertion: bloggers are stasi?

[edit] NPOV Problems

This article reads as if it was written by Brown herself. Were a reader to judge solely by this article, he could reasonably conclude that Tina Brown is the greatest editor in the history of the magazine industry. She improves readership and recruits remarkable talent wherever she goes -- and she only leaves/resigns because she must move on to greater things (chairmanships! book contracts!). Apparently, Talk magazine would have been a remarkable success if it weren't for that darn 9/11. Damn you, terrorists!

Seriously, I don't deny Brown's successes, but this article has huge omissions. Not everything Brown touches has turned to gold. Most glaringly, the article barely acknowledges the marked contention that marked her stint at the New Yorker -- supposedly the only critics are the dead weight that she "let go" from the magazine. It would also be difficult to find credible contemporary accounts that characterized Talk as an unmitigated success, even pre-9/11. I tried to address POV issues in the other sections, but the "Editing career" section will take more concerted work. I've placed the POV warning on it for now.

The article also seems to give an odd amount of weight to Brown's dating life. I haven't touched this for the most part because I don't know enough about her to say how much weight her romances hold in the makeup of her public persona. TPIRman 05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some references to her critics and controversy in the New Yorker section, making it somewhat more balanced.

Nbarth 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How comes she to be a "Lady" when not a holder of a noble title nor married to a holder of a noble title? The man to whom she is married is a knight and not a noble. Is she not not then a "Dame"? I understand that there are a few atypical Orders of Nobility wherein the wife of a knight is styled "Lady" and not "Dame", but if her husband is a member of one of these Orders can the Wikipedia article about him please be edited to include the proper initials after his name so that readers can ascertain to which Order he belongs (if any)? See query from me this date and time at the Wikipedia article on "Lady", which has problems.64.131.188.104Christopher L. Simpson —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with TPIRman, the first commentator, that this original article was far too biased in favour of Tina Brown. I added in some information about 'The Diana Chronicles' with some information regarding unfavourable critical reviews AND THIS WAS DELETED BY SOMEONE? WHY? Ivankinsman 10:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added in some additional information regarding Talk magazine and The Diana Chronicles and sourced references to TB's work as a newspaper columnist. It will be interesting to see if this stays in this article or if it too will be deleted. Ivankinsman 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, with this and all biographies of living persons, Wikipedia has to be extra special careful about the criticism because of libel. I know this was already changed by another user, but I think using the word "payoff" is walking that line. Additionally, NPOV doesn't just mean having one quote by a supporter and one by a detractor, it means staying neutral the whole way through, so just adding nasty comments from the Telegraph doesn't do much to fix the article. I don't think the artilce needs a NPOV flag, but just that users need to be careful.

Additionally, I'd like to ultimately take out and all the long quotes, not add more, especially with regard to her book. I would perfer to replace them with full paragraphs. In particular, would you block moving one of the sour quotes from "The return of the media queen" to the subpage? Or if I changed the word "enemies", since this isn't a war? Additionally, do we need two separate quotes from the same poor Telegraph review on the Diana Chronicles article? They're the first and last quotes there. Understand that I'm not trying to undermine your edits or promote another user's view of Tina Brown, just to follow some reasonable style.--Samsknee 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it, I see that the information under the Diana Chronicles section was copy/pasted from the referenced article. I believe any Wikipedian can tell you that such activity is not allowed. In bold letters below the edit box it says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." I will try to adjust it for your somewhat biased viewpoint to reflect the Observer article, but don't act surprised when such copyright infringement content is deleted in the future.

Secondly, I am seriously concerned with the use of unnamed subjects here. "One Brown watcher" and "A senior editor at the Times" and "a leading British broadsheet" do not lead to verifiblility.--Samsknee (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, ref. this second point. If a leading newspaper editor is prepared to run with this information, then I thought it would be appropriate here. After all, newspapers, just like Wikipedia, have to ensure verification of their sources/accuracy of their information. Would like your viewpoint ... Ivankinsman (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)