Talk:Alessandra Stanley

RfC

I have placed a notice at RfC regarding this article. Perhaps that is premature, but I'm hoping that this different tactic will end this dispute quickly and satisfactorily.

The dispute involves a lengthy quote regarding the film Stolen Honor. My position is that this quote is not relevant to Stanley and does not belong in this article. This quote is one of many opinions Stanley has written in thousands of articles penned by her. There is nothing special or particularly important about this one. She is not a player in the controversy about Stolen Honor. If anything, this quote belongs in the SH article, not here. As I stated in my first edit summary: "Stanley's encyclopedic notability does not rest on her thoughts on Stolen Honor from one article among hundreds and thus is of no relevance here; add it to SH if you must". To which Rex replied "Gamaliel since when are you the expert on what makes her notable?" I am not, and neither is Rex, and that doesn't address the point at all.

He also wrote "Also, you contend SH/Sinclair scandal, therefor A.S. role in it is notable", which makes no sense to me, but perhaps is a reference to the ongoing dispute at Stolen Honor. Other articles should stand on their own, not be used to bolster a particular POV position at another article.

I would appreciate the thoughts of any third party on this matter. Gamaliel 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Omit the quotation. I think Rex left a couple words out of his comment, and that what he meant to write was: "Also, you contend SH/Sinclair scandal [is notable], therefor A.S. role in it is notable". By that logic, the Stanley article should include a quotation from her about every notable matter that she's written about. For example, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse was certainly notable, so if Rex were being consistent he'd want to add this quotation to the Stanley article:

"The Torture Question" methodically makes the case that pressure to wring more information out of prisoners came from the highest echelons of the White House and the Pentagon, well before the 2003 invasion of Iraq with captives from Afghanistan held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and worked its way down to the lowliest, most ill-trained soldiers. [1]

Obviously, there'd be no justification for selecting only the quotations that put Democrats in a bad light. JamesMLane 00:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Include - Who said anything about "selecting"? I put in the material that interested me. That said, Gamaliel's suggestion is perfectly fine and very even handed. I have added the Abu Ghraib quote, verbatim as G posted in above, along with restoring the SH quote. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't from Gamaliel and, more important, it wasn't a suggestion. It was an example to point out the untenability of your position. I just ran "Alessandra Stanley" on the Times website's search engine (restricting it to the "Author" field) and got 1,472 hits. Most of those columns would concern a notable subject. An article about a writer doesn't need to quote the writer's thoughts on a subject just because the subject itself is notable. That standard would allow absurdly long articles. In this instance, both quotations should be omitted from the article. JamesMLane 03:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

James, you know that I am waiting patiently for you to commit to a set of editing guidelines (see Talk:Stolen Honor). And you also know that you claim to already be following some of some sort, but won't list them. For these reasons and because I've already made clear that my main concern with you is my contention that you edit and argue one way on one article and another on others, with no set self-binding pattern, I see no reason to point out again and again and again: What you are saying now (about quotes, this example) conflicts with what you've said in the past. Your patent refusal to establish any benchmarks by whch other editors know what to expect from you, makes every edit you oppose an ad-hoc argument. Being a lawyer, you may enjoy that. I, on the other hand, am not and do not. Let me know when you are ready to try for true consensus. I will recognize and believe this to be true when you state on my talk page this text (verbatim) "I, JamesMLane, agree that avoiding conflict with other editors is important. I further state that I am interested to work towards consensus with Rex071404". In the meantime, I am not sure what else to say to you. Any suggestions? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Little of this has anything to do with this article and really belongs on JML's user talk page. Let's confine our comments here to Alessandra Stanley, please, or we won't get anything done. Gamaliel 06:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If 200 editor come along and each says, "I'll put in the material that interests me," and they have different in This incomplete sentence was here when I got here just now Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. The point is that I disagree with the generalization you impliedly suggest: "If Subject X is notable, then, in the article about Subject Y, anything that Subject Y has said about Subject X should be quoted." In the course of writing this comment embodying my disagreement, I thought of pointing out that 200 editors might have 200 different interests, resulting in a Stanley article with 200 different quotations, and that your theory would endorse this result. Partway through typing that, I decided not to include it, but then forgot to delete it.

In general, the principal standard that I apply for subjective decisions of this sort is service to the reader. Including 200 quotations from Stanley on 200 different subjects would convey some information that wouldn't otherwise be in the article, but it wouldn't be the best way to convey information to a reader who wants to read an encyclopedia article about Alessandra Stanley. I agree with Calton (below) that the Stolen Honor quotation is inserted solely for POV reasons. JamesMLane 10:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of the two quotations? The second one seems to have been put in purely as a balancing justification rationalization for the first quote, and the first is not a notable, infamous, and/or typical example of Stanley's writing. It's apparently there for its propaganda value, nothing more. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How is the article better, with them removed? Please explain. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

--Added middle name. Source is Harvard and Radcliffe Class of 1977, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. --Tkhorse (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Stanley

JML & G, please go here: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg & help with the license question. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversies section

Given the length of her career, is it fair for the majority of the article to be given over to "controversies"? I see a possible WP:UNDUE and BLP issue here.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-edited the page to include the details of the corrections required. The errors are serious, as noted by the coverage the correction received from other media sources. Having the details of the corrections adds to the reader's appreciation of the issue and enables a quick assesment of the validity of the 'controversy' (though I think the term does not adequately capture the nature of the problem). It is not an attempt to create a disproportionate perception in relation to the rest of Ms Stanley's career. If others wish to add details of other features of her career, they are free to do so. (NZ Kunckles (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

There have been concerns raised about undue weight given to her errors here at 'Biographies of living persons'. The full litany of Cronkite errors is just one click away for the reader. I've removed it from the article, per those BLP concerns. --CliffC (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to do that myself. Even with the correction removed, we still have an article in which the only thing we have to say about her professional life is that she is inaccurate. That bothers me. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have big-time stubbified the article, per concerns regarding WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:NPF (though less so). Unitanode 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does the trick.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gal pals removal

The text Among Stanley's close friends at the Times are Jill Abramson and Maureen Dowd. Both are mentioned prominently in the New York Magazine article "The Redhead and the Gray Lady," by Ariel Levy. was removed on the basis she's "barely mentioned". That's an 8-page article in which she's mentioned about 8 times and quoted at least as much. If you use the magazine's 'Print' button and edit the result, it's not as hard to wade through. I'm not saying that this deserves to be in our article, just pointing out the number of references. --CliffC (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• That is my mistake. I didn't realize how long it was, loaded the article, and it only showed one mention using my crude CTRL-F method. I don't have a problem with it being reinserted, as it offers a positive tidbit to balance the negative tilt that this article (rather by necessity) takes on its subject. Unitanode 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Further Cronkite additions

This is a very short BLP, of a person who is barely notable, so further additions regarding the Cronkite incident seem to unbalance the article a bit. UnitAnode 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I made the following revisions:

• Removed the 'gal pal' line. That was a) totally irrelevant and b) competely without context.
• Reinserted the Hoyt piece. Yes, it risks WP:UNDUE and even WP:RECENT, but Hoyt's description of Stanley is so extraordinary that not mentioning it would, I'd argue, be POV.
• To compensate, I removed the detail on the 2005 article. The curious can read it and the CJR article if they choose.

Result: A four-line paragraph that contains everything important in the old 5.5-line paragraph and more.

PS - The proper solution to WP:UNDUE in these sorts of cases is not to trim relevant detail, but to add more. Stanley is listed as a Harvard graduate in Categories but there's no mention of her education in the article at all, for example. YLee (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history I see that [details (with cites)] on her family and education were there but deleted. I understand zapping the info on her children/nephews (although they weren't named, or anything), but to delete the fact that her father was a public figure? That her ex-husband is a fellow reporter? That she graduated in 1977 from Harvard (as per my request above)? These are relevant, BLP-compliant details that belong in a biography article and which help smooth out WP:UNDUE concerns, not the 'gal pal' line. YLee (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree, you are making the case it is what now defines her in journalism, that is not undue weight. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And consensus is against you. Whether or not her mistakes are what she's most noted for, it doesn't follow that 75% of the article text needs to cover those mistakes. Nor does it follow that a huge block quote (which accounted for over half the written text) should be included. UnitAnode 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, part of good writing (including Wikiwriting) is leaving things out. Hoyt's description of Stanley, as quoted, is devastating and speaks for itself. Given the current state of the article and the available citations, there is no need whatsoever to go into more detail. Now, if the article gets filled out to a more-ideal size for a biography then, yes, there might be cause to add a few more details on the Cronkite piece and on her general reputation as error-prone, but as things stand to add any more clearly risks WP:UNDUE. YLee (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Rd232 ^talk 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is the right length at the moment. While I had initial BLP concerns, I think that they've been resolved by some very good cuts and edits. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody Loves Raymond error

I reverted a sentence that was just added, saying "She famously misstated the name of the hit television series Everybody Loves Raymond as 'All About Raymond.'" My rationale is that to say "famously" or even to mention requires that this be noted by a third party source. However this is a borderline situation and I'd like to hear other views.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Famously" should never be used, even if it's cited, because it's inherently unencyclopedic and contributes nothing to the discussion. Either the incident happened, and can be sourced, and contributes to the overall discussion of the subject, or it didn't/can't/doesn't. Nothing "famously" about it. YLee (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, the Everybody Loves Raymond error is egregious enough for a TV critic (!?!) that including it in her list of errors seems appropriate. (The CJR article mentions it.) It shouldn't be given extra attention, though; like the others, it should be listed as plain fact with no commentary. I'll make the addition. YLee (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

L.A. Times Keller interview

The freshly linked L.A. Times article on its interview with Keller is titled "Keller Responds: Alessandra Stanley Is 'Brilliant Critic' -- Dismisses 'Conspiracy Theory' -- Future of Public Editor Position Still 'Much Debated' " (emphasis mine). I subscribe to a small-town paper whose correction policy states that it "corrects its mistakes ungrudgingly". Keller should learn to do the same. The "Editors' Note" tacked on at the end of Stanley's Geraldo Rivera story claiming "he nudged an Air Force rescue worker out of the way so his camera crew could tape him as he helped lift an older woman in a wheelchair to safety" is an example of his reluctance to admit error.

I hope we can expand enough on the 'good' side of Stanley to have space to bring back our mention of the Geraldo incident as it stood in this version of the article. --CliffC (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Keller quote is too much; adding it risks WP:UNDUE. Again, we already have one Timesman describing Stanley as having "a history of errors." What more needs be said than that, given the current length of the article? YLee (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with taking it out. I thought that since it was largely favorable that it balanced out the largely negative tone of the article, but I see your point. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Barry Levinson criticism

I'm not comfortable with Ask123's recent insertion, for two reasons:

• Length. It is as long as the rest of the article. We've discussed here the importance of avoiding WP:UNDUE given the brevity of the article, and the new edit violates this.
• Impartiality. Artists have complained about critics as long as critics have existed. What is so unusual about the previously discussed complaints about Stanley is that they came from disinterested third-party sources (Columbia Journalism Review, the Times' own public editor) and dealt with basic errors of fact. The Levinson criticism is neither; he complains that Stanley unfairly reviewed his own film.

Conclusion: Unless we get additional reliable sources discussing the issue I intend to revert the edits. Ylee (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment. I think the edits should be reverted for the reasons you've outlined. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. And you can edit as you want. But I think this subject matter is "includable." I did pare it down substantially though. I agree it was WAY too long. I actually meant to edit it down. It was never supposed to go in that long. Error on my part. As for the actual material, I, personally, don't 100% write off Levinson as sour grapes or Stanley as deliberitely inaccurate writer. It's a claim that Levinson is making and has attempted to explain in his op-ed. It's pretty uncommon for this thing to happen with a director -- Levinson has certainly never done it. He's not one of these press-adicted artists -- quite the opposite actually. And he's making a distinction between a bad review and what he believes was an actual inaccuracy. Again, it's just a claim, but he is making this distinction. Whether or not you agree with him is up to you. Some of the articles I've read on the subject agreed with him. Others were more skeptical, believing instead that he was simply a scorned director taking a stab at an easy target (since Stanley had recently been criticized for her inaccuracies in other aritcles). I don't know where I fall, but, given Levinson's personal record of never having criticized a critic (despite having been the recipient of many other bad reviews in the past) coupled with his low-key, humble persona, I'm choosing to presume that this isn't a stunt or an artist who's flown off the handle. It is what it is: a lengthy, published claim by a respected member of the community that I think has merit in the sense that it should at least be mentioned. So I've mentioned it in the most concise way that still allows the reader to understand what the issue is. I don't think it in any way dominates the article any more. I believe it is appropriate. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The new text still does not change the above-mentioned concerns. It is now "only" half as long as the rest of the piece, still deals with an artist complaining about a critic's review of his own work, and stands as its own, three-sentence paragraph apart from the other issues. (And no, whether or not Levinson has ever complained about a review before doesn't matter; even if this fact were cited, any such cite would make the WP:UNDUE issue worse.) I will be removing it. Ylee (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even considering the WP:UNDUE issue, I'm not convinced it should be eliminated entirely. Perhaps pared down to one sentence (as was done by Gamaliel). As for the issue of minority opinion (which is addressed in WP:UNDUE), I think you must keep in mind that, to begin with, there are not a lot of people with opinions on Stanley's review of Poliwood or on Stanley as a critic in general. Levinson is also not an unrelated commenter. As for the point initially made by Ylee on April 6, that Levinson is offering an opinion (Levinson feels it was a "blatant inaccuracy" - a "mischaracterization" as Gamaliel more soberly puts it in his Apr 6 edit), I believe that, in this case, that is acceptable under WP:NPOV as a comment on someone's work. It's the same section of WP:NPOV that permits an opinionated quotation from Stanley's review to appear on the PoliWood page or Barry Levinson page. (For the record, such a quotation does not appear on either but would be permitted if it did.)

As for the actual edit I had in mind, here it is:

--

In addition, in a November 10, 2009 The Huffington Post op-ed, filmmaker Barry Levinson criticized Stanley for what was, in his opinion, "inaccuracies" in her characterization his film PoliWood in her November 1, 2009 review. (PLUS REFS)

--

When unindented, the sentence is 2 lines. As always, I welcome others' opinions on this edit issue. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "I think you must keep in mind that, to begin with, there are not a lot of people with opinions on Stanley's review of Poliwood or on Stanley as a critic in general." That's part of the problem. We need disinterested reliable sources discussing the alleged issue; otherwise WP:NOTABLE is an immediate concern. The issues the Wikipedia article already mentions are discussed by the likes of the Columbia Journalism Review and the Times' own ombudsman. Levinson's complaint? The only source is Levinson himself, who published it in the Huffington Post, a self-published source a half step above Blogspot or Typepad. We could cite Levinson's blog post in this case alongside other cites from reliable sources (whether in support of him or not), but there aren't any.

There actually is one place where Levinson's blog post could be mentioned: PoliWood. Discussion there can link to Alessandra Stanley, and mention other reviews of the film whether pro or con, and everything. But, please, don't do it here. Ylee (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Let me explain why I reverted your latest edits. 1) There is no need to repeat the Times' full name after the first mention; it's not like there is ambiguity from the Los Angeles Times or The Times (of London) also being mentioned. I am aware that "The" is part of The New York Times' name, but that doesn't require that the full name be always used. (Your first edit caused the paper's name to appear as The New York Times Times, also.) 2) Wikipedia uses logical quotes, which mandates that most punctuation goes outside quotemarks. This has nothing to do with American versus British English. (As an American I personally find logical quotes to be ridiculous, but that's what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says. 3) I will reinsert one of your edits that was reverted with the rest. Ylee (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

First, regarding the actual Levinson edit: WP:NOTABLE concerns topics for articles themselves, not the sub-topics and points that come up within articles. Thus, it's not relevant here. Sub-topics within article are governed by WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. But, regarding the point that it is Levinson himself who is the singular source, as I wrote in my earlier post, this is, to me, a claim or opinion of Levinson's. Levinson believes he is pointing out an "inaccuracy" (rather than a subjective opinion). I don't think he's really correct -- it's debatable, but I think Stanley was within her bounds as critic to make the judgement she made on his film. But, despite the fact that what Levinson offered was more-or-less an opinion, I'm not sure if that bars him from inclusion here. Even pure, unabashed opinions are not prohibited from Wikipedia if they concern a work of art or media (per the previosly linked policy comments on works of others). Alessandra Stanley is a writer and journalist. Her work is subject to criticism and that cirticism may be included in Wikipedia articles as long as they are from reliable sources, etc. Regarding the reliability of The Huffington Post, I disagree with you. It is a news aggregator and blog forum. According to WP blog policy, blogs are considered sourcable if they are edited by news organizations -- such as The New York Times, which itself hosts dozens of blogs that are routinely used as sources on Wikipedia. I believe The Huffington Post is a news organization. It is not one with the reputation of The New York Times. But, then again, neither is the New York Post, but that paper is still right and dandy for citation usage.

Look I'm not in total disagreement with you philosophically -- so I will drop this matter. But I also don't think that WP policy outright supports your position, at least not from the case you have made.

Now on to the second issue: grammar. I'll follow your numbered points. 1) I understand that there is no ambiguity in this article regarding the name of the paper. And my edit had nothing to do with that. What I was editing was the fact the word "the" wasn't capitalized -- nor was it italicized. (I subsequently decided to also edit the name to become the full name simply because I am a stickler for that kind of thing.) So please understand, that that was besides the point of my edit. I don't really care if the name is abbreviated or not. I do care that the entire name of the paper (whether abbreviated or not) is capitalized and printed in the cursive typeface. The Times itself routinely prints its name in long and short form, and they follow that rule in both cases (at least, as far as I've seen). (2) WP:LQ does not mandate punctuation go inside or outside of quotation marks. Rather, it describes the differences in the "American style" and "British style" and asks the editor to "consider" each. It does not require or even suggest one style over the other. Personally, I prefer the American usage. I am American. I live in America and was educated here. And, therefore, I tend to use it. But some Americans find the "American style" strange (just as I'm sure some Brits find "British style" strange). I know from experience that this issue can often be contentious and for no reason. It's just punctuation. That's why, in cases in which there is consensus or it is a lengthy article with numerous regular contributors, I tend to use the style that the others are using. But, when the issue is still up in the air, I consider the subject matter. Why impose the "American style" on an article about Queen Elizabeth. That would be ludicrous and perhaps even rude. Again, this is just what I do. Others do their own thing. With regard to this article, I considered the fact that this was an article about Alessandra Stanley, a journalist for The New York Times, which is a newspaper that employs the "American style." She uses the American style in her articles. Therefore, I edited this article per American style.

Sorry for the length. Just wanted to address all of the issues you raised. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Briefly: 1) You are right about how The New York Times always capitalizes "The" in "The Times". This is a case that WP:MOSTM does not completely cover, except that we are not beholden to how the trademark holder uses capitalization. The article The New York Times goes out of its way to use the full name of the paper in most cases, so is not helpful as prescriptive advice. To me it makes sense to not capitalize "the" as otherwise a reader might think that we are referring to The Times (which is the full name of the that newspaper; no "of London", as so many think). 2) You are wrong about WP:LQ. What you are describing is WP:ENGVAR. WP:LQ is unambiguous; punctuation that is not part of the phrase or name—in other words, the quote itself—belongs outside quotemarks, not inside. Ylee (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Further: After the above I found Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions, which supports your view on 1), not mine. I am still reluctant to write "The Times" because of the risk of ambiguity with the British newspaper, but I am less firm on this than before. Ylee (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Salon on Stanley's Julian Assange review

I'm not comfortable with Thaxter's recent addition of the April 2012 *Salon* article. The other criticisms of Stanley are based on her factual errors. *Salon* criticizes her subjective opinions, which is very different. What do others think? Ylee (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Shonda Rhimes incident

The second paragraph of the "Criticism" section had been a fairly one-sided and sorely incomplete description of the currently (at this writing) brewing -- but hopefully now settling-down -- incident of Stanley having written about Shonda Rhimes. As more and more news outlets covered it, and The Color of Change called for a retraction and apology, and the New York Times better explained itself...

...I felt that more detail and balance, with good inline citations, was in order. So I have now expanded that entire "Criticism" section into two sub-sections, the second one greatly expanding and providing details and balance to what had been the aforementioned one-sided second paragraph.

Yes, Wikipedia user "Waltzedout" did a fine job, on 21 Sep 2014, of improving it some (and we thank him/her for that); but the entire story was becoming, by today (22 Sep 2014) huge; and I saw an opportunity for Wikipedia to be the definitive place where the reader may get the entire, detailed, balanced version: the facts, in other words... and well cited.

I inserted my own "citation needed" after the paragraph wherein I quoted Rajad Robinson's email message sent to Color of Change members. The organization's first email sent to its members has been put on its website, but I've asked it to also put the second one, from Robinson, onto the site, as well, so I can then cite it as a reference and remove the "citation needed" indicator there. I'm hoping that will happen tomorrow, 23 September 2014.

If anyone has any suggestions, criticisms, etc., I'm all ears. That said, I humbly request that others not be too quick to change it. Here's why...

I, a white male, used to work for a central Indiana newspaper (just in case the writing style of what I've added to the Wikipedia article doesn't make it obvious); and I remember, as a mere "cub" reporter in the mid- to late-1970s, covering the Miss Black Teenage America pageant in my home town of Gary, Indiana (its being my home town, and my editor having learned that I was going home for that weekend, probably being why I got the assignment). I spent the entire weekend listening to pageant personnel refer to the contestants as "girls," and so that's the word I used in my story. The editor, Kate Perry -- whose name I mention because she was a great editor, from whom I learned much, and so she deserves it -- pulled me aside and asked me how I'd feel if someone referred to me as "boy;" or, even worse, since the pageant contestants were black, how they'd feel if they were male and I called them "boy" or "boys." She gratefully left-out the elephant-in-the-room mention of how I, as a white person, would likely have not made it out alive if I had.

My point is that as good as that story was (and it was: I was finally getting pretty good at it by then in my little newspaper career), I was completely blinded to my own gender insensitivity. Believe me, though: if they had been black males, I'd have known better than to call them "boy" or "boys;" that stupid I wasn't, even back then.

And so, my having once sorta' kinda' having been in Stanley's position, and knowing back then how wrong I was, when I set-out to address this subject on Wikipedia, I pulled-out all my fairness and balance stops; and bent over backward to ensure that both sides of the story -- both anti-Stanley, and in her defense -- were equally-well presented. And painstakingly factually, of course; with good inline citations. I hope you all agree that I've done that. And if you don't then please tell me right here so that I can change it myself, if you'll all permit me, in an effort to try to maintain the integrity of the writing. Of course, I realize that anyone may edit it; and that what I'm asking is a mere favor; and that I should have no expectation of anyone honoring it...

...but I'm just sayin'.

Thanks!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User Gamaliel added the "UNDUE" template to the "Criticism" section, I believe over its "Insensitivity to women and race" sub-section of my creation. But I undid it because s/he didn't bother to discuss it here, first. I then left a message on Gamaliel's (talk) page advising him/her that I so did; and also inviting him/her to this item on this TALK page to talk it out and figure out what we should all do, as the Wikipedia system wants of us. I now await his/her participation, here.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:UNDUE does not permit a section like this to dominate the article of a living individual. I've shortened it to a more appropriate length. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep taking action without discussion, first. I don't care who you are (or think you are), you don't get to do that here. If you don't stop it, I'm going to file a formal complaint against you. So I'm reversing your unilateral action, one more time. STOP IT! Discuss it, here, and come to consensus first.

Don't you think I know what the WP:UNDUE template says? It is you who is misreading it. It does not talk about how much of a given subject may "dominate" an article. Rather, it talks about "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic," which is eactly what I did. In fact, that was the whole point: to cover what was becoming a controversial issue with absolute neutrality, presenting, equally, both sides...

...something you're now depriving others of seeing by your unilateral actions. The only reason I feels like what I wrote domainates (which, by the way, isn't an issue; though, that said, if you think it's too long, then fine... let's talk about that) is because no one has expanded the article to include her personal life, etc. At the moment, it's barely more than a stub. Expand it, and what I wrote won't seem to "dominate" (which domaination, again, has nothing to do with what's called for by the template).

Again, let's discuss it, here. Now. That's how this place works; don't end-run that.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia rules are clear. 72% of the article text (this is not an exaggeration, I did a word count in Microsoft Word) cannot be devoted to a single controversy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Then the issue is that it's too long, in your opinion. Fine. Let's figure that out, and not have you going in and effectively vandalizing the article. Plus, it would be nice if you could cite that rule which you say is so clear. If an article is basically little more than a stub in the first place, then virtually anything added will seem to dominate. What's a person to do in that case?

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Expand the other sections of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. His version is more than long enough. The version of Deselms is too long and has far too many, unnessary quotes; which don't look appropriate in an encyclopedia. A BLP has to be fair to the subject at all times; so a controversy section should not at any time be disproportionate; and even in a long article, controversy sections - if they exist at all - should be of reasonable length. Iselilja (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not only "too long" it's also an opinionated attack creation, this version was outrageous and should never have been published - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alessandra_Stanley&diff=626918992&oldid=626918428 - I agree with everyone but User:Deselms - Tuscantreat (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One more in agreement that this is way too long. Stanley is a journalist. She writes articles and columns for a living. She writes a lot of them. I'm guessing she writes one every week, if not more often. No one of them should take up this huge swathe of our article about her. And it's not just that the rest of our article is so short - it's just that there is no way that a short piece of writing is worth more than a paragraph in a person's life story. Consider, The Gettysburg Address only gets 2 paragraphs in the Abraham Lincoln article; Hamlet gets 2 sentences in William Shakespeare; surely this isn't going to mean more to her life than those meant to theirs. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The only solution I can think of is to replace the section in question on this page with information about the Gettysburg Address and Hamlet then.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alessandra Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090806045404/http://poynter.org:80/forum/view_post.asp?id=12357 to http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=12357

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alessandra Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091203154307/http://gawker.com:80/242613/abc-totally-pissed-at-alessandra-stanley to http://gawker.com/242613/abc-totally-pissed-at-alessandra-stanley
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423085553/http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_reveal_much_about_the_critics/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_reveal_much_about_the_critics/singleton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Departure from Times?

In https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/weddings/165-years-of-wedding-announcements/end-of-engagement-announcements from Feb. 9, 2017, Ms. Stanley is identified as Alessandra Stanley, a former New York Times reporter, foreign correspondent and critic, is a writer based in New York. Evidently she has left The Times? jhawkinson (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alessandra Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126084252/http://www.nywici.org/matrix-awards/hall-fame to http://www.nywici.org/matrix-awards/hall-fame

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alessandra Stanley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121207010155/http://humanities.princeton.edu/journalism/professors/current to http://humanities.princeton.edu/journalism/professors/current
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001233430/http://colorofchange.org/campaign/shondarhimes/ to http://colorofchange.org/campaign/shondarhimes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)