Talk:Jake Tapper/Archive 1

Personal Promotion Removed From External Links List
Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for personal promotion.

65.101.218.54 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal speakers bureau listing removed for the same reason: Self promotion.

65.101.218.54 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also removed media matters external link per WP:EL Tom (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the media matters link again. Not sure exactly why an editor would war over including a link from a site that is indirectly related to the article's subject? Is there a point here? More than 3 other editors have removed it. Anyways, hopefully this can be resolved here, thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in EL prohibits this link, and there's nothing wrong with reverting an SPA whose only edits to WP are to police this article. (This isn't referring to you, of course.) Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus(a few non SPA accounts, but I haven't looked at everybodies history closely) is against inclusion as so is WP:EL. Did you not read where it said links to be avoided include: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article? Is there a good reason for inclusion that you would like to make? Tom (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)ps, I also asked in my edit summary if you have an agenda for reverting this? Tom (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that part of the policy style guideline applies. That link is directly related to the subject of the article, since it is a link to articles about the subject of the article. Links to articles about the subjects of articles are common and uncontroversial. My agenda here is to oppose the removal of material from any article when such a removal has no grounding in policy or guideline or precedent. Gamaliel (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it so important to you to include a link from media matters in the external links section of this article? Do you feel that site is unbiased and improves this article? A number of editors have disagreed with this linking in the past. Again, this site is only indirectly related to the article's subject, and per the guideline should not be included. This is troubling. I will not revert for now but will look for uninvolved opinions. If a majority of folks feels it improves the article, then fine, I will desist. Anyways, Cheers, --Tom (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that it adds to the article by providing readers to access to information that they may want from a perspective different from that of the subject of the article. Different perspectives, critical, laudatory, or whatever, are valuable and too many WP articles turn into hagiography from lack of these perspectives and from people overly concerned about or misapplying WP policies and guidelines.  This link is directly related and really don't comprehend your use of the word "indirectly" when it comes to this link.  I think misapplication of policy and providing different perspectives are both important issues that are often neglected in articles that are off the beaten path, so to speak, and addressing that is a concern of mine.  Perhaps this is what you mistake for what you call an agenda, or perhaps it could be called an agenda, but one which is part of the goal of improving the encyclopedia.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see how the media matters site is not directly related to the subject of the article? Are you concerned that other editors have disagreed with you?Tom (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not, and I thought that was pretty clear in my previous comments. I don't understand your objections and I don't feel you've explained them fully. I don't know if I'd use the word "concerned", though I would like to find common ground with you and any other editor who may disagree. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I guess I will try to get other editors involved. If you can not see that the media matters site is not directly related to Jake Tapper, then that is a problem it seems. Anyways, Tom (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you will convince me that articles written about Tapper are somehow unrelated to Tapper just by repeating that claim over and over. I'd like to discuss this and see if we can find common ground, but we won't be able to do that if you are unwilling to explain your position. Gamaliel (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never once said "articles written about Tapper are somehow unrelated to Tapper". I said four times that the media matters web site is not directly related to Tapper. Would you agree with that? Tom (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)ps. WP:EL talks about "deep linking" in these cases. Do you know what that means or refers to? TIA Tom (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)pss, also, is that link every article with key word Jack_Tapper in it? Is that how "tags" work at media matters? Tom (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, are you saying that your objection is that Media Matters in general is unrelated to Tapper? Well, under those standards, linking to any individual article about the subject of the article would be prohibited unless the publication or website is about the specific subject of the article? So no links unless they are from The Tapper Times? If that is your position, then I feel that is this position is illogical and would needlessly prohibit hundreds of useful links from general interest websites and publications for no coherent reason. If that is not your position, I apologize for misunderstanding and again ask you to simply explain your objection instead of just stating it over and over. Also, I've just read this sentence in the style guide you refer to: "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked." It appears to me that I've linked to the site in a proper manner, as opposed to just linking to the main Media Matters website. Since I am linking in the proper manner, why your objection to my deep link? Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to your deep link, I didn't know that is what it was, so that is why I asked about it. Anyways, I am just trying to follow the EL guideline. It is curious that media matters is in alot of Els, but the Media Matters for America article has all of one EL? Would you agree that media matters is not an unbiased source? Didn't I ask that before? Should that be pointed out in the EL section here? Also, is that a link to all articles with the key word Jack_Trapper in it or what exactly? Did I ask that before as well? Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is curious. I'll see if I can dig up any online stories about them. There should be more links there. I'm not sure "biased" is the right word, but certainly they have their own political perspective, which is one reason why they provide a valuable link.  I'm not sure we need to note that in the link though.  We don't typically note the political inclinations of sources like that, we let the material and WP articles speak for themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why would we include "articles" about him from just one biased, or whatever you want to call them site? Why not include articles from other sites to balance. I say that rehtorically because I would be against that(Iam a minimalist), and I think that goes against the spirt of ELs. I actually would prefer only ELs from "Jack-Tapper Times" type sites as you put it, since no bias/slant/wahtever would be introduced. Anyways, hopefully others will comment and I will try to get other input since we disagree. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)ps please do NOT add any ELs to media matters. I LOVE the way it is right now! The reason it is that way, is becasue its a magnet and you open up a can of worms and could have 100s of links that people thought were "helpful" :). That section is a deletionist/minimalist's wet dream :) Speaking of which, I am off to bed :) Cheers! Tom (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I am a maximalist then, within reason, of course. I have no problem including links from other sites here, or at MM, or anywhere.  The more perspectives, within reason, the better.  I don't think limiting ELs to only official websites or even only "neutral" ones is a good idea.  It eliminates outside perspectives for one thing, and for another these supposedly "neutral" official websites are in fact not neutral, they have their own non-neutral purpose: to promote Tapper and put him in the best light possible.  I think that to include only those kinds of websites and eliminate others for being "non-neutral" or "partisan" goes against NPOV.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is my point. Of course, the "Jack_Tapper_Only" type of sites are going to be biased, most people can realize that. Same with the Myspace/facebook/"offical" web site/ect. But by including a link to a "partisan" or whatever you want to call it site without "labeling" it as such, the reader might not know that. Also, by including it, Wikipedia is "endorsing" it so to speak. Better not to include those, imho. This is an encyclopedia, not a commentary resource. Anyways, again, we disagree, so I would rather have a small group of uninvolved parties make there case and go from there. I strongly believe that if in doubt, leave it out since less is usually less harmful that more. The way the Obama article is crafted is a perfect example. Folks want to introduce everything undr the sun, but the folks "monitoring" it are we careful about what is added. I haven't even looked at the ELs there, might do that later to see how they are handling this type of concern. Cheers, Tom (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that anyone will think that WP is endorsing a particular link, and there is a link to the Media Matters WP article if anyone wants to read up on the source of the information. People will be more than equipped to handle this information on their own. Have a little faith. :D Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That link is to 500 plus 59 articles, some with only a breif mention of Tapper more than 2/3 of the way into the article? This looks like a search results page? Didn't I ask that before, twice? I see that another editor added the "...stories critical of" "disclaimer" to the link. Anyways, I have zero faith when it comes to the net :) Tom (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also sought input here. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we delete this EL as a search results page? --Tom (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was waiting for Gamaliel to be on line and respond, but ip removed it. Tom (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Gamaliel will comment here why he reverted. --Tom (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove this external link per this discussion and the one at the EL board and explain that in my edit summary.--Tom (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That page is not a search results page, but a list linked to from the main page of MMfA. (Issues/Topics>Media Personalities>Tapper). I don't see anything else in that discussion that presents a valid reason for removing that link, sorry. If you want to specify and discuss a reason you think is valid, feel free to do so. I know you don't like the link, but policy shopping is not a way around WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There dosen't seem to be a clear consensus for inclusion. This isn't about don't like it, its more that you like it. Anyways, maybe a RFC or get others involved. Did you read the EL talk page as well? --Tom (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the MMfA link because it clearly is a search results page: it is the results of a search on "Jake Tapper" as a Tag (metadata).  Please do not restore it.
 * You could use those individual stories to expand this article: it is normal for the Wikipedia bios of politically active people to include criticism of their work.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe an article or two as some kind of compromise, but I personally would prefer to stick to just the "basic" links. This goes for all bios. I would be happy to add this comment to other bios folks feel are recieving undue weight. Anyways, thanks again, --Tom (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

 * I don't see how the link is "clearly" search results when I didn't do a search to get it. It's a list linked to from the main page. And I also disagree with the Twitter removal.  Tapper's twitter feed is directly relevant and it is in and of itself newsworthy. See . Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel,, the page is a search result, just as much as http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Gamaliel&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 is. It's not a statically hand-written page; it's a list that changes every time someone tags any article with his name.
 * I don't care if the Twitter feed is newsworthy: Twitter feeds are too much like a one-way internet discussion forum.  The link is also easy to find on his ABC blog, so it's redundant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not redundant just because you can find the link elsewhere, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Two points: I'd be happy to hear your response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries like "restored per talk page" imply some kind of agreement on the talk page. We have no agreement.  We have an active disagreement about whether the Twitter link complies with the relevant standards.  Please don't ever do that again.
 * I do not think that the Twitter link complies with the relevant standards. I think that these are the relevant issues:
 * WP:NOT, which is where the principle of non-redundancy comes from
 * WP:ELNO #10, which covers social networking sites like Twitter
 * The absence of any (mandatory) justification under the standards for including it beyond WP:ILIKEIT (see, e.g., "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.")
 * The failure of the link to meet any of the criteria under WP:ELYES.
 * The absence of any substantial and stable information about Jake Tapper at the link.
 * Has this been brought up at EL or the village pump ect? It seems that the "community" should decide one way or the other and "standardize" on this point. I also want world peace :) Anyways, I personally would be against inclusion. Thanks, Tom (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you misunderstood my edit summary. To me it implies "per reasons I outlined on the talk page but can't fit in this tiny tiny space". In the future I'll try to come up with something that bridges the gap between the two. WP:ILIKEIT doesn't come into play since I clearly outlined the reasons I included it.  I cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT because, in response to those reasons, all you said was "I don't care". I understand the principle of non-redundancy, I don't think it applies in this case. In general I think we should avoid slavishly adhering to guidelines like ELNO 10, I will defer to it if that is consensus here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "reasons" are that the Twitter link was mentioned in one news article. "Mentioned in one news article" is nowhere found in the list of normal justifications for including an external link, and I do not agree that this is, in common sense, a good reason to include the link.  And, I point out, every single link must be justifiable under Wikipedia's standards, so the WP:BURDEN is on you to convince everyone else to include it, not on us to convince you to exclude it.  The default is always exclusion of links, not automatic inclusion unless proven unjustifiable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "one news article" was an example of the numerous articles on the subject. I thought that was clear but I realize now I should have spelled that out. Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you'd like to clarify how many of them were actual "news articles" instead of "blog posts", which is what you actually linked above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he is coming out with a new book on a FOB in Afghanistan
I heard him on the radio but have not seen anything. Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.226.134 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple Question - I thought the newspeople were to report the news, instead its everyone talking at one time and trying to out guess what Hilary Clinton is going to report????
I love your show and you seem to be fair with everyone... I love Wolf too....but it seems that Wolf get other people on his show and try and get whatever the subject and try and figure out what "that person" - H. Clinton is going to say about her e-mails.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.86.9 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jake Tapper. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/14334/i-dated-monica-lewinsky

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
Jake Tapper was heavily criticized for political bias over his ABC News Article on the 9/28 Economic Bailout Rejection that blamed Republicans in Congress for the rejection when 94 (ninety-four) Democrats had actually voted no on the same bill. The article was called by some "One of the most dishonest pieces of journalism in modern history".

65.101.218.54 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article you link to was written by Mark Mooney and Zachary Wolf, not Tapper. It also mentions the number of Democrats voting against.208.90.183.32 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, they promote Tapper and others who share his editorial position and there will be no criticism allowed here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.85.253 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

should his very common nickname be mentioned?
Considering how often it is used I think it should at least be mentioned in passing67.44.208.69 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jake Tapper. 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/20101123062527/http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Jake+Tapper to http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Jake+Tapper

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jake Tapper. 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/20110607024425/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/06/18/wmd/print.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/06/18/wmd/print.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718105724/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/bumps-in-the-ro.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/bumps-in-the-ro.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)