Talk:Joe McGinniss/Archive 1

Nazi Reference
If this can't be sourced it would probably be better left out of the article. Using a single interview from a left-leaning host would be seen as POV.

Since wikipedia isn't a gossip site, sticking with the citable facts (which plenty exist) would probably be better suited.Woods01 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

✅ KeptSouth (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This has now been sourced and therefore restored. Matt Lauer and the Today Show are hardly "left-leaning," and the quotations from the nationally televised interview are readily available online at many sites beyond the one posted. The previous member deleted Mcginniss's quote but not Palin's response to it, which made no sense. Nandoherty (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism charges
The Entertainment Weekly and Washington Post articles discussing possible plagiarism were written several months before the book in question was published, with no indication that the charges were proven or admitted or that the authors of the articles had even read a copy of the yet to be published book. Further, in the EW article, a spokeswoman for the publisher, the editor of an unrelated magazine, and an former McGinniss editor denying there was plagiarism. Whether Doris Kearnes Goodwin plagiarized anything she wrote is irrelevant to this bio about McGinnis, and the article given as a source on Goodwin doesn't even mention McGinniss.. Therefore, I am removing this material as violating WP:BLP policy - very negative material that is not sourced to a reliable source, some of which is not relevant to this bio of McGinniss.KeptSouth (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"McGinniss was offered a rental..."
I changed the wording about McGinniss moving in next door to the Palins to say he merely rented the home. Originally, it stated that he "was offered" a rental, which, perhaps intentionally, gives the impression that Palin-hostile locals unsolicitedly volunteered their help with the McGinniss muckraking/"research" process, rather than McGinniss seeking out his own accommodations. In fact, neither given source--including the leftwing Huffington Post--gives any indication that he "was offered" a rental; instead, he appears to have gone about it as any would-be renter does. I believe the notion that he "was offered" a rental to be a rhetorical liberty not warranted by the sources, regardless of the intentions.
 * I changed the wording to simply "he rented a house..." Kelly  hi! 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I read a source which stated a disgruntled neighbor did in fact specifically offer it to him. Something to do with a non-politically related neighborhood dispute with the Palins. I'll see if I can dig that back up. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got the details wrong, but the Washington Post source already used in the article (currently ref#5) specifically states that he was personally offered the property in the second paragraph. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rogue
Just how reliable should we consider McGinniss's book? It has now been savaged by the Los Angeles Times, which said that his "revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources", the New York Times, which said that "Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources", and the Washington Post, which says that McGinniss "serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better". It seems that the "lamestream media" as Palin herself famously put it, does not consider this book a reliable source. We should not repeat its charges here in Wikipedia, even if reliable sources describe in news stories what this fundamentally unreliable source says. There are a million fleeting news stories but here on Wikipedia, we are bound by WP:BLP in all articles. We have a higher and more enduring responsibility than do the newspapers and TV shows. We can't regurgitate this book's allegations as if they are true.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mug-Shot
So, I was in the grocery the other week and saw a tabloid cover story that said the new book would allege that Palin did coke in this lovely establishment, which happens to be right next door to to very good Asian restaurant I always visit if I find myself in Wasilla, so I snapped a pic of it. Looking at the refs used here, they all say she snorted coke off an oil drum during a snowmachining trip. I suppose it is likely that whatever sleazy tabloid that was at the grocery isn't as particular as WP about verifying things before publishing them, but if it comes up again here is a pic that can be used. Sorry, but I felt no desire to go inside for further information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Breitbart publishes McGinniss e-mail, alleges hoax
Just a heads-up that Andrew Breitbart has published e-mail purportedly from McGinniss that seems to show McGinniss lacked evidence for many of the controversial claims in his Palin book, but that he published anyway. Probably shouldn't include in this article yet until we have other sources. Kelly hi! 13:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's quote the whole email in a new section called "McGinniss's epitaph", lol ! --  Kenatipo    speak! 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Breitbart has published an additional story specifying which allegations are unsourced or possible hoaxes, comparing the book to the McGinniss e-mail. Kelly  hi! 16:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. Let's wait to see if it is picked up in mainstream media.  TFD (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ABC reports that Palin has threatened a lawsuit against McGinniss' publisher, citing the e-mail published by Breitbart. Kelly  hi! 23:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not get all excited about the blow-by-blow of political theater between Palin and McGinniss. If a suit is actually filed that would be different, but this is likely just posturing for the cable news crowd. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not in a rush to include it either, just wanted to drop the refs off here on the talk page if the facts develop further. Kelly  hi! 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

McGinniss attacks media for poor reception of Palin book
From Politico. Kelly hi! 01:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fatal Vision trial
Something's not right about the description in the article. It says that his publisher's insurance company settled the case after a hung jury failed to reach a verdict and that "neither side filed an appeal." Those two statements are contradictory. SHJohnson (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe McGinniss. 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/20100826035442/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228232838/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/21/roger_ailes_fehrman/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/21/roger_ailes_fehrman/index.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) 13:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

New Yorker article
An IP added a posthumous article in The New Yorker by his son Joe McGinniss Jr. It's a negative article to be sure, but I think the brief reference to it should stay in the "death" section as there is no other relevant place at this time. Another place would be a "personal life" section, with other sourcing related to his birth, marriages etc. There is a need for that anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this benefits the article at all. It's almost painful the read the stuff that Joe McGinnis Jr. just gushes forth about which he would never do if his father were alive.  Sure, it was published in the New Yorker, but just because the prose is elevated, that doesn't mean they NY won't stoop to People magazine level for extra eyeballs.  Wikipedia doesn't have the pressures the NY does to stay solvent, so why denigrate the level of information on a successful writer's page down to dirty laundry quality. So Joe drank too much, womanized, and died a slow, painful death and everyone in his family thought he was a jerk - sounds like every writer.  I'm old enough to remember Britannica, and I don't ever remember reading anything so People magazine like in the Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, etc. etc. articles.  Anyway, that's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.  Terry Foote (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A few more thoughts, then I'll let this proverbial sleeping dog lay. Or is it lie. :)  I just find this article and the one sentence description rather odd.  It reads like "oh, by the way, the author's son wrote an article about his dad's miserable death."  How is that dignified or anything like content befitting an encyclopedia with Wikipedia's aspirations.  It just sounds like gossip.  Furthermore, I think we should be much more careful about what negative information is placed in biographical articles.  Sometimes, less is more, and there's a fine line between useful information and gossip.  "Someone wrote a snarky article about _____________________" just doesn't cut it.  Perhaps if someone made the effort to write more, and offer context as to why this information is necessary in understanding the subject.  OK, I'm finished now.  Thank you for reading.  Terry Foote (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is to have a "personal life" section, which does not have to be terribly long, and find a tasteful and appropriate way of using the material in the New Yorker article. I agree that it currently is not optimal usage. However, given the length of the article and his prominence as a writer, I don't feel we can just ignore the New Yorker article. I understand your disdain for that type of piece but I've seen a lot worse. The current usage can be a placeholder for a short while. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a section on his early life and family, as there were interesting details from the Times obit that belong there, and changed the "death" section to "later life and death," and used the material from the New Yorker and Beast articles there.  Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it reads so well now that if Joe McGiniss were still alive and read his article, he would approve. Sure, we have an obligation to offer objective information, however we need to balance that with the rights of public figures.  I know, obvious, right?  IMO, there's a lot of stuff on biogrpahies in Wikipedia that crosses the line into gossipy - it's like throwing sand in my eyes, it's so painful to behold.  The Joe McGinniss article is now no longer painful to read - thank you for your cooperation and good will.Terry Foote (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, thanks. These things are always a work in progress. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)