Talk:Linda Greenhouse

Greenhouse Not a Lawyer and Also Has a Clear Ideological Bias
Shouldn't the article make it crystal clear that she is not a lawyer? And that her opinions merely reflect her ideological bias?

journalism conference?
I'm not sure how notable this journalism conference in Aug. 2007 is. It seems like a minor kerfluffle at best. ... In the meantime, it was not very understandable from the text, so I added a little more detail so one can at least understand what happened. But I'm happy to have it deleted altogether. Thoughts? --lquilter 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - This seems to be a minor spat. This whole article needs work, and I'm not even sure she deserves her own page.  Are all Pulitzer prize winners considered notable?&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if all Pulitzer Prize winners are notable; I haven't given it much thought. But Greenhouse is clearly notable -- she's the major writer and commentator on US legal affair for the mainstream press. --lquilter 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, although I would consider Nina Totenburg of NPR to be on par with Greenhouse. Regards&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

marital status
Does info about her husband add anything useful to the article? Does this violate any wikipolicies on biographies of living persons? I removed the text about her husband as it does not seem to fit, but am willing to re-insert. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fairly common to include basic biographical facts of personal nature in biographical articles. Births, deaths, marriages, and divorces, are matters of public record, so they're not "private", per se, and I don't believe they would violate WP:BLP (at least, I haven't seen it in there). However, they should be referenced -- so if no third-party source has chosen to write about this information about Greenhouse then we have no reference for it. --lquilter 14:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if I come across a ref, I'll add back in. I'm going to read her Radcliffe speech and some of the articles about her in the next few days to see if I can make the article here a bit clearer. Regards&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

criticism
I put back in some notable and verifiable information on the controversy over Greenhouse's vigorous expression of her personal views including on court issues she covers. I understand the concern that this section (including the Harvard speech is now too big) so maybe the Harvard speech shouldn't be it's own section and should be merged? But I think this information is important as it was a very big story. I certainly wouldn't object to adding positive criticisms that are sourced or more information on other aspects of Greehouse's career. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)) Also, I would support cutting down her quote to the parts I think are relevant and not already covered: "It was clear the extent to which our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world." The rest is already covered. And I wouldn't object to taking out the Simon and Garfunkel bit, but if it adds something that's fine. Isn't there already something in there aboue her being a "child of the 60s"? Maybe not.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The criticism section is way longer than her career section for someone her age. How sexist can you be? C'mon, we can do better.--71.167.166.219 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Abortion
Shouldn't there be some material here, at least an acknowledgement, of Greenhousee' recent book on the abortion controversy prior to Roe v. Wade? --Christofurio (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section has undue weight relative to the rest of the article, and seems to cherry-pick comments for its description of each incident. I've already gone and removed two one instance where what someone said was taken out of context. It'd be a good idea to do a comprehensive review to make sure the coverage is balanced. wctaiwan (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The criticism will not be balanced because it is criticism. The question is whether these are notable or agenda/slander.--WatchingContent (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The test is whether it is UNDUE.  Please read the policy.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so what is UNDUE? Writing about it? Because I don't see two-sides presented. I'm not asking in challenging manner, I'm asking for clarification.--WatchingContent (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linda Greenhouse. 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/20111018045604/http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/480104.pdf to http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/480104.pdf

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) 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Linda Greenhouse. 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/20080111110555/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270069774/page/1175295287807/simplepage.htm to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270069774/page/1175295287807/simplepage.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901113024/http://www.radcliffe.edu/about/news/pr/show_pr.php?pr_name=060608_greenhouse.html to http://www.radcliffe.edu/about/news/pr/show_pr.php?pr_name=060608_greenhouse.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826005101/http://www.radcliffe.edu/alumnae/reunions/4and9/greenhouse.php to http://www.radcliffe.edu/alumnae/reunions/4and9/greenhouse.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229095548/http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzFlN2IwMWViOTYzYjQ2NDg0MDIyOTlmYWEyNjIzYWU to http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzFlN2IwMWViOTYzYjQ2NDg0MDIyOTlmYWEyNjIzYWU
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826005101/http://www.radcliffe.edu/alumnae/reunions/4and9/greenhouse.php to http://www.radcliffe.edu/alumnae/reunions/4and9/greenhouse.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813171810/http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/radvideo/RadDay2006_luncheon.rm to http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/radvideo/RadDay2006_luncheon.rm

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) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)