Talk:Maureen Dowd

Whose Line
No mention of her appearance on Whose Line Is It Anyway?

Footnote 7 is Incorrect
That is a "political humor" article. It does not give any corroboration or evidence that President Bush actually calls Dowd "the Cobra" any more than it gives evidence that he calls Karl Rove "Turd Blossom." The fact that another site has an unsubstantiated claim (that appears simply to be humorous) does not justify including it in an encyclopedia.

Wrong. Footnote 7 is correct. Here is a citation of the ultimate - as opposed to a secondary - source. 

Ghost Writing for Dowd
Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?

Retrieved from "http://journalism.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Current_events"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maureen Dowd. 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/20060614175414/http://www.utexas.edu/supportut/news_pub/yg_dowd-davislecture.html to http://www.utexas.edu/supportut/news_pub/yg_dowd-davislecture.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) 18:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maureen Dowd. 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/20120522131149/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/182785-1/Maureen+Dowd.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/182785-1/Maureen+Dowd.aspx

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) 10:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism
I've removed the "Criticism" section from the article. Such sections are magnets for any and all disparaging opinions, and so are unsuitable for BLPs in the first place. This one also had undue reliance on partisan bloggers as well as improper synthesis of various opinion pieces. Feel free to re-add pertinent criticisms with appropriate references to reliable, secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2, 2015 article
IMHO the paragraph about the May 2, 2015, article is too long, at 320 words. Isn't there a guideline suggesting something shorter? It feels like one would need a separate section for something that detailed. It also feels like the paragraph is more about the ER issue than about the journalist.--Gciriani (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thurman


There was secondary source coverage of her Uma Thurman piece, so worth incorporating in some form. (not watching, please )  czar  16:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Drezner's comments
Hi I noticed that you reverted my removal of Prof. Drezner's comments, within a minute of my edit. I really do think that the quote seems out of place. The comment is not specifically about Dowd's op-ed, but rather the inaccurate qualification of Trump as a dovish president, perpetuated by many writers and political analysts. Plus, the language seems to be quite informal and frankly I don't see why including a comment like "But dear God, it would be nice" or his particular anger for the opinion, contributes to the article in any shape. Citing other parts of Drezner's op-ed, like the comments about Syria and NK, seems much more suitable.

– Demoxica (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about which parts of Drezner's piece get cited, except that the text makes it perfectly clear that he is an expert on the topic and he rejects that Trump has been a dove. After edits by Tbobbed, Drezner is no longer cited in any form whatsoever, and the text misleadingly claims that "critics of Trump's foreign policy" dispute Dowd's characterization. These are experts on foreign policy, not "Trump critics". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There's at least a couple of problems with the inclusion of the Drezner material. Before I changed it, the heading of the section was about the (supposedly) misogynistic nature of Dowd's treatment of women in politics. A paragraph of extended criticism of the view that Hillary was more hawkish than Trump didn't really fit in with that theme. It was also a bit of a "coatrack": a way of getting in some criticism of Trump when Dowd is the subject of the article. In addition, it was also written three years ago (January 2018) only a year into Trump's term. Just how hawkish did Trump's presidency turn out to be? I'm not a big fan of his, but the fact of the matter is that there were far fewer U.S. combat deaths than in the previous four Presidential terms Tbobbed (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Dowd's Education
She received a Master's in English Literature from Columbia in 2023. Kdotlamar39 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)