Talk:Richard Stengel

Report on a removed phrase from the talk page
I removed the following paragraph from the talk page because it wasn't written in the right place: "Gay??? I saw Stengel in the Presidential Forum, and by the way he talks, acts, claps, sits, and presents himself... he is clearly gay. Not only gay, but a faggot! The article says he is married... Beard???" -- An d Re w 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there something being hidden that we should know about and discuss?
There seems to be a revert war going on. What's up? I think this is notable and should be discussed on the main page. Otherwise, we'll just foster unnecessary speculation. 71.39.78.68 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The liberals are in an uproar over his handling of columnist Joe Klein's piece (hatchet job, really) on the F.I.S.A. legislation currently before congress.  --Nbahn (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. And what we are finding out is that Wikipedia has higher standards of accuracy than Rick Stengal or Time Magazine. 66.188.6.131 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that challenged statements be sourced; unfortunately major media does not have this higher standard. Prior to the internet it was almost impossible for the average person to challenge media inaccuracies .172.129.88.136 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)BG


 * If this is notable - you need independent secondary sources that say so.--Docg 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe you should delete the mention that there is a controversy about Stengel, as long as it is properly sourced (which it was). The writing might be finetuned, but the facts remain. JMLofficier (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I think the link to Atrios / Atrios' comments provided a balance, and would still favor including some mention of it, I am satisfied with the new rewrite. JMLofficier (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Atrios' comments violate WP:BLP - though obviously it's a sarcastic comment in a blog, outside of that context it doesn't belong here since it's not relevant to reporting the controversy. Readers unfamiliar with that context may take the allegation as factual, that's why there's WP:BLP. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with above comments by JMLofficier and Mike Doughney. BusterD (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the article doesn't make it plain why this is in Richard Stengel rather than the article for Time Magazine or articles on the legislation. Why is it here? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Stengel is Joe Klein's boss. Correction of Klein's work would ultimately fall to him, that's what the title "managing editor" means. The controversy centers on the nature of that correction which would be Stengel's responsibility, and I've added a few words to explain that. Hopefully E&P or some other publication will clarify this relationship in a form that can be cited here. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In some ways the controversy is what makes Stengel notable, he's just an employee of Time otherwise. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is primarily Stengel's defense of Klein, in which he claims that Klein "addressed" his "reporting error," and also his facile insistence that the error stems from different interpretations of the bill by Republicans and Democrats, that makes him and Time culpable in this mess. I can't speak for Time, but at a newspaper, managing editors are responsible for running the newsroom. They are the bosses on personnel matters and are instrumental in determining the publication's response to controversies like this one, in which the publication is charged with making substantial errors. It is utterly appropriate to document the controversy here, and there should be more detail. Gkwobe (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)gkwobe

Lead sentence
Hey guys, while folks are fighting about the stuff above, I have tries to copy write the lead sentence. Is this person an American citizen? Is he notable for being an editor? Thanks, --Tom 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

--Nbahn 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some links:

Requested citations provided
Someone requested citations for the statement that Priscilla Painton is involved in the controversy. I thought that it was a little ridiculous, but I have taken two citations from the Painton article and added them to the end of the sentence in question. Hopefully this will satisfy whomever wanted the citation in the first place.--Nbahn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional Content
I work for Rubenstein Communications and Time Inc. is a client of ours. To mitigate any potential conflict of interest, I will aim to only vet instances of factual inaccuracies that are improperly sourced or incorrectly cited. Furthermore, I will recommend additional content as necessary. I will post to the discussion page first, and ask that editors add information to the article as they see fit. If no discussion is had, nor action taken, within a week of posting the proposed content, I will move forward and add to the article. If there are any questions/concerns/edits to my proposed actions, please discuss on my talk page. // Brycetom (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See below for proposed content addition:

National Service Movement
In September 2007, Stengel wrote a TIME cover story called The Case For National Service in which he argued that Americans needed to redouble their efforts to get involved in community service and volunteerism, and that the presidential candidates needed to make the issue a top priority in the 2008 presidential campaign. Through this essay, Stengel became involved with national service groups Be the Change, City Year, Civic Enterprises, and others to form ServiceNation, a coalition of more than 100 organizations dedicated to promoting national service and volunteerism.

ServiceNation announced that it had secured both U.S. Presidential candidates to participate in Presidential Forum on National Service at Columbia University in New York City on September 11, 2008. Stengel served as co-moderator of the forum, along with PBS journalist Judy Woodruff, and both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain answered questions in front of a live audience at Columbia University about their plans for national service.

On September 12, 2008, Stengel was a featured speaker at the ServiceNation Summit in New York, along with Caroline Kennedy, former US Senator Hillary Clinton, former First Lady Laura Bush and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. . In February 2009, Stengel testified alongside Usher Raymond, former U.S. Senator Harris Wofford and others, in front of the United States House Committee on Education and Labor about the importance of national service.

Proposed revision to this article
✅

This article has unfortunately been allowed to languish for some time; what's good about it hasn't been particularly well-organized or in some cases verified, and a clearly contentious section called "Controversy" accounts for nearly half the text. I'd like to change that, and I've prepared an alternate version of this entry, available in my user space here: User:WWB_Too/Richard Stengel. I happen to work with Time Inc., so because of my potential conflict, I will avoid moving my draft over for now. I intend for this comment to serve as a request for an uninvolved editor to consider replacing the current article with my draft or something similar to it. Most of what I have changed is not very controversial: I've located citations to verify accurate material in this entry and re-organized the article structure to better reflect the shape of his public career. More sensitive, of course, are the topics covered in the existing "Controversy" section. Some of that could be an issue under the Biographies of living persons policy, and I’d be interested in another editor’s opinion about that material, but I’ll punt on that for the moment. The one topic for which I will offer a suggestion relates to the fourth and fifth paragraphs. Specifically, that topic is the early 2008 Time cover in which the border was changed to green, and the famous Iwo Jima photograph was adapted for the issue's environmental theme. You'll find it in the "Managing editor of Time magazine" section, in my proposed draft. I'd very much appreciate anyone who takes the time to read through my draft and consider these changes. If you have any questions or comments, I'm open to discussing any of them. Here's hoping we can find consensus to bring this article closer in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much better, much on the controversy is not about this living person and didn't belong here anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If possible please clarify a source in "A Troubled and Troubling Life", Time Magazine, April 8, 1985
If possible please clarify a source in the cover article "A Troubled and Troubling Life", Time Magazine, April 8, 1985. I'm contesting details in this article about the shooting description on Wiki Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernhard_Goetz. The Time article states: "Goetz rose slowly, partly unzipping his jacket." Do you have any notes for the source of this statement...? 172.130.63.43 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Stengel: Mark Levin as a constitutional scholar?
Wow. I see nothing in his bio which would qualify him for that title. The guy who calls anything and everything not conservative "socialist"? As far as his bio on Wikipedia goes (and the supporting cites), he's a far right-wing lawyer with radio access, with support from a far right-wing imprint. Unlike Stengel, Levin doesn't even qualify as a journalist, just a talking/writing polemic. Regardless, if the ip editor who inserted this material can find a transcript which supports the position cited, I'll not revert it. But a radio show broadcast cite with no transcript is just one editor's word. AGF, but wow. In addition, that editor removed citation and another editor has restored that unexplained deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted that addition, it seems to need attribution and when you do as you say it seems to be a bit opinionated and self published podcast not worthy of reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first part of your statement is unintelligible. As far as "self published podcast not worthy of reporting.", you are joking, right? This isn't a "self published podcast" that we are discussing here, it is one of the highest rated, widely (nationally) syndicated radio program.  This an audience on par with the highest rated television network news program (CBS's 60 Minutes at 7.2 million viewers*) and higher than any cable news program*.  And you want to compare this with a "self published podcast", seriously? Would you say that about, for example, Meet the Press?  Look at this way, that's a larger audience than ALL the top 20 news programs on CNN,HLN and MSNBC COMBINED.  Pretty hard to take you seriously sir.(*Nielsen ratings for week June 20, 2011)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No doubt Levin is a controversial figure due to his inflamatory rhetoric. As far as being a legal scholar however, his foundation (LLF) has argued a number of cases before the US Supreme Court.  Constitutional issues are a primary topic of discussion on his radio program (available free online for verification) and he is a frequent guest commentator on the subject on other nationally-syndicated radio programs as well as other media outlets (e.g. Fox News). He was Deputy Solicitor or the US dept. of the Interior and Chief of Staff for the US Attorney General in the Reagan administration.  Levin is a noted author on the topic, including articles in National Review Online.  He is also the author of several NYT bestselling books, including "Men in Black" covering the Supreme Court and the NYT #1 bestseller "Liberty and Tyranny" which focuses primarily on constitutional issues. Mr. Levin's audience (8.5+ million weekly) is several times that of Time Magazine's (3.4 million subscriptions + 90,000 newstand copies weekly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree his job is to make arguments, and while I agree he has more listeners than Time has readers, I'm not convinced anyone outside of his political circle would regard him as a scholar. And welcome, DerekMD. I'd like to discuss this further before anyone reinserts this controversial material. I think you'll have to muster consensus to make these changes. BusterD public (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I thought verifiability was the standard, not the convincing of BusterD. Even if Mr. Levin's POV is in the minority (there is no way of knowing this), that doesn't immunize Stengal from criticism, does it?  I don't know what other credential you'd like to see, perhaps only being a professor of constitutional law at a liberal university gives one the right to comment on constitutional issues?  As was pointed out, he has penned NYT #1 best selling books on the topic.  I think you are being a bit trivial and absurd at this point to deny Levin's scholarship.  Since you propose to use your being convince as the standard here, Have you read Men in Black, or Liberty and Tyranny?  Do you listen to his broadcasts? If so you should know that rarely does a day go by without critical commentary and "harping" on the Constitution. Certainly he has more right to be represented as a constitutional scholar than Mr. Stengal, and that IS the point here, after all.  For your benefit, however, here is further evidence.

"Levin is seriously credible on matters constitutional" - Jeffery Lord, The American Spectator, 3/18/2010.

"The Supreme Court is speeding the country on the road to tyranny, according to this jeremiad from Levin, a conservative constitutional lawyer and radio talk show host." - Editorial review of _Men_In_Black by Publishers Weekly

"Mark Levin is an author and constitutional scholar..." - first sentence of an article (dated May 5, 2011) in _The_Daily_Caller by Ginni Thomas (wife of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas).

Now I have made cogent arguments with citations... I really don't see any credible "arguement" from the other side at this point. Merely vague objections based on opinion (your own). Nevertheless, I've redacted the comment by Levin for the time being in good faith to give BusterD or others the opportunity to respond.

Kind Regards, BTW: Thanks for the welcome :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not impressive sourcing. The conservative activist married to to a far-right justice? American Spectator? Both of these sources are badly stained with partisanship. National Review is another conservative organ. You got links? Without links one can't determine whether the book review is helpful. Please, don't continue to insert this material without consensus generated on this space. When an editor makes the same edits over and over, reverting others' edits, we call that edit-warring, and it doesn't stand the editor in good stead, nor does it represent the position particularly well. BusterD (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor has been warned for edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty close to an ad hominem attack of reliable sources re:Ms. Thomas... "Harassment and intimidation tactics. Members of a tag team may resort to ad hominem arguments against dissenting editors, or even against the authors of reliable sources."
 * Drmies, why are reverting the porting that we had reached concensus on? The only parts that have been disputed are those regarding Mr. Levin - which I agreed to exclude pending further discussion.  I'm acting in good faith here and I've got you repeatedly removing sourced content without discussion or dispute.  Please refrain from this behaviour as I consider it vandalism of the article.  If you don't agree with parts, why not dicuss them here?  Your behavior is unacceptable and indefensible Drmies.  You have been warned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 09:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is indefensible (and you have been warned now) is edit-warring while claiming there is a consensus--when it is obvious that there isn't. I'm not a participant in this discussion in terms of content; I judged whether your edits were acceptable given the discussion on the talk page, and they weren't. One more thing: accusations of vandalism need to have a base in the relevant policy, which you can find at WP:Vandalism. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, while I appreciate User:DerekMD is not insisting on using Mark Levin as a source for this particular assertion, we're not to consensus yet. I believe User:Off2riorob had a concern that the assertion made was a minority (perhaps approaching fringe) position. I'd feel more comfortable if we could find sources which weren't associated with the hard right in the United States. As an alternative, I'd suggest something like: "Critics like conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin assert Stengel has a poor understanding of the Constitution and its underlying principles.(cite) National Review described his essay on the Constitution as "deeply flawed".(cite)" IMHO, this better represents the kind of criticism DerekMD has raised. BusterD (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my position is that undue weight is being given to this criticism and to the speech writing itself, seems a very minor issue in the subjects notability to me, unworthy of a mention in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the critique perhaps a "controversies" section? BusterD public (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per MOS critism should be intergrated to relevent sections - timelines etc. What is wanted to be added - that Stengel was the speech writer for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley and his understanding of the constitution has been criticized. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't care if you are an admin or not. And if you do, if you think that gives your opinions more weight or exempts you from discussing on the talk page, you should not be an admin.  So drop the attitude. Yes, this is much more constructive.  Cite the policy and why it should not be removed, versus deleting cited information and attacking the editor for restoring it and leveling accusations of edit-warring.  In each case, I gave a good-faith relevent comment on the talk page here.  I have not seen that level of respect or good-faith effort from the other side here.  Only removal of legitimate critism from the "other side".  And National Review is no more right-wing than Time is left-wing.  Nor has there been any evidence given that these critisms are a minority view.  Was Mr. Stengal a speech writer for Bradley?  I don't see this questioned or discussed on the talk page, yet it is repeated removed.  IMHO that fits the standard for vandalism.  Similarly with the rest of the additional information I included in the article that has repeatedly been erased.  No legitimate critism of it, just removal (presumable because the editor/s doesn't agree with that content).  The only information that has yet to be challenged is whether Mr. Levin should be identified as a constitutions scholar.  I feel I made a strong argument, but since that was a point of fact that had been disputed, I abstained from adding that back after the point was raised. It is also clear there is a strong left-wing bias on Wikipedia, especially among admins.  There is a tendency for a small left-leaning cabal to dominate issues like this one with the support of leftist admins.  I am glad to see at least some good-faith exercised in that last few comments.  I think the suggestions are constructive.  Please implement them (e.g. move critisms to a new section if you think that is appropriate, I won't challenge you on this), rather than reverting.  Perhaps UNDUE is properly invoked here, I'll have to read that policy, but is the remedy removal?  Let's include the critisms guys, I'm open to that being done in a way that you find suitable.  Don't make me play a guessing game in what that is though, and please stop deleting cited material without contesting it's validity or because you don't agree with it.  I'm still willing to assume good-faith here, because I think you guys have demonstrated some.  I know I have been acting with good faith.  Let's get this worked out amicable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has stuffed it back in yet again, the addition is a mess also and left a misplaced edit box. This really is getting tedious, this so called criticism is absolute trivia, valueless addition and the account keeps edit warring it in, they have had lots of links to help them and lots of warning to stop edit warring. The SPA has started a RFC on a page they have created with the same name as this,RFC stengal new page - this is getting worse - if the user wants to start a thirty day RFC and the content is disputes by a WP:consensus of editors the content should stay out of the article until the RFC is completed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And now I'm going to be critized for taking this dispute through the appropriate channels for resolution? I know you want to dismiss me out of hand and make me "go away", but if this isn't personal and I don't appreciate the personal attacks/slights. You aren't even speaking to me anymore, you talkin ABOUT me to other editors as if I wasn't even here... looks like you've demoted from "editor" to "users" as well.  I forgive you off2riorob, but please consider how rude that is.  Not very encouraging for a new editor (or whatever you wanna call me).  Now, getting back to substance, I read WP:UNDUE.  If you contend this is a minority viewpoint, then it should be included.  If you content it is a fringe VP, the standard is (abscence of) citation by prominent proponents.  Clearly that standard is met, unless you claim that National Review and/or Mr. Levin are not prominent.  Clearly the other editors are familiar w/these sources themselves, let alone the evidence of prominence of Mr. Levin that I have already explicated above.  Therefore those wishing to exclude should not be invoking WP:UNDUE since that standard has been easily met.  Therefore, please stop removing sourced material and citing YOUR OWN opinion as justification.  I'm not relying on my opinion, I am CITING 1)Prominent and 2)Verifiable sources.   I think if Mr. Stengal is going to be represented (ostensibly) as an expert on the constitution and publish articles on the same, there should be room for comments from prominent critics on same, that all.

Kind Regards. BTW: Sorry abt the misplaced edit box there, it's a alot work adding the citations and I'm not that familiar w/the format. I'll try to keep it neat w/o any mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A check of Off2riorob's user talk page shows a close affirmative relationship with Baseballbugs, who just happens to chime in on this article? Is calling in other editors "friends" with closely aligned views to help edit war consistent with WP policies?  If so I need to start recruiting a conservative cabal to dominate contentious discussions.  I notice BBugs didn't bother to comment on the talk page about the issues, just a hit job.  This is so obvious guys it is disgusting.  You guys should recuse yourself if you have an ounce of integrity left.  Have some shame.
 * I have had both agreements and disagreements with Bugs throughout my two and a half years of contributing here. In this case I totally agree withs Bugs. As for a conservative cabal - I have not a single conservative bone in my body, although I do improve and protect from vandalism some of their articles. I am from the UK and have no idea what side of the partisan fence this subject sits on. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for some discussion on the substance here guys. I brought up several points regarding WP:UNDUE and no one has addressed it.  Note Sowell of Stanford has raised the same critisism in his column.  Why is this being kept out of the article?  By what policy or standard?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:rfc discussions can, and usually do last thirty days and as I have seen its better to allow some outside uninvolved editors to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm good with that. I changed the name of this section to more accurately reflect the discussion here, which is more about inclusion of criticism of Stengel than solely about ML. Regards.

Criticisms
Documented critisms are being repeated deleted w/o justification. I have removed the disputed material pending discussion, but the rest of the cited/uncontested material is repeatedly being removed. I have warned (on my talk page) not to critised an admin (which I don't think is appropriate#. I think there is some good-faith on the other side, but there also seems to be a small cabal of 2-3 editors trying to keep out certain sourced material due to POV.  Please help resolve this as their only #un)constructive solution is delete, delete, accuse of edit warring and delete. DerekMD (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Update: It seems this issue is so "trivial" (tongue-in-cheek) that Thomas Sowell (Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University) has decided to weigh in on the matter. Here is an exerpt from his syndicated column:
 * From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Stengel. He says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn't say so."


 * Apparently Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

But clearly, Stengal must be protected (by certain Wikipedians) at all cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A careful review of the history of this article reveals a consistent agenda to exclude any material critical of Stengel and a MAJOR WHITEWASH, including the removal of the entire criticism/controversy section (including major sections of sourced/cited text, w/o discussion on tp) by WWB Too/Off2riorob in DEC 2010. I was not even involved or aware of this article at the time.  Looks like this article belongs to him and BusterD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, maybe it's because they can actually write legible English. And they also know how to sign their posts. The term "whitewash" is ironic, given that the right-wing agenda is to return to the days when white males totally ruled America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs)
 * Everything. For one thing, your spelling sucks. For another, what's the deal? Is your keyboard lacking the "tilde", or do you just not care? And most importantly, how do you figure that right-wing rags like National Review or American Spectator can be considered "reliable" sources for anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, cut him a break. It looks like he's been diligently signing each edit summary with four tildes... ;)  I think eventually he'll start putting them at the end of his comments instead... Wnt (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In regard to Derek's comment - "a MAJOR WHITEWASH, including the removal of the entire criticism/controversy section (including major sections of sourced/cited text, w/o discussion on tp) by Off2riorob in DEC 2010." - Firstly, there was discussion about it. I will look for it later if you request. That was article improvement not a whitewash - as per WP:MOS criticism sections are to be avoided and critical commentary should be integrated throughout the article in related sections and fitting with the time-line. He seems like a nice enough noteworthy guy to me and his life story is all there just because some partisans don't like him its hardly a major landmark in his life story is it. Notable critical commentary is always open for consideration - not someones self published podcast or similar soapboxing self promotion.-Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, my points were not added to a new section on criticism, they were added in the section on National Constitution Center (Stengel as CEO), what more appropriate place is there to included criticisms of Stengel's article on the Constitution? And this is the first time I've seen the WP:MOS, how can I read it when I didn't know it existed? I didn't see anything in there about sections on criticism/controversy either way - only that the original major contributor's chosen style should be respected when in doubt, but I didn't read the whole guide yet.  The notability or merit of his critics is already discussed above, but it does not amount to one guy with a soapbox, as you suggest.  And I've seen more honest discussion here one the RfC than in the previous section.  I still don't know why this content should be kept out.  I'm flexible on how it's included, but it should be included in some form.DerekMD (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Statement of involved User:BusterD:
 * Regarding User:DerekMD's comment about my "ownership" of the article ("Looks like this article belongs to him and BusterD"), previous to user's insertion, I had made two edits over three years ago (#1, defending the page from left-wing vandalism, #2, linking to another article, and leaving exposed code, sorry) to this page. Since the attempted insertion, I have made two reversions, one under my mobile account. The basis for these reversions is clearly explained in the sections above. During that discussion I asked for a transcript of the radio show referenced and as an alternative offered a wording of the user's criticism I would not revert.


 * I have welcomed the new user. I have encouraged the user to avoid personalizing the discussion, offering suggestions, and cautioned the user about threatening administrators. Most recently, I've asked the user to remove an infobox on the user's page self-identifying as an administrator on English Wikipedia. In the meantime, I've been involved in several other page discussions, edited several other article pages, and put a page up for deletion (only my second). So I've been doing what most of us do here, farming pagespace and trying to build an encyclopedia. This covers my involvement with this page and with the editor calling for comment, with one unrelated exception (an oversight issue having nothing to do with the current discussion). I'm happy to answer questions about my actions and rationale. BusterD (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to which, I removed the portions of the edit in question (re:Levin). The other citations which were not in dispute were then repeatedly removed with little or (usually) no discussion. I can not read everyone's mind and continually reword, if you find it needs to be changed to be acceptable, change it instead of deleting the work of other editors.
 * I accepted your welcome and reciprocated. I didn't "threaten" anyone and I take that accusation as a personal attack, please retract it. The info boxes on my userpage (that box is there because I cut/pasted my userpage from anothers since I'm not familiar with the coding) are not germain to the topic, you are simply looking for any reason to disparage me. You're other edits are not relevent either (here's a cookie for you). Why would I continue to add content (cited) when it is only getting erased?  Again, no discussion on why the criticism of Stengel should not be included - with citations from National Review, Levin and now Sowell all voicing the same concerns.  The only discussion of content was on Levin's qualifications, so I refrained from including that.  The rest has been repeatedly deleted w/o discussion, I don't think that's consistent with WP policy, is it?  I'll let the actual discussion page above speak for itself. It seems to me though, that there is an abuse of process here by those familiar with it, by focussing on form instead of content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  DerekMD  (talk • contribs)  16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing other users' comments on an article talk page is called refactoring, it's discouraged even if done in good faith, and considered a minor form of gaming the system. Since I'm sure new User:DerekMD didn't intend disruption or have any other negative intention, I've moved everything back to where it was before that user's last comments were inserted. It would be respectful to everyone in the discussion if DerekMD could remember to sign comments using four tildes NOT in the edit summary, but at the end of a post or posts. Like this: ~
 * So when User:DerekMD said "You have been warned.", that wasn't a threat? Normally when somebody on Wikipedia talk says "Editor has been warned" like User:Drmies did, that user was merely reporting a fact: a warning had been left on the other user's talk page. But when a user simply out of the blue says: "You have been warned." that is considered a personal threat, albeit minor. So by the common standards of talkpage etiquette, User:DerekMD did threaten User:Drmies, even if unintentionally.
 * Three different users have objected to the assertions inserted. Originally my only concern was the use of Levin to judge Stengel. Levin can't be considered a reliable source, because his job is to pick on libs and the mainstream media. He's an attorney actually paid to make arguments that line up with the right wing noise machine in the US. All of the sources User:DerekMD has provided share this same basic partisanship, especially paid right-wing pundits like Sowell and Levin. If I understand correctly, User:Off2riorob has objected to these insertions on the basis that the assertion is a fringe position, only espoused by the American political right. DerekMD's choice of sources is the precise reason Off2riorob objected to the insertion (please correct me Off2riorob if I've mis-characterized). If the user was providing less partisan sourcing, I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation. If I understand User:Baseball Bugs correctly, "Your spelling sucks." That's an accurate assessment, not to be too snide, but not an attack. Each insertion you've offered has been malformed and contained misspelled words. Further, I believe Baseball Bugs has concerns similar to those of Off2riorob. I would have less trouble with the insertions if User:DerekMD correctly characterized the sources as conservative critics. However, that alone may not allay the other two mentioned users' concerns. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question from uninvolved editor
DerekMD: In order to include criticism of Stengel in this article, the criticism should come from either (1) some very important source (such as NY Times OpEd, or a major political figure, etc); or (2) Minor sources such as radio/TV commentators could possibly be included, if there were several of them and they all made similar criticisms;  or (3)  if Stengel and the critic engaged in some kind of public debate/dialog. Do the sources you have for the criticism fall into any of those three categories? Or is it just a single "minor" critic? --Noleander (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now cited three sources


 * 1) National Review by most accounts the leading conservative news magazine in the US


 * 2) Mark Levin One of the top 5 radio talk show hosts in the country, with a weekly audience (~ 9 million) 2-3 times larger than that of Time magazine(of which Stengel is the editor) and the author of several NYT best selling books, two of which (Men in Black, Liberty and Tyranny - #1 NYT bestseller) on the topic in question (the US constitution) and endorsed as a "Constitutional Scholar" by the spouse of a sitting US Supreme Court justice (see additional qualifications above).


 * 3) Thomas Sowell A leading political economist, senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, winner of numerous prestigious national academic awards (Boyer Award, Nat. Humanities Medal, Bradley Prize, etc.), a nationally syndicated columinst for such publications as Forbes Magazine and The Wall Street Journal, and the author of more than 33 books (including several best sellers).


 * These are leading conservative voices who felt the need to explicitly repudiate Stengel's reinterpretation of the Constitution - a current issue of paramount political import. Given that the US is currently pretty evenly split between the conservative/liberal parties, the question is not whether these critics represent a fringe viewpoint, but, rather, whether they represent a minority or the majority viewpoint.  It would appear some editors wish to block this content based on a kill-the-messenger approach, primarily because they do not agree with the message rather than legitimate sourcing concerns and are using WP:Policy reasons in a dubious abuse-of-process (including administrative warnings, ad-hominem attacks, harassment over minor and unrelated userpage issues, and removal of additional content without justification or comment) to block inclusion versus substantive content discussion.  I have seen some good-faith efforts (or the pretense of it), but too piece-meal to allow for a resolution.DerekMD (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are all sources that are always going to attack anything that sounds "liberal". Being naturally biased, and supporting the white-male-rule agenda (code words "strict construction"), they are not legitimate sources for criticism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize Mark Levin is Jewish, Gini Thomas is a woman (married to a African-American) and Thomas Sowell is an African-American from a background of inner-city poverty, not that any of that should affect the merit of their arguments.DerekMD (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care if they're green and are from Mars. They're biased sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with sources being biased ... otherwise no criticism (and hardly any material at all) would appear in the encyclopedia. The WP:NPOV policy permits biased sources provided that they are presented in an accurate fashion, any biases are identified, and balancing information (if any) is presented,
 * @DerekMD:  (1) Can you provide brief quotes from those 3 sources which summarize their criticism of Stengel; and (2) Do you have any secondary sources that mention the criticism ( that is, 3rd-party sources that comment upon the criticism of Stengel, as in some Newspaper writing "Last week Sowell criticized Stengel blah blah ..")?   Although secondary sources that comment on the criticism are not strictly required, they help demonstrate that the material is sufficiently significant to belong in the article. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the sources here, National Review is a highly respected publication and widely known news magazine, Levin is a top-5 radio program, and Sowell is synicated by Gannett (the largest US newspaper publisher based on daily circulation) among others, secondary sources citing the importance of their commentary would appear unnecessary. Those don't sound like fringe groups to me. I'll post concise excerpts from their comments asap.DerekMD (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're to include extreme right-wing sources, which are inherently biased, then the article needs to make that fact clear, to put such criticism in perspective. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course.  But characterization of the sources (e.g. "right wing") must also be sourced.  --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny. In any case, believe it or not, it is possible for someone to be critical of another's position without being biased. It's not possible for those sources, of course, as they hate anything "liberal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not funny, it is the WP:Verifiability policy. It is common for articles to include  assessments of the article's subject and their publications.  For example, this article already has the following sentence " [Stengel's] book has drawn praise from President Bill Clinton, Deepak Chopra, and Harvard's Henry Louis Gates, Jr."   Can the political views of those three reviewers be mentioned in that sentence?  Yes, provided that (1) it is germane; and (2) it is sourced.  I'm simply pointing out that if the critics that DerekMD is citing are included in the article, a similar sourcing requirement applies if the sentence is going to identify the bias of the critics.   --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What IS funny is that, as of yesterday (July 5, 2011), you can add NPR (National Public Radio) to the list of extreme right-wing fanatics criticising Stengel's essay. Makes one wonder who is the real extremist pushing a biased POV here.  Are we done here yet? DerekMD (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean I "can NPR to the list"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, "add" NPR. OK, then, there's your source. Since NPR is assumed by the right-wing rags to be liberal-leaning, if NPR criticizes a liberal, then there's likely something to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. If he's the head of something with "Constitution" in the name, then we should cover whether people think he knows the constitution or not.  Include the negative sources; those taking them out might better direct their efforts toward looking for positive reviews.  I have a low opinion of the National Review and Thomas Sowell, but they are undoubtedly notable ... and even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But are they reliable? To milk the analogy a bit, if a clock was only right twice a day, would anyone trust it to be a reliable source of the time? Would Wikipedia call a clock only right twice a day a reliable source? While User:DerekMD has claimed to cite sources, I have yet to see any sourced citations with links, so I have no basis for evaluating the reliability and verifiability of sources claimed. User has now claimed NPR, but provides no information to back this assertion. So far, everything user has provided is fringe perspectives from partisan sources, with no cited quotes. I'm all about AGF, but up to this point I see little indication this single-purpose account is here for any reason other than disruption. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @DerekMD: Above, you said " I'll post concise excerpts from their comments asap" ... can you provide quotes from all 3 (4?) sources you've mentioned?  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A stopped clock may be a poor source for the time, but it is an excellent source for the time the clock stopped. This is the nature of politics: we should be telling our readers what people are saying, not what we think is the truth. Wnt (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that such a source, like the ones DerekMD has provided, would have extremely limited utility, and it would be a poor choice to give such a source undue weight. It would be a poor choice to use that clock to measure other timepieces, for example. To fail to characterize such an inserted source as flawed might amplify the problem of undue weight. Often better to omit such a flawed and limited source. While I generally agree with the statement on the nature of politics, I reject this is what is going on here. BusterD (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are doggedly ignoring the facts. These are notable sources.  They are biased, but so is Stengel.  These sources represent a major portion of the population, arguably the majority opinion (US, because it's the US Constitution at issue).  When NPR weights in to agree with the conservatives, it is Stengel who is voicing the radical view, and that should be included in the article.  Taken togther, conservatives + NPR = majority opinion, so UNDUE can not be invoked.  Clearly there is a POV pushing here, and it isn't mine.  I don't think we need several paragraphs either though.  A sentence or two, as I initially included, should suffice.  We can identify the conservative sources as such and include a quote from NPR to show the concensus that Stengel is way off-base on the Constitution and Bugs can correct my grammar.  I'll add the quotes and citations in the next few days, I have limited time atm due to work.  Kind Regards All. -DerekMD (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still awaiting a single sample citation, after two weeks of discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @DerekMD: Agree with BusterD.  You named three sources, but have not yet provided quotes from those sources.  In the absence of quotes, the critical material should not be included in this article.  If you can provide quotes, and they all share a common theme, they probably could go in the article, with an in-line identification of the critics ("Persons A, B, and C have criticized Stengel because blah, blah"). --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have my own company with employees to keep employed. This requires approx 100hours a week. I just haven't had time to add it back in. I had quote and inline citation before they were repeated reverted, check 12:13, 26 June 2011. I can't revert it to that. I'll add those and the NPR ASAP. Thanks for your patients guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMD (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: This RFC is not about DerekMD personally, but certainly DerekMD's behavior has been problematic. His defensiveness, overstatement, and sarcasm make it difficult to objectively understand his concerns. Obviously if Stengal (or his work) has been criticized, and that criticism is notable, and a reliable source backs that up, then there's no reason that can't be included. But DerekMD probably ought to leave it to someone else to do so -- someone who is more likely to find reliable sources (Mark Levin, for instance, doesn't count) and less likely to cry "WHITEWASH" at the drop of a hat. – Quadell (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:DerekMD has returned to editing, but just not here. In the last week he's been notable for POV pushing in discussions about the recent Norway attacks, possibly using his ip address as a sock to unfairly weight discussions. BusterD (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm closing the RFC as resolved. – Quadell (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested updates for this article
As editors can see from the discussion above and the connected contributor tag at the top of this page, I've worked on this article previously, then as now at the behest of, and with input from, Mr. Stengel. Now I've prepared several small revisions to bring this article up-to-date. Because of my connection to the subject I will refrain from making direct edits to this article. Rather I'd like to establish consensus and find someone to make the change.

For each change below I've provided the markup so that an editor can easily add this information into the article if they approve of the changes.

The first revision is for the Managing editor of Time section. I have prepared an all- new paragraph for the end of this section discussing some of Mr. Stengel's recent activities as Time's managing editor. Importantly, all of these developments received detailed coverage in third-party sources:

The second revision is an update to the first paragraph of the Books section. I have added a sentence on a recent book Stengel edited:

The third revision is a new section on Mr. Stengel's honorary degrees. In these cases, the sources are the universities themselves. Although I'm perfectly well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, this seems to be common practice in quality biographies (for example, Steven Spielberg). I would suggest adding this to the very end of the article.

The fourth revision is to update the final paragraph of the National Service Movement section. It currently says that Mr. Stengel was named the NCOC's Citizen of the Year twice, however I am only able to find sources showing he received this award once. I have also replaced the current source from the National Conference on Citizenship to one that is specifically about Mr. Stengel's award. Here is the revision I suggest:

Thanks in advance to anyone who reviews these changes, and I hope another editor will be able to make these updates for me. Please let me know if you have any questions about what I have prepared. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅,✅,✅ and ✅. All changes seemed like sensible updates on what was there - nothing undue or irrelevant. I did consider putting the honorary degrees stuff into the Education section but it didn't quite look right telling the reader about his honorary degrees before they had a chance to read about his career and work out why he would have received them. So for now, they are in a separate section as suggested. Anyway, let me know if there's anything else that needs amending. Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stalwart! This all looks great. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard Stingel moves from Time Magazine, managing editor, to join the Obama Adm.
Two days ago, Rush Limbaugh mentioned on his show: ‘Richard Stingel is leaving Time magazine to go into the State Department to work with John Kerry.’ There needs to be a new subsection to section 2 Career (2.4); and also a main section after section 4, Managing Editor of Time Magazine, (Section 5.) Here is a New York Times confirming that it is true. [www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/business/media/richard-stengel-to-leave-time-magazine-for-obama-administration.html?_r=0] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Making Mandela appear less Communist
(First time editor here) The Spectator this week has an article comparing the final version of Long Walk with the original manuscript (here) before it was edited by Stengel. I'm not in a position to judge the claims that Stengel bowdlerised the more Stalinist bits to make it more palatable to Western liberal sensitivities but it feels like it's a matter that deserves discussion here ahead of some kind of mention in the article? Le Deluge (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

§ on First Amendment / Free Speech ?
Sources: Fox; Atlantic; Reason that reference Stengel's WaPo op-ed. Humanengr (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)