Talk:Franklin Foer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:51, 26 July 2007 editJersyko (talk \| contribs)14,671 edits Scott Thomas← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:00, 26 July 2007 edit undoJersyko (talk \| contribs)14,671 edits →Scott Thomas: follow upNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I'm convinced that the Scott Thomas coverage isn't appropriate in this article right now. In fact, I would say that it is actually a violation of ] to include substantial coverage of it here right now instead of only in the TNR article. Why? First, no wrongdoing by Foer has been demonstrated, only alleged. Second, as time goes on and more details are released (such as the identity of the soldier who wrote the piece, which was released today), it seems more and more clear that this is a non-controversy and that Foer and TNR did nothing wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this is a ''New Republic'' controversy, not a Franklin Foer controversy, at least right now. Unless someone can provide ] ] that Foer (not TNR, not Scott Thomas, but Foer) has actually done something wrong (and these sources don't exist right now), it should be discussed at the TNR article, but not in this one. Again, I am concerned with the biographies of living persons policy. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)		I'm convinced that the Scott Thomas coverage isn't appropriate in this article right now. In fact, I would say that it is actually a violation of ] to include substantial coverage of it here right now instead of only in the TNR article. Why? First, no wrongdoing by Foer has been demonstrated, only alleged. Second, as time goes on and more details are released (such as the identity of the soldier who wrote the piece, which was released today), it seems more and more clear that this is a non-controversy and that Foer and TNR did nothing wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this is a ''New Republic'' controversy, not a Franklin Foer controversy, at least right now. Unless someone can provide ] ] that Foer (not TNR, not Scott Thomas, but Foer) has actually done something wrong (and these sources don't exist right now), it should be discussed at the TNR article, but not in this one. Again, I am concerned with the biographies of living persons policy. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

			:To follow up on that, I would add ] to the list of policies I'm concerned with. Perhaps one sentence talking about the allegations would be appropriate in this article, so long as it is appropriately referenced and phrased. Something like, "In July of 2007, after TNR published an article by an American soldier in Iraq titled "Shock Troops", allegations of inadequate fact-checking were leveled against Foer by conservative critics who alleged that the author of the piece was not an American soldier, though later events confirmed his identity." As it was, however, the Thomas was nearly dominating this article. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:00, 26 July 2007

Template:WikiProject Columbia University

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Scott Thomas

I'm convinced that the Scott Thomas coverage isn't appropriate in this article right now. In fact, I would say that it is actually a violation of BLP to include substantial coverage of it here right now instead of only in the TNR article. Why? First, no wrongdoing by Foer has been demonstrated, only alleged. Second, as time goes on and more details are released (such as the identity of the soldier who wrote the piece, which was released today), it seems more and more clear that this is a non-controversy and that Foer and TNR did nothing wrong. Third, and perhaps most importantly, this is a New Republic controversy, not a Franklin Foer controversy, at least right now. Unless someone can provide reliable sources verifying that Foer (not TNR, not Scott Thomas, but Foer) has actually done something wrong (and these sources don't exist right now), it should be discussed at the TNR article, but not in this one. Again, I am concerned with the biographies of living persons policy. · jersyko talk 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on that, I would add WP:UNDUE to the list of policies I'm concerned with. Perhaps one sentence talking about the allegations would be appropriate in this article, so long as it is appropriately referenced and phrased. Something like, "In July of 2007, after TNR published an article by an American soldier in Iraq titled "Shock Troops", allegations of inadequate fact-checking were leveled against Foer by conservative critics who alleged that the author of the piece was not an American soldier, though later events confirmed his identity." As it was, however, the Thomas was nearly dominating this article. · jersyko talk 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: