Talk:Jane Mayer

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: In the line "She is the granddaughter of American historian Allan Nevins. [2][3]" Neither of the sources actually say that.  Im removing that claim, but i will copy the refs here for potential use later. Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was removed? I still see it in the article as of now. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Granddaughter of  Allan Nevins?

message: Several of these sections seem to have been written by one person in un-encyclopedic language. Many of them are completely irrelevant; the section on Herman Cain, for example, is about a blog post she wrote to which the subjects responded. Can anyone tell me why these sections merit inclusion in this article? 128.36.146.196 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant and biased sections 

message: Should there be a larger section on criticism?  There are many charges that she writes with a political bias and attempts to distort or ignore facts contrary to the story line.  Also, Ed Crane claims she breached journalistic ethics by quoting his off the record statements.  Since there is a smear section, perhaps a criticism section could discuss the "smears" that are justified/backed by evidence or statements by notable people.  I fear by painting all criticism as smear the article loses NPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.220.10 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section? 

message: Regarding the Nolan blog post on Gawker: The opening paragraphs state "Sources tell us that rumors have been circulating ..." Further, the blog post states "Nothing's been confirmed so far. But the circumstantial evidence does seem indicate ..." To summarize, this allegation is based on reports of rumors from unnamed sources, and admits that nothing has been confirmed. Deleted sentence for this reason.
The next sentence, "At the New York Post, Keith J. Kelly asked: “Who is behind the apparently concerted campaign to smear The New Yorker's Jane Mayer?" The references for this sentence do not confirm that the question was asked. But even if it was, a question does not confirm that something happened, without an answer and evidence for that answer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Cage (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict Section 

message: My edit to this section was generated by a peculiar absence of any germane information to convey an understanding regarding the subject of Mayer's prizewinning article, Art Pope, and his influence on North Carolina politics. The change is meticulously documented in the original cited source article which I retained. It's not POV at all. I hope that any conflict of interest has not generated this deletion. If you want to redact it, please first seek consensus here, rather than rushing to edit warring. Activist (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont have a tremendous problem with the edit, although i do not feel its appropriately worded.  However, per WP:BRD if a addition such as the one you did is reverted, the next step is to discuss it here, not simply re-add it and demand the other party seek consensus.  Again, i dont have a problem adding to that section, but phrases like "dominant spending" "extraordinarily successful efforts as a Koch brothers ally" and so on should be avoided or attributed if we cant think of a more neutral phrasing.  Bonewah (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I inserted into the article were well known facts that were documented in the original cited source.  Pope was able, almost solely, to radically change the face of North Carolina politics, changing the makeup of the legislature and the congressional delegation, by a massive infusion of post-Citizens United money. He is the biggest spender in that state's politics. He is joined at the hip with the Kochs and has adopted their tactics to a tee, such as launching primaries against Republican moderate incumbents. As budget director he removed the state's model public financing of judicial elections that had removed them from dependence upon contributions from the very attorneys who had cases before those appellate judges. He credits the development of his economic philosophy with attendance at seminars at the Cato Institute (formerly the Charles F. Koch Foundation). He is a substantial contributor to the Kochs' State Policy network of which Civitas and the Locke Foundations are integral parts. He has sat on their APF and CSE boards. He has been successful in substantially reducing state funding for K-12 education. I find it quite astonishing that you could ask how you did in your deletion of the material that places Pope's actions in some context that had been wholly missing from the Mayer article. You've been criticized by many other editors who have worked on this article for similar behavior as you have engaged in today, for the past six or seven years. I don't know if prior erasures by you might have removed the context that would have made it understandable to Wikipedia readers, but you can't deny that it was missing. Ironicallly, perhaps, just this morning I read recent edits to Conflict of Interest commentary concerning paid editors who engaged in sock puppetry on behalf of the Kochs, and who were suspended for their behavior. Activist (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.
Koch brothers use of PR firm[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Koch_brothers_use_of_PR_firm
In 2010, Koch Industries began employing New Media Strategies (NMS), an internet PR firm specializing in "word-of-mouth marketing". Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that employees of the company, editing from IPs controlled by NMS, were editing the Wikipedia articles for Charles Koch, David Koch, Political activities of the Koch brothers, and The Science of Success (a book written by Charles). Under numerous usernames, NMS employees edited Wikipedia articles "to distance the Koch family from the Tea Party movement, to provide baseless comparisons between Koch and conspiracy theories surrounding George Soros, and to generally delete citations to liberal news outlets." These activities were exposed at Wikipedia and described in the press.[62] A large group of editors who were editing from NMS IPs became the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, were blocked, and later unblocked.[63] Activist (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, as i said, i dont have a problem with adding some context to the section in question, im just concerned that we word it neutrally and that we cover what needs to be covered.  There is nothing insidious about that and implying that i must work for the Koch brothers because i dont totally and completely agree with your edits shows an insulting lack of good faith on your part.  Yes, the BRD cycle is technically optional, but it applies to almost all edits such as this and i see no reason to ignore it now.  Ive given you no reason to think that i wont be reasonable about this subject and therefore i ask that you be reasonable as well. Im not going to change the article back to what it was before you edited it, even though i would be justified in doing so, but i ask that you revert your own changes as a sign of good faith that you are willing to work with other editors, which is most assuredly not optional. Bonewah (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money in Politics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jane Mayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa18may18,1,5386811.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/time-magazine-koch-brothers-meredith-corp/
Probably needs a close reading to see what kind of biases have been introduced by IPs, SPAs etc.. -- GreenC 14:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened several years ago, but the Koch brothers sleep not, so we must keep our eyes open. An example of secretive and deceptive COI editing is when the Koch brothers paid the conservative PR firm New Media Strategies to professionally whitewash many articles about them and their political activities. The whitewashing activities were discovered and then reported in the press, yet the Koch brothers/NMS team got away with it without much happening. Their sockpuppet investigation resulted in very short blocks and then nothing! Their currently active meatpuppets, who are named in the press, still guard right wing articles, and it's impossible to make them even close to NPOV. Anything negative, no matter how well sourced, will sooner or later be deleted by them. We're talking about billions of dollars at stake, so these people are serious and use any and all methods to make sure that any controversy or criticism in Koch brother related articles is removed or greatly minimized. This is extremely unwikipedian and must be firmly resisted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koch brothers edited this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Jane Mayer. 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://archive.is/20080920084608/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1212609887025/page/1212609886988/JRNSimplePage2.htm to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1212609887025/page/1212609886988/JRNSimplePage2.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/strange-justice--by-jane-mayer-and-jill-abramson-8375
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725190012/http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=2511 to http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=2511
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130093009/http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/27289 to http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/27289
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513122034/http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4927 to http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4927
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105041923/http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/speakersandevents.htm to http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/speakersandevents.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228141651/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14714-9/the-best-american-magazine-writing-2008/tableOfContents to http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14714-9/the-best-american-magazine-writing-2008/tableOfContents
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603234334/http://www.gf.org/fellows/9604-jane-mayer to http://www.gf.org/fellows/9604-jane-mayer
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) 04:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the following list from the article, as it turns this already problematic article (too much reliance on primary sources) into a virtual showcase and indiscriminate list, beyond the bounds of good taste. Wikipedia is not a directory or repository for indiscriminate information. Mayer has her own website, and New Yorker page, for anyone wishing to find her individual articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Essays and reporting" 

message: The article lists William B. Hamilton as her husband, who is or was National Editor of the Washington Post, and Washington editor of the NY Times. As such I believe he would (or even should) have a Wikipedia article. Bill Hamilton (journalist) is very short and has Washington editor of the NY Times as almost his only notable post. I think this is enough to link to him as her husband, but others may disagree. I'll also come back and recheck later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife of [[Bill Hamilton (journalist)]]?