Talk:Peter Zuckerman

message: Can we take a photo from here and use it?
www.myspace.com/peterzuckerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor1234321234321 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Myspace Page

message: The reference on the statement that he received criticism for a story is simply a link to that story. If he has been the subject of criticism notable enough to be mentioned, the critics should be identified and sourced.
Also, criticized for what? Spelling? Communist sympathies? Poor dress sense?
Dybryd 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also...this is off-topic, but I just followed the "Exposé" link, and good lord! When did PBS get so tacky? It looks like Hard Copy or something! Dybryd 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What criticism?

message: Hm...error, or sniffy high-handedness? Dybryd 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the deletion of the above post? I'm sure it was an edit conflict. Aboutmovies uses a script to assess articles. He knows better than to blank talk page comments without an edit summary. Assume good faith! You're in good hands when WikiProject Oregon is involved. :) Katr67 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, sorry to get sniffy myself then :) Dybryd 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the deleted item, the script has a bug that sometimes removes things, but previously I only thought it removed my previous edits. Aboutmovies 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflict

message: For those editing needing decent sources , , , ,  Benjiboi 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decent articles about conflict 

message: Benjiboi 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: and the paper he writes for

message: Since "Scouts' Honor" is currently central to this case it makes sense that we give at least passing mention to how many other reporters wrote the article and what, if any, actions were taken against them. Also was there any outcome of the case/article? I haven't read the whole thing but it seems we should mention it if the story resulted in an investigation or "shake-up" etc. Benjiboi 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scouts' Honor" follow up questions 

message: Please note that my edits are not personal commrntary, but facts as outlined in references. if you would please point out specifically what you view in conflict please let me know. 208.54.14.11 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Copy of my reply to the same question, on my talk page) The problem with your edits, as the warnings on your talk page say, is that they seem to violate the neutral point of view policy. You appear to be trying to make the subject look worse, instead describing why he is notable in a neutral way. For example, putting "scare quotes" around his Poynter institute title in order to disparage his position there, or removing the word 'praise' to make it look like his writing has only received disapproval and not praise (when the sources say that he was widely praised for the articles), or by adding 'claims to' to make it look like he is not being honest about being harassed (when the sources confirm that he faced harassment). My suggestion is that you don't rewrite the article in ways that are biased or that don't accurately reflect what the sources say. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that, despite the header you've used, I have not deleted any information from this article; I have only reverted your changes, which shifted to more biased wordings but did not add any new information to the article. I object to the header you've chosen as an example of the type of editing you added- it is not accurate, and the words are chosen to bias readers against me rather than to factually describe the information. I notice that you had a more neutral header originally, and then changed it to the more negatively biased header, just as you did in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me point out as well that your recent edit is not accurate, according to the sources. Poynter is not a six week course, it is a journalism school of over 1000 students. It is true that Zuckerman is not a full time instructor but a visiting teacher, and the article already states that clearly. Again, your edits are intended to discredit Zuckerman and the school but do not accurately reflect the sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Content by FisherQueen 

message: There have been a couple of reverts around the term "openly gay." I would like to suggest that Zuckerman's sexual orientation in itself is not particularly noteworthy; it doesn't have any bearing on his career or public persona. The fact that he is involved with Sam Adams is certainly noteworthy, for many reasons. So I'd suggest leaving "openly gay" out; if anyone is interested, it is readily apparent, but there's no reason to call it out explicitly. -Pete (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in a world where everyone is presumed to be heterosexual sexual minority status is inherently noteworthy. We don't call someone a gay writer or gay journalist per se but we do include this information with due weight. If it is extremely important to their life or work it may be in the lede0 If not it's often found in the "personal life" or "family" section(s). You may infer that someone who has a traditionally male name who is said to have a partner who also has a traditionally male name is gay but we write for the world and as such we spell out certain aspects like this.  -- Banjeboi 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't live in a world where everyone is presumed to be heterosexual. I understand that such worlds exist, but I'm not particularly interested in structuring an encyclopedia to cater to their inaccurate view of reality. Also, I don't think this relies on the name "Sam" being traditionally male; the article about Sam Adams is full of male-gendered pronouns, and has two photos of him. -Pete (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The text should be NPOV and cater to our general readers who would not inherently infer that Zuckerman is openly gay. No reason to omit that.  -- Banjeboi 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  After some reflection, I think the only problem is the word "openly." Of course there's no problem with mentioning that he's gay, but I don't see any reason for emphasizing that he's open about it. If he tried to keep it under wraps, that might be noteworthy; but if it's written up in various sources and there's no controversy, why call out the "openness" of it? -Pete (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation 

message: Peter Zuckerman was an editor for the college newspaper, The Quest. Also while a student, he authored an opinion piece for the Oregonian which described widespread drug use at the college. Students reacted very harshly to his depiction of the college, and the college responded to the controversy with this column: http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/may2002/columns/NoC/NoC_op_ed_piece.html Not sure if either of these facts are encyclopedia worthy, but they do seem relevant to the biography of an investigative reporter. Quaternion (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great catch, I had not put together that that piece was by Zuckerman. I found the original piece and some followup in the Oregonian's archives, and added a couple sentences to the articles. -Pete (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reed College

message: An anonymous (or not-so-anonymous, IP editor) has been making a number of detailed edits to the article recently. They mostly look OK, though a few of them stray from what the sources cited have to say. (I've reverted those changes.)
Anyway, it looks like these edits are pushing at the boundary of the policy on original research and possibly constitute a conflict of interest. Doesn't look like a huge problem to me, but worth keeping an eye on.
And to the account-less editor, may I invite you to say a few words here about your background, sourcing, and /or intent in working on this article? Not required of course, but often helps clear the air and keep things congenial. -Pete (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Can this be added? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for his father