Talk:Richard Stengel

message: 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???" -- And Rew 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report on a removed phrase from the talk page 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Agree with above comments by JMLofficier and Mike Doughney. BusterD (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is there something being hidden that we should know about and discuss? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here are some links:        --Nbahn 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested citations provided 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed revision to this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  If possible please clarify a source in "A Troubled and Troubling Life", Time Magazine, April 8, 1985 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Thanks, Stalwart! This all looks great. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested updates for this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Richard Stingel moves from Time Magazine, managing editor, to join the Obama Adm.  

message: (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)
thread_title:  Making Mandela appear less Communist 

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