Talk:Bob Woodward

message: There is currently a proposed re-write to this article, as initially discussed above. For all those interested in participating in the re-write of this article, you can find our sandbox here. (Morethan3words (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed re-write

message: Neither Woodward nor Bernstein did any investigation of the biggest public scandals of their lifetime, which were the Clinton Foundation and the faux investigation of Hillary and the concurrent abuse of power to wiretap Trump.   Likely this was because the Washington Post and Woodward-Bernstein favored Democrats and thus only really investigated corrupt Republicans.   This is the biggest criticism of the duo and the most salient historically, but it is simply not even mentioned in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article needs a lot of work. Unfortunately, I lack the resources and the only other people who seem to be interested in improving the article are Woodward's various research assistants, who seem to favor the dust jacket approach. (Morethan3words (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on the Tone of the Article and Repeated Content

message: Really? 3 criticism sections? Having one is usually frowned upon, but here we have three.--158.59.193.38 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to consolidate the criticism sections. I've made the last two sections a subsection of the first criticism section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Sections

message: I was rather surprised to be led here when I typed in "Bob Woodward"; I was thinking of Robert Burns Woodward. I think "Bob Woodward" ought to lead to the disambiguation page, instead of straight here. How about you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy1339 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: This section is ridiculously oversized, far out of proportion to its importance to covering Woodward's career. Blatant WP:RECENTISM. 69.73.47.181 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because Watergate has its own separate article that this page links to.  I tried to condense the 2013 section a bit more, but most of what is there is relevant and notable. - Maximusveritas (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 Dispute with the Obama Administration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100926015332/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/04/28/books/review/0427books-woodward-widmer.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/books/review/0427books-woodward-widmer.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Cooke
"Although some within the Post doubted the story's veracity, the paper defended it and assistant managing editor Bob Woodward submitted the story for the Pulitzer Prize. Cooke was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing on April 13, 1981."
It appears that the journalistic establishment is effectively telling us Woodward did it, the hiring of Janet Cooke, and the approval of her fake story, after all how else could Ben Bradlee get the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism? After all, the Janet Cooke story was the single biggest scandal in the history of journalism awards, to my knowledge.
In the very least the fact that Woodward was involved in the Janet Cooke fake story scandal should appear on his page. It's certainly a black eye on his career. The omission is surprising, to me. 
SevenTowers (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jimmy's World" / Janet Cooke 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Woodward. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100829020551/http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/04/09/waas_now.html to http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/04/09/waas_now.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010185514/http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFiZmRmMjJmODA3Y2E1ZjE2MzllNDZhMGRhOTNkZTc%3D to http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFiZmRmMjJmODA3Y2E1ZjE2MzllNDZhMGRhOTNkZTc%3D
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) 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: printed Woodwards and Bernsteins book in June 1974.  Should we mention that in the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Playboy]]  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bob Woodward. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130303010101/http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-bob-woodward-s-fight-with-the-white-house-matters-to-you-20130228
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) 11:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first sentence : 
:Woodward has co-authored or authored twelve No. 1 national bestselling non-fiction books.[citation needed]  
Later in the section, numerous othe books are mentioned.  
Imo, a strictly chronological order of books would be more informative.  The fact that book XY only was 'No. 2' or less 'national bestselling' doesn't say anything. 
I'm gonna change it (WP:BOLD) , pls argue here if you can make good case(s) against it. --Neun-x (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  section ''books'' 

message: David Sirota and Andrew Perez wrote the following in an article published today at
https://sirota.substack.com/p/bob-woodward-aided-trumps-crime-against
"Bob Woodward Aided Trump's Crime Against Humanity
To boost book sales, the celebrity journalist concealed a tape of Donald Trump that contained information about the pandemic that may have prevented thousands of deaths."
This has been ignored by the mainstream media, for example, the PBS Newshour. So they are complicit as well.
This should be included in the article. ---Dagme (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concealing danger of corona virus 

message: Could we please have a photograph of Woodward near the date of the Watergate scandal?  The ones we have now show him forty years older! J S Ayer (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: Why no mention of either of his latest two books?  It looks like there were bits written on each of them, but they were removed.  2001:569:FAC1:2900:4C6F:6ABB:786A:7AA0 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Bibliography