Talk:Fred Hiatt

message: Hiatt has been active in trying to limit the political influence of Armenian Americans, and that section is absent in this page.  I invite Hiatt's supporters to write it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.131.137 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Armenian Activism 

message: Neither of these  self-identifies as a "conservative think tank" or "neo-conservative think tank" but they are both so categorised in this BLP.  Additionally, the claim that an organisation offering internships to conservatives is ipso facto a "conservative think tank" is SYNTH and OR.   MMfA, moreover, specifically self-identifies as "progressive" and that categorisation is certainly proper as being self-chosen.  Cheers.Collect (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like internship quote is from Heritage, which does self-ID as conservative, rather than Hoover, which is in CA and doesn't have a Washington internship program.  I tend to agree with Collect, here, but maybe a compromise would be to strip "progressive" as well? Joehjoeh (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: MMfA uses the word "progressive" about itself - thus is not remotely contentious AFAICT.  Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media appears pretty clear.  As opposed to categorising groups which do not so self categorise. Collect (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, went to Heritage instead. But the Hoover Institution is frequently referred to as a conservative organization. For instance, in its wikipedia article, and in the mainstream media (see for instance  this WaPo article) and the Encyclopedia Brittanica ("think tank...known for its conservative bent). Pedantically requiring self-identification for description to this degree would probably prevent one from terming the National Socialist German Workers' Party as a fascist organization. That said, limiting the descriptor to a simple 'conservative' still serves the purpose; which was, if you failed to note, exposing the farcical nature of the Pooh Shapiro-supplied "The Left's Top 25 Journalists" edit. - Wormcast (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't really see why its necessary or really even within scope to label the institutions, whether with a widely-understood classification or a self-classification.  If its to promote the understanding that libs are censuring Hiatt while the right is lauding him, that strikes me as veering towards POV, but also, upon investigating the lists, somewhat disingenuous.  Hiatt is lumped with a wide spectrum of liberals and the usual suspects seem well accounted for. I could see how 'progressive' is important to distinguish the quote from conservative propaganda, but the quote itself gives pretty good context.  On the other hand, I think having to qualify the institutions detracts from the credibility both places have.  If someone is curious, I think its not too much to ask that people click through to the page, as you suggested above, where editors have more space to explain the subtleties we're getting caught up in.  I've tried to find guidance in the Manual of Style but have so far come up blank. My vote is to strike both conservative and progressive, and make sure that the respective linked pages are clearly written, especially in the lead.  Having said all that, I'm eager to hear other perspectives on why the designations are helpful.  Joehjoeh (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole sentence feels slightly plagiarized from this MMfA  article, which writes, "No, actually, it was Tunku Varadarajan, formerly op-ed editor for the Wall Street Journal (whose opinion pages are notoriously conservative) and currently a fellow at the right-wing Hoover Institution".  I'm going to take a stab at rewriting it but help is appreciated. Joehjoeh (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation of Hoover Institution and FPI 

message: What does the word "actor" refer to in the subtitle "Reporter and actor"? Nothing in the short paragraph under the subtitle refers to acting, even in a figurative sense… Chamblyen (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , it referred to a small part that he had in a Russian movie when he worked for the Moscow bureau. I couldn't find good sourcing for it so I removed it from the page, and hadn't noticed that subtitle. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Actor" in subtitle