Talk:Timothy Noah

message: I've closed the AfD on Timothy Noah, as it would only serve as troll magnetry.  He's notable enough, and enough crap has been stirred up about this article, that it better serves the project to attempt to improve the article via discussions on the talk page than running it through AfD.  If you disagree with the close and wish to discuss it, drop me a message. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a guideline proposal that could help to avoid problems like this altogether. Its at Wikipedia:Notability (journalists). Its similar to the pornograhic actor guideline but with guidelines specifically for journalists. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it went from normal, to journalist responding, to AfD, to speedy keep. The article wasn't nominated for deletion until after Mr. Noah said it had been. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right. It was flagged as non-notable on Feb 18th , and then the first edit on the 24th was a link to his Slate article. It was then actually AfD'd by User:Kendrick7 around 5pm. Since then it has become a real battle ground over a number of content issues. User:Jersyko is making the best edits and holding it together. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I can't see how anyone can say the AfD was closed properly... but I'm not going to do anything 'till this cools off. I don't want Noah whining about us again. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boo hoo, you didn't get to delete something! And it's Noah that's whining? Fumoses 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, remain civil, and do not make personal attacks against other editors under any circumstances.  Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: David Fuchs - personally, I thought his article was quite insightful.PhilistineWA 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not the article was insightful doesn't really matter, the question is whether this entry meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion Maracle 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really understand this close. I don't see a WP:POINT violation, so I'd say closer wasn't assuming good faith. I also see a bunch of arguments on the page which basically are either hand waving or "he might not meet our standards, but I don't care so I'm gonna say keep anyway." Not exactly sure where any of that meets criteria outlined for a speedy keep, but whatever. GassyGuy 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed AfD

message: Please don't edit war. Reverting should always be a last resort, and if you must revert, please use a meaningful edit summary. There has been almost virtually no discussion going on between those people reverting one another - not even any attempt to communicate through a meaningful edit summary such as "please refer to talk". This is not how we should be resolving article disputes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to protect the article to stop the continued edit warring, but I'm hesitant to do so given the potentially bad face it presents to new users (which is why articles on the main page aren't protected while there).  In any event, if the edit warring continues, I will be more amenable to protecting the article (regardless of the content of the revision) until the discussion is completed on this talk page.  That said, we would all be wise to discuss, not edit, for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I would have seen the locking of the page as an attempt by wikipedia to suppress criticism.  As it is, seeing my edits deleted prompted me to sign up and find this page.PhilistineWA 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Removed this section as I don't see why (and the article made no effort to indicate) why Noah's published opinions on the Iraq War are encyclopedically notable, and this was a possible WP:SOAPBOX violation. I'm sure he's written many more-or-less informed articles on numerous serious and non-serious subjects - unclear why this was singled out for inclusion. He is not a specialist political commentator on the Iraq War nor has his journalistic identity been characterized by his position on the Iraq War. If there are articles or books which are representative of landmark, watershed and/or celebrated work by Noah, and can be shown to be so, these are more appropriate for the article than summaries of random short op-ed articles Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Noah's stance on the Iraq war notable for the same reason any other pundit's stance on the Iraq war is notable - because the Iraq war is one of the major defining political issues of the current decade? A Wikipedia user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like Mickey Kaus and Matthew Yglesias. I also fail to see how including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed fairly dramatically over time - is a WP:SOAPBOX violation. Fumoses 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If Noah is notable as a pundit, so are his views on the big issues. An anonymous editor removed the Iraq War section, writing in the Edit Summary essentially: "Why this subject and no others?" The answer, of course, is that other subjects might well be included. Wikipedia's not paper. PRRfan 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that this is worth including.  Obviously, it should not be given undue weight, but because this is undoubtedly the biggest issue to be dealt with by American political pundits over the last several years, surely it warrants some mention. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above.  I would submit Noah's comments on the Iraq war are "celebrated" given a) his notoriety as a journalist for one of the most well known (and well read) online magazines; and, b) the dramatic change in his views over time.PhilistineWA 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The section in response to the question of Noah's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. His forceful agreement with Powell's speech to the UN, and his subsequent withdrawal of that agreement are the most notable, or at least most noted, aspect of his career. This sequence of articles is certainly more notable than the fact that he lives in the Takoma Park neighborhood. His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War." Ray 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless, because there's a discussion on point on this talk page, please discuss here instead of merely removing the Iraq paragraph (consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion right now, in any event). · j e r s y k o talk · 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War."  That grandiose statement from above and the idea that his response to Powell's UN speech was some kind of landmark event in the American public sphere comes across as absurd puffery - can the commentator prove this? I doubt that even Timothy Noah himself would claim this. We shouldn't be turning articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues or highlighting ones we subjectively think are "the issue of the day". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and whether the Iraq War or the all his major issue oped columns (which are generally brief columns, not detailed papers) are summarized, this comes across as boosterish undue weight/ WP:SOAPBOX promotional content. Hence the balance tag I've added. Noah is a moderately well-known columnist, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he is influential enough to be treated as if he is some remarkable political thinker of the moment . Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're jousting with a straw man. No one is even remotely suggesting "turning articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues." If Noah is notable as a pundit, then it is entirely appropriate to include a few lines in a short bio describing one or more of his positions on important issues (and I think we can agree that the Iraq War is a biggie). Wikipedia is, after all, not paper. In any case, I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that the inclusion of the two Iraq War sentences boosts/gives undue weight to/promotes Noah? Anti-war sentiment? I can't see how it does either. PRRfan 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Noah is not notable enough to have his own article entry, I think. However, if he is to have one, then this issue of the War is one that should not be excluded, esp. given his 180 degree turn around, like a lot of others. This fact is notable, and so is the question of where one stands on this major defining political question of our time.Giovanni33 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comments lack arguments. You think its silly, I don't. You think its desperate, I don't. What is your argument? Grotty politics? As if there is something called clean politics? Politics is always going to be offensive for some but that is no reason to bury it. You make lots of proclamations, i.e. "absurd," yet you fail to say why you think its absurd. The reasons you do give don’t hold up very well. Lets see, you make the point the Iraq War has only been going on for 4 years. This is not relevant, since time itself is only one factor, and does not define an events importance on the political and social landscape, but the other point is that it’s still ongoing. Take 9/11. Does it matter less because it occurred in an instant one morning on 9/11, defined even by the date 9/11? Of course not. This shows that it’s your argument that is absurd. We are still facing the ramifications of this event, which has repercussions throughout the world. The War is part of the "war on terror," and tied in to the 9/11 event, since it was used to justify this illegal war. The world before has never seen the outpouring of the millions in the streets of the capitols of the world before as it has seen with the Iraq War. But you say its not a defining issue? It certainly is for the political leadership not only in the US but the rest of the world, if you follow the news. Noah's position is not notable only because Noah is not really notable. But if we are to accept him as a writer and journalist who is notable enough for an article then his position on the War is also notable, because it is a central issue that defines ones stance within the world we live today. The fact that he changed his mind gives the reader essential information on his ability to think clearly and his ability to correct himself.Giovanni33 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remain civil.  Justifications have been presented, whether you accept them as convincing arguments or not is entirely another matter.  Regardless, be more civil, please. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One can just as easily argue that it is a "political" decision to cut the subsection from the article.  Regardless, such accusations aren't going to help us decide whether or not to include it.  Finally, please sign your talk page posts with this: ~~~~. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What you say applies to what you wrote, not me. To make clear the obvious new straw-man you are setting up, its not "every living person,"-- that is not the standard that I have expressed. I clearly said, "Any figure notable enough to have his own article, and who writes on politics, society, culture, and who expresses a stance on this issue..."Noah is a writer, a journalist who helps to create public opinion. He is a political commentator. Any major event that is a defining, MAJOR, political issue of our times, and one in which SUCH a writer writes about (not every living individual!), should not be failed to be mentioned. As another editor said, a Wikipedia user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like Mickey Kaus and Matthew Yglesias. Including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed dramatically over time - is not a WP:SOAPBOX violation but essential on the writers views and thinking. Thus, its appropriate and expected by reasonable standards. Giovanni33 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's enough. If you make another uncivil comment or make another personal attack as you did in your last comment, I will block you from editing. If this argument is to continue, it is going to be more civil. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and incivility.  Surely you understand that one cannot describe someone's arguments as "continued, obdurate ignorance" civilly. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen (LOL) Dougieb 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq war section

message: According to the Slate article, Noah himself has made several changes to this article. 
Apparently those are this one
documenting his position at Slate and this series documenting other aspects of his career and his residence in the Takoma Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C. 
This appears to be within Wikipedia guidelines, but is there any mechanism to supply these contributions as the needed citations?
Ray 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question isn't whether he edited Wikipedia, but whether he lives in Takoma Park.  We'd have to twist ourselves into a self-referencing pretzel and violate original research rules in order to tie the article to a specific set of edits and then use that as a source.  Under a strict interpretation, we need a secondary source that specifically states he lives in Takoma Park.  If he mentions it in a future article, that'd be perfect, but for now we're short a reference for that. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not ignore all rules, & use some common sense? If it appears that he anonymously editted his own bio to add the fact he lives in Takoma Park, & there is no reason to suspect his word (e.g., it gives him some kind of self-promotion), why not simply accept that he knows where he lives & accept the edit as reasonably plausible? -- llywrch 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't know for certain that it was Noah who made the edits, first of all.  Second, the information remains in the article, just with  tags. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this issue is more easily solved by the "favor privacy" principle within Wikipedia's policy for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, meaning that since the number of children and his neighborhood of residence is not relevant to his notability, it should be deleted.  66.167.49.179 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's not verifiable by a secondary source, it has no business being included in a tertiary source, no matter how important it is - and I doubt Noah's place of residence is that crucial. Johnleemk | Talk 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim provided a reference for where he lives; it's now in the article.  JDoorjam     JDiscourse 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References Question

message: According to the top banner headline for Noah's article on Slate.com, he's personally at "War with Wikipedia" and the war is "Raging On". According to the article headline for the same article, he's been "Rescued by Wikipedia". Defcon 5!! Man Overboard!!!! Outstanding. Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget The Sopranos-esque headline from yesterday: "Whacked by Wikipedia."  They're not subtle, but I imagine they get more clicks that way. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's WAR!!!

message: I think by now the relevance of a small bio on Timothy Noah is beyond debate: he is a public figure and his omission from Wikipedia would now be seen as picque, considering the attention he's brought to the selection process here. One of the virtues of Wikipedia as an information source is the ability to find out information about people whose biographical details are otherwise unavailable or hard to find.
Nonetheless I can't help but wonder if the date of birth listed here--February 11, 1967--is inaccurate. His late wife was born in 1958, and while it's not impossible that she was 9 years older than he, it would be unusual. Similarly, the Wasghington Monthly bio referenced in the article indicates that he was working as an editor there in the mid-80s: when he was 15 years old?! Finally, I recall in an article on Slate a year or so ago that he claimed to have gone to high school with mega-corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was born in 1958. Is "1967" a typo?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zarafan (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  I removed the birth date, as we didn't have a source for it in any event. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate Birth Date? 

message: Timothy Noah was on National Public Radio this morning discussing this article (& his articles of course) -- which led me to this talk page.  Interesting timing for me, because I had just been reviewing the latest in an 
AfD discussion on an article I have an interest in, & had been reflecting how AfD nominations can sometimes prompt article improvement, and also on questions of "what makes someone notable for Wikipedia."  If anyone does take the time to do real research on Noah to improve this article (I'm sure for example that one could locate his birth date in one of the "Who's Who" volumes, for instance), & includes a section on this little tempest in a teapot, his appearance on NPR might also be mentioned. --Yksin 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to the NPR story in 2007 press citations box at the top of the page. -- Yksin 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah on NPR 

message: Why is the section about the Iraq War in this article?  It does not seem very fitting or notable to Timothy Noah, unless I am missing the context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milkyface (talk • contribs).
:There is a discussion on point just a few paragraphs up on this talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll expand down here on something I said above: if Noah is notable, it's not for where he grew up or where he lives; it's for what he writes. Therefore, his positions on notable issues such as the Iraq War are useful to have in a WP article. PRRfan 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War section

message: The access-date is not correctly given. It should be given on the Wiki-format (so I can see it on the ISO 8601-format, not MM/DD/YYYY). Can an admin. update it? Nsaa 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that?   --Interiot 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, regards Nsaa 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ^ Timothy Noah's comments in "The Fray," Slate's online discussion forum, regarding his place of residence. Accessed 2/27/2007. 

message: I don't know if this is an important enough episode in his career to deserve a mention in this article, but it's definitely crazy to write more about it than about his opinion on Iraq or about his "biography" in general.Prezbo (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timothy Noah. 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://www.webcitation.org/5zaOym6OE?url=http://www.slate.com/id/117517/ to http://www.slate.com/id/117517/
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) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified