Talk:Mark Halperin

message: Is this correct grammer? "here he became a bar mitzvah at Congregation Beth El". It's the same wording as the source but, assuming the grammer is incorect, should we not reword it to make it so?
btw I haven't participated in many talk pages so let me know if I'm doing this wrong!
Thesowismine (talk) 14:57, 2 June 20017 (EST)
:First, you're right. From a grammatical standpoint, the text ought to have read simply "he became a bar mitzvah at Congregation Beth El".  Just not quoting the whole sentence from the source fixes it - leave the "here" at the beginning out and you've repaired that part of it.
:I can't find the source you refer to in our article's reflist, and don't feel like going back through the article's history for that. Further, someone seems to have cut the knot and deleted the text you speak of from our article. 
:Just in case someone adds it back, let's talk about a subtler issue with the source text:  According to the article "What Does Bar Mitzvah Mean" in the "My Jewish Learning" Web site Mr. Halperin became a bar mitzvah by attaining the age of thirteen. Having a bar mitzvah ceremony doesn't change that. Like the rite of Confirmation in Christian sects, it merely marks the age at which one becomes fully morally responsible.
:But when the source text mentions a specific place where Halperin became a bar mitzvah, it errs.  He may have had his bar mitzvah ceremony there, but on his thirteenth birthday an observant Jewish boy "becomes a man" in the sense that he's now fully responsible for his actions from a religious standpoint.  The ceremony, a relatively recent addition to Jewish tradition, is optional to "becoming a bar mitzvah".  The best way to avoid the issue is deleting the text entirely, because it's not an especially notable episode in anyone's life to have attained the age of reason - unless the subject of the article (for example) wrote a notable book or essay about his coming of age.
:Friendly advice: "grammar" is how you spell the word.  But you did make a good call on the poor grammar of the source text - congratulations! loupgarous (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammer- "here he became a bar mitzvah" 

message: Goethian, come back with some better sources indicating how this one particular instance is notable enough for inclusion. Otherwise it be gone and it stays gone. One sentence that precisely one partisan commentator saw fit to whine about does not a noteworthy addition to a WP:BLP make.  CENSEI (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. An opinion published on TPM is not particularly notable, nor it evidence of sufficient notability of the Halperin commentary. Anyone that thinks otherwise should state their reasons here on the talk page. DiggyG (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TPM Rant

message: I'm moving the following sentence from the 2006 elections section here for discussion:
:This was the first of several predictions that earned Halperin a reputation for inaccurate prognostication.
In a WP:BLP, a negative claim like "reputation for inaccurate prognostication" needs strong sourcing (and Glen Greenwald, dailykos.com and HuffPo employees are not acceptable in this context!). Producing a lot of examples of Halperin's bad predictions is not enough (and violates WP:SYNTH); we would need an authoritative source using "reputation for bad predictions" or equivalent words.
Does anyone have a good source for this claim? Or even a not-that-great source we could discuss? CWC 13:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needing sources 

message: I have suggested that the new article "I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday" should merge here. It is a WP:FORK of this article, in my opinion. Halperin is not notable enough for a separate article to exist about one episode of his work life.    Sharktopus talk 12:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about one statement by Halperin should merge here 

message: An IP editor has twice restored unsourced material to this BLP. (No, it is not sourced by the Walt Whitman High School citation.) Furthermore, when re-adding it, the editor has undone other fixes to the article. Please take care to revert more surgically. AV3000 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan/Youth For Understanding material 

message: "He was born in Bethesda, Maryland, or Cambridge, Massachusetts"
So which is it? Does anybody have a clue? Is it considered better to have an obvious inconsistency displayed than a ridiculous error? Why is that? Perhaps the whole sentence can be removed until someone can confirm where this guy was born. Perhaps ClueBot (who BTW missed the ironic edit before the reversion) could ferret out Mark's place of birth. (Yeah, I know what ClueBot is and his very high opinion of his ability to detect fake edits. It's a wonder to me he missed this one.) Style-wise this is very un-ecyclopedic. The inconsistency should have at least been noted in the text and some effort made to explain it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.243.156 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Conflicting sources. AV3000 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, so what? To repeat: The inconsistency should have at least been noted in the text and some effort made to explain it. Bad style can't be justified by a policy. 'Policy' doesn't write articles.50.72.187.226 (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  So why aren't you suggesting an improvement rather than complaining? AV3000 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I am merely a tocsin.50.72.183.139 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's five years late, but WP:Conflicting sources says "Of course, if the matter concerning which the sources differ is of at best marginal encyclopedic interest and reporting on several views may lead to giving it undue prominence, then a reasonable approach is to omit it entirely."  And someone did just that - gave Halperin's birth date, which doesn't seem to be in question, deleted the unencylopedic detail of his birthplace. Thanks. loupgarous (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughably inept edit and reversion 

message: To add: With All Due Respect (TV series). ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[With All Due Respect (TV series)]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Halperin. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=1f133562-cfd3-40f8-af2f-129219d59c8d
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203133243/http://thepage.time.com/ to http://thepage.time.com/
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) 09:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/media/mark-halperin-sexual-harassment-allegations/index.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.69.173  (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure she's thrilled.  No source, however. Tvoz/talk 03:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual harrassment allegations 

message: Sexual harassment in an employment setting is not "private conduct."  It is a civil wrong and not private when it involves employment.  Thus, the clause "After allegations were made about his private conduct" should be changed to "After allegations were made of sexual harassment in the workplace."  This change would comport with wikipedia's guidelines since factually, the allegations are of sexual harassment in employment.  Leaving it as it is perpetuates notions that workplace harassment is somehow between two people, perhaps of equal power, rather than acknowledging it as the wrong, usually based on power differentials, that it is.  "Private conduct" usually involves a consensual relationship, not one in which a powerful man is propositioning or wrongfully touching less powerful women in the workplace
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.126.98.177 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017‎ (UTC)
: Entirely reasonable points, now adjusted more or less as you suggest. Philip Cross (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual harassment in employment is not "private conduct" 

message: The article needs more detail about the sexual assault allegations. Three women, for example, describe Halperin having pressed his erection against their bodies in unwanted fashion, but this information doesn't appear in the article. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Detail of sexual assault allegations

message: Most blatantly when he gushed in Aug. 2015 after being given a ride on Trump's helicopter? That was not normal for an adult, much less a political reporter.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-helicopter-reporters-iowa_us_55d20262e4b07addcb4371f9
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.74 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)
:When you produce WP:RS discussing "the bizarre start of Halperin's sucking up to Trump as soon as he entered the race" we can discuss it. Until then, it's WP:OR as to (a) what "sucking up" is, (b) whether Halperin did it to Trump, and (c) whether it was truly bizarre, or within the normal range of journalists' comments on notable politicians (like Chris Matthews' femoral tingle on hearing Barack Obama orate). loupgarous (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of the bizarre start of Halperin's sucking up to Trump as soon as he entered the race? 

message: User Hans100 made an edit to this page, changing "is an author and senior political analyst" to "is a conservative author and senior political analyst." The revision should be reverted to the original version, as there is no evidence provided that Halperin's political orientation is conservative. Suddenly pinning a "conservative" label on Halperin's page immediately following his sexual misconduct allegations, when that label had never been used previously would appear to be political bias.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.220.21 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)
: Fixed issue. Philip Cross (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political orientation 

message: Unless someone can find more reputable primary or secondary sources "exposing" Halperin and Milbank of "colluding with the Clinton campaign team" this claim will not be included on Halperin's page. I believe phrases like "exposed DNC insider" are either outright deceptive or contain editorialized, negative connotations. Wikipedia was designed to emphasize a claim's verifiability and neutral point of view. Neither of these are accomplished here by including these sources and so I have deleted them. ⁂ (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks and The Gateway Pundit are not credible sources 

message: I removed the statement regarding Halperin's attempt to rehabilitate its image for being editorial commentary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selethor (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on his attempt to return