Talk:Bob Woodward/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How does Woodward get access?

I would like to hear an explanation of how Woodward gets access to people who know that he's going to write potentially bad stuff about them.

Awarmstrong 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) One of the links in the "Books" section- the one for The Brethren"- points to a different book by a different author. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, and I'm not sure what the proper method of correction is- one of those disambiguation pages?

69.229.109.147 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize correction Woodward did not "share" in his two Pultizers more than any other member of the entire Post (in the case of the first award) and of the Post's National Reporting staff (in the case of the second). I'm changing the wording, if only because, technically speaking, the Pulitzer foundation makes no distinction in the Public Service award between the editor-in-chief, the reporters, editorial cartoonists or even the folks running the printing presses: the paper wins the award. Ben Bradlee, who was on the Pulitzer jury when the Watergate-related Prize was awarded, made the point quite clearly in his autobiography that WB, though mentioned in the citation and incredibly important to the Post's efforts, were only one part of a larger team whose allied efforts won the award. (bradlee also states that this this rankled W&B, leading to "the boys" visiting him in his office and wanting to know why they had not won the award themselves.) And Woodward has often phrased citation of the award in a diificult-to-pin-down manner in press releases. (I once had to correct a sentence in the release his agent sent prior to his speaking at Cornell University.) But Woodward, as an individual, has never won the Pultizer. -Patchyreynolds

--Zoot91 20:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few comments on edits made to the Style & Criticism section of the Bob Woodward article:

• The existing version was correct in pointing out several major criticisms of Woodward's style. However, I found little or no effort to balance this with positive statements reflecting the wide readership Woodward attracts or the attention paid to his works in Washington and around the world.

• I added one frequent criticism of Woodward that had not yet been mentioned: that some journalists believe his frequent use of background sources discourages other people, especially in government, from speaking on the record.

• "Delay" and "Fraud" did not seem to be neutral subheadings, so I combined those sections into the new "Style & Criticism" subheading. Delay was a short paragraph to begin with.

• The use of six New York Review of Books citations (but no others) makes for a decidedly non-NPOV. Rather than start a tit-for-tat of "review quotes," which often say more about the reviewer's own beliefs than the work in question, I thought it best to remove all but one representative negative and positive citation.

• An encyclopedia article, even a Wiki article, seems a less than perfect venue for making detailed critiques of specific scenes in books, some of which date back 25 years. If they must be made, why not do so in a new article specifically about the book in question, and aim for a balanced POV.

As far as I know, NPOV does not require removing factual attributed information in order to meet some conception of "balance". AaronSw 02:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The DVD of "All the President's Men" says Bob Woodward was born in 1944. From all other sources I could find, the wikipedia article is using the correct date correct date, March 26, 1943. Just thought it should be noted that this alternate date appears. -tristanreid

who is Deep Throat

Updates on the Vanity Fair article should go in the Deep Throat article, not here, and need to be kept in an encyclopedia form - e.g., don't start them with "UPDATE"! - DavidWBrooks 17:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a revert war with some WikiNazi, so I'm not touching the article. But you're wrong. Woodward himself has confirmed Felt = Deep Throat, so the article's bit about protecting Deep Throat's identity needs to be updated. Check the WashPost front page.

Ever heard the 'net rule about "Nazi" in discussions? Oh, never mind ... (By the way, Woodward had not confirmed anything when the original change was made.) - DavidWBrooks 23:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This Page should be Frozen

Right now with all the press surrounding the duo, it seems to keep suffering from graffiti. For a little bit, maybe this page should not be editable by all.

a bit NPOV

"Despite these criticisms and challenges, Woodward's record as an authoritative and balanced journalist has stood up well over time. The publication of a Woodward book, perhaps more than any other contemporary author's, is treated as a major political event that dominates national news for days."

is that really NPOV? i think not -nosaj56

Plame affair

Looks like Bob was leaked Plame's identity a month before it was public. CNN.com has an article on it. I don't have time to add to the article, but in the meantime I'm adding the Plame affair category. --waffle iron 20:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the bits about Hadley being the source, as the AP wire actually ruling him out in their story. AKMask 14:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Veracity of Woodward

Please give me some guidance.

Woodward claims to have first met Gen. Haig in 1973. Woodward also claims that during his year at the Pentagon, he went to the White House only as a "courier".

There are three named, on the record (tape in this case)sources who DIRECTLY CONTRADICT Woodward's claims. These three sources state that in 1969, they KNEW that Woodward was briefing Haig.

These sources are not unreliable gossips. They are 1. Woodward's boss at the Pentagon, Admiral Thomas Moorer. 2. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird 3. Former Pentagon Spokesman Jerry Freidheim.

You can read the summary article- and listen to the taped interviews- at http://www.counterpunch.org/colodny07072005.html

I think the historical record vis-a-vis Woodward's role in White House affairs, pre-Watergate, should be accurately reported in Wikipedia.

What to do??

What to do? Not original research about the historical record on wikipedia, that's what. (With or without all-capital letters.) - DavidWBrooks 16:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Veracity of Woodward Redux

E-MAIL From: David Brooks Sent: Monday, December 5, 2005 8:24 AM To: Kenneth Jacks You raise good and interesting questions, which strike deep at how wikipedia works, but please keep such discussions in wikipedia, so everybody can participate. Thanks. David Brooks

                        +++++++++++++++

Mr. Brooks, Per your suggestion, I have copied below the off-Wiki e-mail that I sent you this past weekend. I would like for "everybody" to participate so I continue with the subject. KJ

                        +++++++++++++++

To Wikipedia users in general-- I don't wish to malign Mr. Woodward nor do I wish to use Wikipedia or any other forum to promulgate false information. However the assertions apparently documented here [1]are too significant to be ignored. The taped interviews unambigously link Haig and Woodward pre 1970 while Woodward (on tape and in print) flatly denies that he briefed Haig; that in fact he did not even meet Haig until 1973. Listen, investigate, and judge for yourself.

(For a fuller treatment of the Woodward at the White House subject, please see the book The Silent Coup- Removal of a President by Colodny & Gettlin; St. Martins Press 1991.)

I would like for someone to check my evaluation of this information and to help me understand the proper procedure for introducing this facet of Woodward's life into the mainstream of Wikipedia's treatment of Woodward.

I look forward to a response.

                        ++++++++++++++++

off-Wiki E-MAIL follows:

Mr. Brooks, do you have sex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.198.93 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

---

From: Kenneth Jacks Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:16 PM To: David Brooks Subject: Wikipedia: Bob Woodward

Hello Mr. Brooks,

I am the person that posted the discussion topic "Veracity of Woodward" on Wikipedia Saturday AM (12-3-05).

Being new to the Wikipedia process, I choose to introduce this information behind-the-scenes, so to speak, in a discussion topic. I began by asking for guidance. Then I gave an introduction and provided a lead to documentation of Woodward's mendacity.

Given that Woodward is linked, probably forever (or at least to the limits of historical memory), with Watergate and the downfall of Richard Nixon, I really think that Woodward's involvement with the Nixon administration pre-Watergate is relevant to his biographical background- on Wikipedia or on any source purporting to reliable. I also think it is relevant that he (apparently) wishes to hide his involvement with the RN administration to the extent that he will lie about it in print and in interviews.

If Woodward's writing is to be taken as representing some truth rather than as fiction, then the reader deserves some readily accessible source to check Mr. Woodward's REAL CV.(all capital letters for emphasis--maybe this part catches your eye first. Maybe this is the only part you will read.)

I then asked, "What to do?" Maybe this question was a bit too cryptic; however, in context, I thought that the meaning was clear.

Tonight I return to the Wikipedia Woodward page and find your response: "What to do? Not original research about the historical record on wikipedia, that's what. (With or without all-capital letters.) -"

Frankly, I don't find your response to be helpful. It is dismissive- and snide. Also, I find it unsettling that, unlike the five previous topics, the "edit" link on my discussion topic is non-existent so I could not post this follow up in my discussion topic on Wikipedia. .

I am not asking Wikipedia per se or the general user of Wikipedia to do "original research about the historical record". I was asking how I can, observing Wikipedia etiquette (and upholding the highest standards of reliability and integrity), insert this information into the general article on "Bob Woodward"? Can you help me or do I have to turn elsewhere?

Also, I see from you personal information that " even after 2 1/2 years [you're] still uncertain how useful [Wikipedia] is as a knowledge tool." I would like to suggest that encouraging more thoughtful, meaningful reader particiption (rewriting) would produce a more useful "knowledge tool".

In truth, Kenneth Jacks

You can start by reading our policies and guidelines. They will tell you all you need to do. If you're too lazy or whatever to read them, then I would personally suggest you just give up on trying to edit wikipedia. However basically if you wish to add any claims, these need to be backed up by a reliable source. Assuming any of your claims are correct then it seems likely someone else has said them first. If someone else has not said them first, then given that these are matters which interest many in the US it seems likely you will be able to publish an article in some prestigious magazine or paper with your claims. Once this has been done and causes a major sensation in the US, we will very likely discuss them in our article Nil Einne 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Woodward article revisions

First, a disclosure: My name is Bill Murphy Jr. I am Bob Woodward’s research and reporting assistant.

I deleted a line under “Early Career” that was nothing more than a non-factual insult.

Most of my editing was under the subheading “Involvement in the Plame Scandal.” I removed several inaccurate factual statements. For example, one person had alleged incorrectly that Woodward is a member of the Republican Party. I revised statements that were clearly editorializing by the writer, including one that said Woodward was “forced to make a public apology” for “conscious concealment of crucial information about a major federal scandal.” I also added additional factual information about Woodward’s deposition and the aftermath that has been widely reported but was not included here.

I moved another writer’s criticism of Woodward being too close to the Bush administration to the more appropriate “George W. Bush administration” section.

Thanks for being so "transparent", to use a buzzard, about your position. I suspect lots of well-known people have started checking their wikipedia bios (for obvious reasons), but I imagine few are as upfront. - DavidWBrooks 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Please notice that J.Bradford (Brad) DeLong, who is quoted as a critic of Woodward's books concerning Clinton's economic policy, is also a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Clinton Administration. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Sep 30, 2006 -K.Niemelä

There are several links in this article to "The Secret Man". But they link to an articla about a movie. There does not appear to be an article about the book. Maybe they should link to deep throat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.50.154 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bob Woodward/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I feel this article was well written and exaustive with one exception. In the world of reporting we all tend to place people on much too high a pedistal. Bob Woodward, just like any reporter, has the tendency to research an article in the direction of his bent. We all need to do our own research, if a story is that important to us. Many people in the history of the world have had their reputations tarnished because of an article that was not full researched or reported. We all want to make our point, even if it is not fully correct. Thank you.

Last edited at 11:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)