Talk:Joel Stein/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Warriors and wusses" related quotations

Nice biased summary there, author - "solely the tools of US Imperialism" - he never said that of course. —Ekoontz 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To the uninformed: the quote is taken verbatim from Stein's article; try a little research prior to lofting accusations. J 09:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The accuracy of the quotations (or paraphrases) is a red herring. Quotations in general aren't encyclopedic unless there is an explicitly stated point that isn't adequately illustrated without them. In this article, so far, the point that people seem to want to illustrate is that they're not above using selected quotations for shock value and to engender an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Stein in the reader.

I think at the moment, the article contains a relatively neutral characterization of the controversy surrounding the op-ed piece, and explains why it is controversial, and needs no quotations to further illustrate the point. I hear the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article could use the same treatment. Any takers? :) —mjb 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LINKS and NPOV

Is there a link which can be added to balance out the very heavy bias of the current link to a site called "radio blogger?" Amoung other things, the site's editor adds in his own comments about the interview, which include his brilliant an eloquent statement that the "[Los Angeles] Times is the worst paper in the country." In fact there is a fairly persistent anti-Stein bias in this article as well. Please keep Wikipedia NPOV. Pelegius 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Split Page

Can't a new article be created about the singer Joel Stein?--Nick Dillinger 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

Im taking out the links related to the other Joel Steins, it doesnt make any sense for them to be there. --TheBooRadley 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New Controversial Editorial

On December 12, 2008, Joel Stein wrote what can be considered another controversial editorial related to none other than his boss at the LA Times, Tribune head honcho, Sam Zell. I wasn't sure if it was fitting to include in the main article under the same header CONTROVERSIAL EDITORIAL as I'm sure not that many people outside of LA Times subscribers saw it. But in any case, you can read it in detail: "You get what you pay for..."162.80.36.13 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)HatchetFaceBuick

If it was not commented on by other WP:RS it's probably not worth mentioning. On the other hand if you can find one or two more you might write: Other controversial editors include name/link and name/link. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an articles archive search of "Joel Stein" and "controversial" which should come up with more things WP:RS have labeled controversial if anyone wants to look or when I get a chance. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Controversial Editorial

The satire editorial which Wikifan removed is quite appropriate. If there's a WP:RS saying it's satire that should be included, to deal with your concerns, put it in. But don't remove the editorial he is probably most notable for, which I've seen dozens of references to on the internet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Carol. First, the editorial in question was a satire. Whoever crafted it made the piece look like a work of seriousness and almost malice. I will assume this was simply an error in comprehension because beyond that an obvious in mishap judgment occurred. Stein was not poking fun at Foxman as it is implied in this sentence: "He also interviewed ADL head Abe Foxman who told him that instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish." Stein ends by writing: "But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them." Whoever paraphrased that sentence falsely represented the editorial. There is nothing remotely controversial about the piece either, we might as well plug this one in as well: bam. In fact, I'd axe the whole controversial section all together. It totally violates Wikipedia:Criticism (though that is not a binding policy). The references you posted are irrelevant to the subject matter. Stein was not attempting to connect with Fickelstein who is a staunchly anti-Israel and has relationships with anti-Semites. The feelings were not mutual and therefore libelous and potentially violate BLP laws. This could also qualify as fact-picking. Be Bold and remove this now please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable Columns better sectioning

• You noticed I added "tongue in cheek" from the WP:RS? And can add "mock outrage" too, if it is not clear from the topic itself. Of course the fact that a couple commentators took it semi-seriously might confuse people too.
• One problem re: whether controversial is this article was picked up by a lot of well known fringe/antisemitic groups/writers as being a boast, instead of a joke. Obviously, one can't quote their comments - the closest negative thing I could find was a Finkelstein opinion and I'd be glad to get a third NPOV opinion on using that, since I'm not sure if it is problematic. Your comments on Finkelstein obviously WP:SOAPBOX.
• A more thorough search for WP:RS who have commented on this - and on why it is controversial - surely can be done. I think it's just as controversial as "Warriors and Wusses" column.
• Also "Notable" might be a better section header than "Constroversial"; notable means WP:RS have commented and he has lots of those; controversial either means you have to find a column thusly described or have so many conflicting comments it is obvious it is.
• Obama lobbying might be controversial, if WP:RS say so. I can check. And I did put up a link to News Archive search that would point out other controversial columns. I personally find him amusing, FYI.
• Finally Wikipedia:Assume good faith CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this changes the fact that an editor misrepresented a piece of satire, misconstrued it as serious criticism, and then allowed it to be endorsed by Fickelstein and others as if Stein was pandering to them. The paragraph is libelous to Fox because it paints him in an inaccurate way that Stein did not intend, and gives undue weight to Fickelstein. The paragraph is libellous to Stein because it misrepresents what he actually wrote. By virtue of posting it on his (ficke) website does not mean it gets to go here. There is nothing controversial about the editorial. We could write a nice section in Fickelstein's bio where he actually thinks Stein is cynically slamming Jews in Hollywood. Please remove it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, changing to Notable columns makes the Finkelstein quote totally unnecessary to establish "controversy" any and all issues aside. As for current description of the column, it comes from Lisa Marks' The Guardian article and sounds pretty neutral to me. Please explain where it deviates from what she wrote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Fickelstein carrying a LAtimes op-ed written by a Jew does not somehow equate to controversy. there is no consensus in controversy. There were no demonstratations, no ADL complaints, no outcry from Hollywood, nothing. No controversy. Lisa's article does not resemble the current description, and even if it did so what. You haven't offered a compelling rationale so please remove it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it's now "Notable columns" instead of controversial (of which there was just one example before the more recent one), controversy is not really something that has to be proved and Finkelstein is removed. If you think you can better reflect Lisa's article, do so. But don't leave out the important facts that make it note worthy. I'll now look for another column or two that seems to have gotten WP:RS coverage to balance things out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Tongue in cheek?" Nonsense! Stein's statements have been quoted from one end of the political spectrum to the other without a single commentator ever suggesting that the author was being "tongue in cheek." Strange brand of cheek that marshals simple incontrovertible facts of ownership and membership to make its point! Eight top studios owned by eight Jews equals eight Jewish tongues in eight Jewish cheeks. Right! Stein was not criticizing Jewish influence but rather gentile credulity, arguing against the politically correct but erroneous beliefs of a majority of Americans as revealed in a recent opinion poll. Illustrates a modern habit of uttering provocative things on controversial subjects and then crying "irony" to evade responsibility. Are his comments on Iraq also tongue on cheek? Then the usually astute Mark Steyn got it wrong, too: Joel Stein isn't a hawkish chicken after all but a chickenish hawk! Who is trying to whitewash the acumen from Joel Stein? And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthotox (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Other Notable Columns

Looking through Joel Stein news archives I couldn't find anything quite as notable as the two columns discussed in article already. Good or iffy WP:RS's only noted. But more research might find some other WP:RS discussing these or other columns. (Any paragraph with WP:RS would link to relevant column, sometimes also listed below): column

• Stein's list of Time 100: [1], [2] and I saw a couple others other day so best bet.
• Hockey: [3], [4]
• Support for/comments on Obama (at least two columns): [5],[6], [7]
• Be Joel Stein Contest: [8], [9]
• Nut allergies yuppie invention: [10]
• Ann Coulter: [11], [12].

Thoughts on which worth listing?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Some of them at least. I'd prefer we limit posting "notable" editorials and focus on the bio instead. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Notable" is POV. Notable to whom? The article, as tagged by other editors since early 2009, has been written like a promotional press release. Give his biography, list his awards, quote critics of his work pro and con. Fannish appreciation of his work, however, is inappropriate in Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tweaking it rather than massive deletion better option. It's not necessarily "fan" behavior but chance for people to see what he has had to say that others took note of. Especially now with a WP:Undue criticism section for just one article. See Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a news archive update in addition to whatever is listed above, which would help discern what really is notable, plus find any new criticisms. Meanwhile I've made appropriate, temporary edits to article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A few more notable columns (ie other WP:RS mention or perhaps criticize) as found through a review of his name on news.google.archives. Putting in his name and topic will bring up more on whichever look most notable already. I won't unwatch the page this time and continue to work on it over next week or two, depending on other priorities.

• Harry Potter: [13], [14]
• Rant on interactive discourse with various other WP:RS links: [15]
• Bill O’reilly on Xmas controversy: [16] CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We cannot have a section called "Notable columns." That's POV ... notable to whom? notable why? notable to this person? how about that person? It's only personal opinion as to which columns are "notable." This is basic Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

To call them controversial would need a ref calling them that. Notable isn't great, but it is accurate since they are columns that others have noted, to which more can be added. Perhaps the best way to deal with issue is call the section "Columns" and make "Criticisms" a subsection of that since it is columns being criticized. (Checking out other columnists at Category:American_columnists but haven't found anything useful; but connection very slow today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That might work. Still, why these columns? What is it about these columns that make them quantifiably distinct from all the rest of his work? When we say "that others have noted," who do we mean? Without some objective reason to single these columns out, this section is inherently POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see someone had retitled the section "Controversial comments." Referring to comments rather than specific columns seems like a good idea — it's easier to find citations for people objecting to specific comments rather than a specific column in general. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

These are columns that actually got comments/attention from WP:RS, a couple of which were here when I first edited; others added since by me and others. Do a news.google search to find others you might add, though these seem to be the "weightiest" as opposed to some that might be seen as silly. But add any you think need adding.

Again, it's not for us to say it is "controversial." Criticism is obvious. Controversy needs a source to say it is controversial as opposed to merely noted/quoted/commented upon in some way not obviously critical. This has been practice on many BLPs. That's why most NPOV way is to do as I suggested. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some way to quantify what gets included, this section seems POV no matter what we call it. We ran into this before at graphic novel, where a laundry list was emerging of hundreds of graphic novels, including privately printed and vanity-press stuff. It was a less than useful list. Finally, it got broken down into quantifiable categories like: Graphic novels adapted into films, and Graphic novels that have won/been nominated for major comics awards, and like that.

There's no direct comparison here ("columns that have been adapted into film"), but surely there's some standard we can apply so that it's not just this or that editor's personal opinion of what goes in there. Here's a springboard: "Columns criticized by fellow newspaper/magazine columnists," or "Columns criticized by the subject of the column."

Things like that involve no POV -- there's a clear, stated standard. What do we think?--Tenebrae (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to talk about other articles, please talk about BLPs. Some articles that explicitly talk about various columns are organized as follows: Max Boot: Debates and disputes; Jonathan Alter: Life and career; Bruce Bartlett: Current work; David Brooks (journalist): Political views, social views. Were NPOV criteria were used to choose the columns? Or consensed editor discretion?

You did notice the list of Stein columns on the top of this thread? Those were the only things I'd found as of that date in news search that had a few WP:RS. Anything since that posting could be found at this 2010 news search.

Bottom line (corrected to my meaning) My main point is, if you have a couple WP:RS commenting on them, they are of interest. It's editor discretion on what we consense belongs. Is there something you want in or out? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just not sure how "editor discretion" isn't another phrase for POV. I do know we're not supposed to point to how something is done at other Wikipedia articles, since other articles may not be done according to guidelines. We're only supposed to work on the one under discussion. For example, the Bruce Bartlett example you cite violates WP:DATED. I'm also concerned about your use of the phrase "bottom line," which seems to suggest that your contention is the only correct one.

I could say, "Bottom line, this section is inherently POV and should be removed." But I'm not doing that. I'm offering suggestions on ways to keep that content, under quantifiable criteria. Wikipedia works by compromise and consensus, and insisting that "bottom line' your way is correct, with all due respect, may not be the most collegial approach. Is there a way we could try to reach a middle ground, or is that something you don't feel you'd like to do? That'll help tell us our next step. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand what you do want to do. I believe a section title with "controversial" is not appropriate and against BLP unless a WP:RS says they are and came up with other suggestions. Perhaps the easiest thing is to have non-critical columns that others have commented on under career. So which others do you think should be mentioned? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that "controversial" can be construed as POV, and I agree with the removal. But we need some objective criteria; otherwise, anyone can put any column they want. I believe in order to avoid that we need something quantifiable. Two examples might be "Columns criticized by newspaper/magazine columnists," or "Columns criticized by the subject of the column" (too wordy, I know, but this is just a springboard). Let's try tackling this from another direction: What is this section trying to include? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen the approach you took with simply removing the subhead and including the paragraphs as simply part of "Career." That's a much better solution than my suggestions ... so simple it's elegant. Bravo! I think you solved it! --Tenebrae (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. And feel free to see if you think anything from list above should be included. Between laziness and wanting to see what others considered notable enough, I just listed other columns that were commented on. If no one does, I guess I should just add whichever one(s) have the most WP:RS discussing them. Or not! So many articles, so little time! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bhagat ketan, 30 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Joel Stein wrote humor piece which sounded racially motivated and offended lots of Indians around the world. Many commentors said he acted vey naive and did not show any journalistic judgement in writing. Same article if written for any other race would have lead to wide spread demonstrations throughout the country. Bhagat ketan (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wall street journal has a thorough article on the controversy: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/07/01/furor-over-times-edison-nj-escalates/ -- Thoreaulylazy (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Links on the My Private India article issues

[17], [18], [19]

and the article itself- [20].

Haphar (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Eladamry, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove Joel Stein from the category of "Bearded Women". He is neither a woman nor does he posses facial hair.

Eladamry (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, hilarious but removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is an example of the kind of editing this article has attracted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

IP editors and WP:BLP

IP editors, please carefully read Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. Over half of the current article is already criticism of Stein, in particular of a single column he wrote a few weeks ago. Adding more criticism about this column, or more criticism in general, unbalances the article even more. Also, linking to websites of white supremacists and blogs is simply unacceptable.[21] So too is adding unsourced criticisms to the article's lead that start with "Stein continues his arrogance".[22] I don't know anything about Stein, but this is obviously unacceptable. Until IP editors can start editing this article with WP:BLP in mind, it will continue to be semi-protected. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the section below. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Me Me Me Generation" article

I'm kind of surprised there's no mention of that. I'll get on it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)