Talk:Nina Burleigh/Archive 1

Latest edit: POV/heritage

I've removed the POV box, as the overly flattering portions of the article described below appear to have been edited out. As for her ethnicity, Burleigh has written about her Assyrian heritage and Iraqi relatives on numerous occasions; I've added in this bit of information without labeling Burleigh as an Assyrian herself. Ab85 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Her ethnicity

why isnt anything about her assyrian heritage being mentioned in this text? has it been deleted? 220.237.4.36 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

apparently, she deleted it herself...read the edit history.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I reviewed the edit history and someone claiming to be Nina Burleigh has made multiple edits using two different IP addresses. If this really is her, then there is an obvious conflict of interest. Even if it's not her, someone who doesn't know the first thing about WP:NPOV is writing biased sentences like: "Burleigh has continued to expose and respond to conservative hypocrisy in sharply written, nuanced, often humorous political blogs and essays." I changed that sentence already and tried to remove POV material from the article, including an incredibly long list of **all positive** book reviews.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

nice work.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Freeland1 is currently editing the article with poor regard to WP:MOS. I'm trying to reach a consensus on this page first. Freeland1, please comment here first before making edits. Since you appear to be new, I'm trying to help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since she refuses to come talk on this page, I will. Adding the word 'liberal' is not POV. Read other articles about people like Andrew Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, etc. are all labeled as conservative or liberal...as are many other articles. It's not bad to call someone a liberal or conservative...that's the terms that are commonly used.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Freeland1 has now violated WP:3RR policy. The word liberal (see:[[1]]) is not derogatory or slanderous. It is a political term that is used worldwide. Her views represent the liberal viewpoint, therefore, the term is not POV and deserves to stay in the article.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering her article has an entire section about her politics, it's pretty fair to label her political beliefs.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nina editing herself?

It appears Nina Burleigh may be editing the article herself. (red flag #1) - Someone with a user account named Ninabur has edited this article. The only edits made by this user was to this article. (red flag #2) - Alice500 said, "Kindly stop labeling my ethnicity. I have two parents and two sets of genes. Thank you, Nina Burleigh." in an edit summary. All of the edits made by this user have only been to this article. This user made POV edits such as: [2] (red flag #3) - Freeland1's only edits have been to this article. POV edits include only posting positive reviews of books...and I mean a whoooole lot of reviews.[3] Too many for a wikipedia article. So, if this really is Nina editing the article, does she realize Wikipedia policies regarding this? WP:AB, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Conflict of interest is something that all journalists know is wrong. I'm going to investigate further. I suspect a sock puppet (WP:SOCK) because of the type of edits and the fact all three accounts have only edited this one article. If it is her editing, won't that make for some interesting gossip in the blogosphere? --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious. The lack of birthdate is glaring. How many tree rings is she hiding exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.47.4 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent label removals

I agree with the need to remove the unsourced "Nina Burleigh is a liberal", but that she is a feminist is well-sourced (admittedly not at the time it was removed from the article):

• Bureigh herself wrote in Mirabella magazine (as reprinted in a Maureen Dowd New York Times column on July 8, 1998), ""There was a time when the hormones of indignant feminism raged in my veins."
• The article "Feminists fall on swords for Clinton" on July 9, 1998 in The Calgary Herald (originally from The Telegraph) states "Another self-confessed feminist has gone further. In Mirabella magazine, Nina Burleigh, a former White House correspondent, recalls her own charged brush with presidential sex appeal."
• A July 13, 1998 article in the New York Daily News states "But a source close to her told us: "The whole thing was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Nina still considers herself a feminist. And she still says, 'American women should be lining up with their kneepads for Clinton after the way he kept theocracy away from them.'"

Based on these articles we should either state that Burleigh is a feminist or that she is a self-described feminist, and the American feminists category should be reinstated. Drrll (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You've come up with three labels from 1998. I have no problem if you cite them to indicate that she self-identified as a feminist in 1998, according to (refs). The subject objected via OTRS to the label being applied without qualifier, which I found to be accurate and removed it. Subject preferences serve as a great reason to enforce existing sourcing requirements, but they don't trump RS'es. Hope that helps... Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point that we should say that in 1998 she self-identified as a feminist. Drrll (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics/quotes

I have no problem including any of the stuff from the Mirabella interview since that was pretty widely talked about. But random pullquotes from Burleigh's political writing isn't appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, if we include only items mentioned elsewhere, the two Bill Clinton quotes are referenced multiple times by other sources and parts of the Hillary Clinton quote are as well. And the feminism bit is also referenced multiple times by other sources. It may not be noteworthy that a woman identifies herself as a feminist; it is noteworthy that a journalist identifies herself as a feminist. Drrll (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the items you are referring to are from that Mirabella interview, like the blow job quote. Maybe the stir from that can be integrated into the article as I read yesterday it happened at the same time as the publication of one of her books. As for your contention that a feminist journalist is notable.... why? Is it so surprising and notable that a successful female liberal professional is a feminist? Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not all surprising that a female professional is a feminist, though it is not automatically assumed, as Burleigh went to the trouble of saying that despite her attraction to Bill Clinton, she still considers herself a feminist. The reason it's noteworthy for a journalist is because of the issue of objectivity. How many other journalists have you heard identifying themselves as a feminist? Drrll (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does that have to do with objectivity? Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Feminism (unqualified) is inextricably linked with liberalism. Just like it's rare for reporters to identify themselves as liberal or conservatives, it's rare for them to identify themselves as feminists. If it is so un-noteworthy that a female journalist is a feminist, why would Burleigh object to its inclusion as she did? BTW, I don't have a problem with your other recent edits here. Drrll (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of feminist designation

Besides the two news articles cited, there are additional news stories that describe Burleigh as a feminist (for example, articles in The Scotsman) as well as numerous opinion pieces that mention it. As of now, Gamliel is the only editor who does not see this material worthy of inclusion. Drrll (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this. Her liberalism is already apparent from the section so there's no need to illustrate that via a designation of feminist. There's exactly two sources which are both 13 years old and both are passing references. The sentence is awkward and frankly its kind of ridiculous to start a section this way by dropping a 13 year old sentence in and then ignore it everywhere else in the section and article. And I've seen no policy-based reason to support its inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unnecessary, given the other material in the section. I wasn't attached to the particular wording or location in the section. As I said before, there are additional sources for this besides the two and naturally they would occur shortly after she made her declaration as a feminist. Drrll (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What are these sources? I might support inclusion if they were higher quality sources than the ones that footnote that sentence now. Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like several of the sources are reprints or rewrites of the Rush and Malloy article that states that Burleigh still considers herself a feminist. A news article in The Scotsman is ambiguous about the feminism bit:

Even feminists, whose agenda Mr Clinton has vigorously pushed, failed to come out against his alleged behaviour that led to the now dropped Paula Jones sexual harassment trial.

Earlier this year, a former White House reporter for Time magazine, Nina Burleigh, wrote a piece in which she said she had played a card game of hearts with the president aboard Air Force One, during which she felt he eyed her appreciatively.

It looks like the strongest sources stem from Burleigh's own writing. Her Mirabella piece, in which she said that "There was a time when the hormones of indignant feminism raged in my veins" was discussed in a NYT column by Maureen Dowd. That column was then discussed on Meet The Press and a news piece in The Washington Times. In addition, Burleigh wrote in June 2000 the following (also referenced by a different Dowd column):

Feminism wasn't supposed to mean brokenhearted women in middle age. Love has been the Achilles' heel of feminism all along. And we've been denying it so long that nobody believes it when they see it.

….But feminists don't criticize a woman who does not conduct herself with warrior stoicism. We forgive those who stave off possible loneliness at the expense of dignity. We've all been there.

Drrll (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

from the subject

I have just now finally got around to reading the "discussion" on the article about me. I think the people involved in creating this page have a political agenda in defining me. They have repeatedly tried to throw in right-wing, button-pushing words like "liberal" and "feminist" and to define me as "Assyrian" or "Iraqi" (i.e., not really American, or possibly traitorous).

I find their obsessive monitoring of the page suspicious. This has been going on for ten years, and I have never had the time, nor inclination to become a wikipedia editor myself. I am asking those who do this work to please create and maintain an objective counterbalance going forward.

Observations:

The section titled "controversy" is written in a biased way. It should say Howard Kurtz "reported" what I said, not Nina burleigh "elaborated" - that is a loaded, non-objective word. They have NO IDEA how I spoke to Kurtz, or in what tone, or in what context, they only know what he reported.

Furthermore, they are paraphrasing my original article, in Mirabella, called "King of Hearts" which is available on my website, when they should be quoting from it directly, and citing my own words. The original article is nuanced and ambiguous, and they have simplified it for their own purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninaburleigh (talk • contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia consists of people of all political persuasions, unlike the rather narrow world of journalism. We have to collaborate with editors from the various political backgrounds to get something to stay in a Wikipedia article, trying to make sure that the information is sourceable to good sources and is neutral. Also, Wikipedia goes according to what is verifiable, not the "truth" ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.").

I don't know who keeps putting it in, but I myself have removed the ridiculous labeling of your ethnicity two or three times, so please don't generalize "they." I didn't have a problem with removing the unsourced "liberal" sentence. After discussion, I agreed to leave out the "feminist" bit, even though it is sourced to your writings and other sources.

Wikipedia has something called a watchlist, which allows editors to automatically monitor various pages (your article is in my watchlist, along with about 500 other articles).

The part about Howard Kurtz was not written by me, so you'll have to take it up with the editor who did (who, by the way, I would almost guarantee is not predisposed to trying to make you look bad).

Is user LaurenHesse associated with you? The user has made numerous edits to your article, and only to your article. The edits she's made have all seemed designed to cast you in a better light. Not too long ago, someone identifying herself as you asked a Wikipedia editor to make edits along the lines that you she made. Wikipedia strongly discourages people with a clear conflict of interest from making changes, especially major changes, to an article without first bringing up the proposed changes here.

If you have objections to anything in your article, bring up your proposals like you have now and the various editors can discuss its merits. Drrll (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

COI edits by editor LaurenHesse

I am nearly certain that the user LaurenHesse is associated with Nina Burleigh for reasons I can discuss here and for a reason I can't discuss here because of WP:OUTING. I plan to undo her edits, but if she or Burleigh wish to discuss the merits of those edits or other changes here, we can do that. Drrll (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with someone editing information about themselves. Everyone is entitled to their good name and to the protections of the BLP policies, which some editors do not comply with. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally, WP:COI prohibits editing articles with which the editor has a close relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete re-write of the page

This page is a mess. I'm going to be re-writing this page over the next month, just giving a heads up to anyone who was planning on adding anything to the page. Please add it to the talk page so I will be able to include it in the final re-write. Give me till the end of September 2012. If I'm not done by then, then free game. Sgerbic (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can add this quote from Burleigh's famous Mirabella article on her encounter with President Clinton

"It was riveting to know that the President had appreciated my legs, scarred as they were. If he had asked me to continue the game of hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened. At the time, that seemed quite possible. It took several hours and a few drinks in the steaming and now somehow romantic Arkansas night to shake the intoxicated state in which I had been quite willing to let myself be ravished by the President, should he have but asked. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.97.206 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Launching New Page

Just re-wrote this page. I did not know Nina Burleigh before I started work on this page, but had to approach her to get the new pictures uploaded. Enjoy! Sgerbic (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources Tag

There are indeed a lot of primary sources for this page. She is a Writer after-all. I think that these secondary links should more than enough allow for the removal of the tag.

http://www.themanoftwistsandturns.com/2010/03/06/the-graceful-future-of-journalism-nina-burleighs-writing-life/ (Matt Reves)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/-39-baby-palins-39-do-not-like-being-called-39-baby-palins-39--20110831 (National Journal and Atlantic Wire)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446027022248721.html (Wall Street Journal)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/31476253.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+6%2C+1998&author=Howard+Kurtz&desc=A+Reporter+With+Lust+in+Her+Hearts (The Washington Post)

http://chicagoweekly.net/2008/10/08/unholy-business-chicago-bred-writer-nina-burleigh-discusses-her-latest-book-religion-and-the-ugly-side-of-journalism/ (Chicago Weekly)

Plus the other places that I've used to support her lectures and Delta Kappa Gamma Society.

What say other editors? Can the tag for primary sources be removed? Sgerbic (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

With any journalist article, there are, of course, always a lot of their articles we can cite to. My preference is to avoid such citations but instead focus on secondary coverage of the journalist's work. In this instance, about HALF of the refs are to her own articles or to search-type URLs of her articles. That's way too many. Indeed, the recent rewrite of the article by Sgerbic is generally too promotional, in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection of page?

I haven't been following this since I re-wrote the page. Has something occurred that requires protection of this page? I did receive a request from someone who wanted to edit the page and didn't know why they were contacting me or what the problem was. I don't see a discussion on the log or here on talk. Can someone please point me in the direction of this discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there is some sort of problem with the actual page template that is making it appear to be protected. See the discussion here: WP:VP/T. Allecher (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Such a lot of hoopla over this. The article was semi-protected. It just didn't have the template in it that normally goes with semi-protection (either small or large). The unprotection and reprotection, was unnecessary but harmless. The addition of the template makes it clear, although I'm not in favor of large messages on semi-protected articles. There's a more interesting question, though, that no one appears to be asking, which is why was it indefinitely semi-protected in May 2011 in the first place? There's no more limited protection prior to that, and indefinite protection is generally rare. And the obvious follow-up, does it still require protection?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

great questions and answers. I don't know why it was semi-protected. I don't think we need it now, can we just remove it? I don't like that on the page either, makes her look controversial or something. We can always put it back if the reason becomes clear. Its not like we can't just undo things quickly. She is on my watchlist, and apparently on a couple other editors as well. Sgerbic (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The procedure for unprotecting an article is to contact the protecting admin, in this instance User:Brandon. I would post a message at Brandon's talk page and see what happens. He doesn't seem to edit much anymore, so if after a day or two, you don't get a response, then request unprotection at WP:RFPP, noting your effort to contact Brandon first.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG what a pain. I'll post it nowSgerbic (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this was related to something involving WP:OTRS at the time. However I see no reason to keep it protected it at this point. Brandon (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there such a large article for a minor writer?

This article is a brochure provided by Nina Burleigh. There are many writers of far greater stature than Burleigh who do not have Wikipedia articles. The article must be deleted. 109.145.118.47 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't look especially long to me. It also has plenty of references, some of which appear to be independent and reliable. If it's unduly promotional, you should edit it to fix that. If you are concerned that there are other (more) notable writers about whom Wikipedia articles do not exist, then you should create the required articles at WP:AFC. If you are aware of policy-based reasons why Wikipedia should not have an article about Nina Burleigh, then WP:AFD is the place to nominate this article for deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Her quote about Bill Clinton

Any particular reason to sanitize it here with the description "[oral sex]" as opposed to using the actual words she said ("a blow job")? I'm tempted to edit in the verbatim phrase but will hold off a bit. Thanks. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for what was actually said? The cited source only says "[oral sex]". Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Nuff said.Overagainst (talk)

Newsweek piece about high heels

This bit of text was twice added to the Controversy section, which I have moved to here:

Nina Burleigh wrote an article in Newsweeks criticizing how the female members of Trump's family wear high heels. Which is in contrast how feminism states that women should be able to wear what they want and not have to be harassed.[see history for refs]

For starters, it misspelled the name of the original publication and did not include a link to it. Aside from that, the first sentence is true enough, but gives no indication why this is a noteworthy event. The second sentence appears to be original research or synthesis and does very little to explicate why Burleigh might have written the article in the first place or why other commentators have jumped on it, including a fairly substantial response in the Washington Times.

My view is that this particular dustup is too fresh on the public stage for us to judge whether it is noteworthy. The WT piece does refer to the notorious Burleigh comment mentioned earlier in this section. If the purpose of this addition was somehow to attack Burleigh for hypocrisy, it doesn't belong here and you would need to write something quite a bit better to land that punch.

@NinaPenstein and JasmineO0o: So if the two very new editors who are in favor of this addition care to explain why it should be added, this is the place to discuss it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@JasmineO0o: I see that you've added the cite to the original Newsweek article but no longer include the Washington Times response. You need both to establish the point you are trying to make. Your own opinion or interpretation cannot, all by itself, be used; you have to base what is added on what other sources have said.

Note that you've now reverted four times without ever constructively engaging with other editors on the talk page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

While I still disagree with the inclusion of this comment [see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER], I also object that it is very poorly written and inadequately sourced. @JasmineO0o:: What would you say to something more like the following?

    In August 2017, Burleigh published a piece in Newsweek that criticized Trump women for wearing high heels, linking it to objectification of women and expressing concern for the health effects of this particular fashion.[Newsweek cite] Critics expressed surprise that Burleigh would go to such lengths about "shoe choices" and referred to her Clinton quote as evidence that her political alignment affects her approval of a president's sexual politics.[Washington Times cite]

The Newsweek website runs a "health effects of high heels" video in conjunction with the Burleigh piece. I still think this is a silly sensationalist squabble that, for now, has no enduring importance. But if you're going to repeatedly insert it, at least consider inserting something that better fits WP's other policies and guidelines. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nina Burleigh devoted a whole article in Newsweek to propgate the false information that the female members of Trump's family were "taught to where high heels to prevent them from holing positions of power. The fact is that Donald Trump never restricted the ability of neither Ivanka not Melania Trump. Newsweek has been declared a bias left-leaning "news" source by multiple Fact Checking outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasmineO0o (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to help you get your statement into a form where it might become a proper piece of the article, but you've chosen to ignore my attempts at communication. I'm sure Burleigh has written many things that you disagree with, but you need to be at least a little bit coherent in what you add to Wikipedia. And, when challenged, you need to discuss the proposed content with other editors in an attempt to reach consensus.

I will not revert your revert for a third time. We will see what other editors say and do. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This is vandalism and should not be on the Wikipedia page for a BLP.Sgerbic (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not raw vandalism, it's a content dispute and possibly POV editing. The content has been challenged and the next step is to discuss it to see if consensus can be reached on what, if anything, should be added to the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• User blocked per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)