Talk:Richard Stengel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject College Basketball | |||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
| WikiProject Biography | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
| WikiProject Journalism | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Gay???
I saw Stengel in the Presidential Forum, and by the way he talks, acts, claps, sits, and presents himself... he is clearly gay. Not only gay, but a faggot!
The article says he is married... Beard???
Contents |
[edit] Is there something being hidden that we should know about and discuss?
There seems to be a revert war going on. What's up? I think this is notable and should be discussed on the main page. Otherwise, we'll just foster unnecessary speculation. 71.39.78.68 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The liberals are in an uproar over his handling of columnist Joe Klein's piece (hatchet job, really) on the F.I.S.A. legislation currently before congress. [1]
--Nbahn (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's right. And what we are finding out is that Wikipedia has higher standards of accuracy than Rick Stengal or Time Magazine. 66.188.6.131 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- If this is notable - you need independent secondary sources that say so.--Docg 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe you should delete the mention that there is a controversy about Stengel, as long as it is properly sourced (which it was). The writing might be finetuned, but the facts remain. JMLofficier (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Although I think the link to Atrios / Atrios' comments provided a balance, and would still favor including some mention of it, I am satisfied with the new rewrite. JMLofficier (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Atrios' comments violate WP:BLP - though obviously it's a sarcastic comment in a blog, outside of that context it doesn't belong here since it's not relevant to reporting the controversy. Readers unfamiliar with that context may take the allegation as factual, that's why there's WP:BLP. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with above comments by JMLofficier and Mike Doughney. BusterD (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Atrios' comments violate WP:BLP - though obviously it's a sarcastic comment in a blog, outside of that context it doesn't belong here since it's not relevant to reporting the controversy. Readers unfamiliar with that context may take the allegation as factual, that's why there's WP:BLP. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the article doesn't make it plain why this is in Richard Stengel rather than the article for Time Magazine or articles on the legislation. Why is it here? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Stengel is Joe Klein's boss. Correction of Klein's work would ultimately fall to him, that's what the title "managing editor" means. The controversy centers on the nature of that correction which would be Stengel's responsibility, and I've added a few words to explain that. Hopefully E&P or some other publication will clarify this relationship in a form that can be cited here. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- In some ways the controversy is what makes Stengel notable, he's just an employee of Time otherwise. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is primarily Stengel's defense of Klein, in which he claims that Klein "addressed" his "reporting error," and also his facile insistence that the error stems from different interpretations of the bill by Republicans and Democrats, that makes him and Time culpable in this mess. I can't speak for Time, but at a newspaper, managing editors are responsible for running the newsroom. They are the bosses on personnel matters and are instrumental in determining the publication's response to controversies like this one, in which the publication is charged with making substantial errors. It is utterly appropriate to document the controversy here, and there should be more detail. Gkwobe (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)gkwobe
[edit] Lead sentence
Hey guys, while folks are fighting about the stuff above, I have tries to copy write the lead sentence. Is this person an American citizen? Is he notable for being an editor? Thanks, --Tom 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested citations provided
Someone requested citations for the statement that Priscilla Painton is involved in the controversy. I thought that it was a little ridiculous, but I have taken two citations from the Painton article and added them to the end of the sentence in question. Hopefully this will satisfy whomever wanted the citation in the first place.
--Nbahn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Content
I work for Rubenstein Communications and Time Inc. is a client of ours. To mitigate any potential conflict of interest, I will aim to only vet instances of factual inaccuracies that are improperly sourced or incorrectly cited. Furthermore, I will recommend additional content as necessary. I will post to the discussion page first, and ask that editors add information to the article as they see fit. If no discussion is had, nor action taken, within a week of posting the proposed content, I will move forward and add to the article. If there are any questions/concerns/edits to my proposed actions, please discuss on my talk page. // Brycetom (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
See below for proposed content addition:
[edit] National Service Movement
In September 2007, Stengel wrote a TIME cover story called The Case For National Service in which he argued that Americans needed to redouble their efforts to get involved in community service and volunteerism, and that the presidential candidates needed to make the issue a top priority in the 2008 presidential campaign.[1] Through this essay, Stengel became involved with national service groups Be the Change, City Year, Civic Enterprises, and others to form ServiceNation, a coalition of more than 100 organizations dedicated to promoting national service and volunteerism.[2]
ServiceNation announced that it had secured both U.S. Presidential candidates to participate in Presidential Forum on National Service at Columbia University in New York City on September 11, 2008.[3] Stengel served as co-moderator of the forum, along with PBS journalist Judy Woodruff, and both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain answered questions in front of a live audience at Columbia University about their plans for national service.[4][5]
On September 12, 2008, Stengel was a featured speaker at the ServiceNation Summit in New York, along with Caroline Kennedy, former US Senator Hillary Clinton, former First Lady Laura Bush and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.[6]. In February 2009, Stengel testified alongside Usher Raymond, former U.S. Senator Harris Wofford and others, in front of the United States House Committee on Education and Labor about the importance of national service.[7]
