|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Frum article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Criticism section removed
I just blanked the Criticism section because it nothing which was properly sourced. I'm sure the guy has critics, but you can't write stuff like "Frum has been accused of biased reporting and misrepresenting facts in order to persuade readers." then support it with original research such as the stats in . Criticism MUST be sourced and attributed to his critics writing in WP:RSs. What I blanked was not. It therefore violated both WP:OR and WP:BLP. <<-armon->> 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have rewrote the criticism section without "original research" and replaced it with a reference to an Ottawa Citizen column.Grant Gussie (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Removing latest revert of this as a BLP violation. Please read WP:BLP and WP:COAT. One cannot use a non-reliable source (e.g. an editorial written by a detractor) as evidence that there is criticism of a person. You have to find a reliable third party independent source, and establish (by consensus, if the proposal is legitimately challenged) that it has sufficient weight and relevance to include in the article. I'm not saying that he didn't misrepresent crime statistics, and there are plenty of other places where the article can be improved, just that if you're going to say this is a significant criticism of him that is worth mentioning in his bio, you have to find adequate sources to back that up. Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I despise David Frum and the sell out "me to" RINOism he stands for - but that is NOT something one puts in a reference work like Wikipedia, one must stick to FACTS, and one must be have the sources to back up what one says.22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The story about Frum working for a "socialist" candidate should be deleted because it is vague and poorly sourced. The quoted source is a humorous anecdote for a neoconservative audience, and may be exaggerated. Putting things together, it is probable that Frum was referring to the race for Member of Provincial Parliament for High Park-Swansea in the 1975 Ontario General Election, where the incumbent "socialist" was the best-selling author of a book on making money. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This section has been amended, but it should still not be included, because it is based on flippant remarks. Frum complained that Polish people criticized him for reading Solzhenitsyn. But he does not say whether they disliked Solzhenitsyn because he was anti-communist or because he believed that Poland should be subject to Russia. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think, if it can be properly sourced, his working for the NDP in his youth is relevant, notable and appropriate for the article. The cutesey story about the book, not so much. TastyCakes (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Conservative or neoconservative?
Per this edit, which is it? Either way, if it's in the lead shouldn't that per our MOS be an uncited statement that is based on cited material in the body of the article? In other words, the article should state somewhere that he is conservative (or neoconservative) and back that up with a solid citation. It would seem obvious but often things are not obvious in politics. I'll add that working for the American Enterprise Institute does not establish directly that he is conservative. The AEI has libertarian leanings (which is different than conservative), is made up of high level lawyers and writers (meaning it has a diversity of opinions represented), and think tanks in general have been known to hire people with very different politics than the organization as a whole in order to stir things up and build credibility. Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. People have a bad habit of labeling unpopular conservatives as "neoconservatives" without much reference to (or perhaps understanding of) the definition of the term. To me it seems the defining factor is a hawkish military stance looking to secure influence and power over strategic locations. I am not familiar enough with Frum and his writings to say if he holds these sorts of views. TastyCakes (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- From looking at Frum's stances and statements in the past year, it'd be inaccurate to label him as any kind of conservative. - cr526
- I don't know what you're talking about; if anything by his latter conduct has been demonstrated it's that he's conservative through and through. --Saforrest (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
To describe David Frum as a "conservative" is absurd. Conservativism (in the American context) means respect for the limited government laid out by the Constitution of the United States (i.e. it means someone who opposes the expansion of government over the last century and wished to roll some or all of this expansion back) - David Frum has done nothing to try and roll back government in his life. Indeed he both supported the expansion of government under George Walker Bush and, even, a lot of the hyper expansion of government under President Barack Obama.
As for the suggestion of "neoconservative" - this would seem to be accurate if one accepts the defintion of this term as someone who supports wars to spread democracy. Hardly a conservative policy - in any sense of the word "conservative".126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
His religious viewpoints?
- Well he's Jewish... I've never heard anyone say if he's practicing or not. TastyCakes (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed reference to being Jewish as a matter of religion - being a member of Jewish organizations does not necessarily imply that one is a practicing Jew or a believer. Also, I'm not sure we would call being Jewish or Caucasian an ethnicity, or that we even want to categorize people by ethnicity unless it's relevant to their notability... but even if it is we need a direct citation for that. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jew and Caucasian are definitely ethnicities buddy. Not sure what you're alluding to, and considering this is an encyclopedia of sorts it is highly relevant to a wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
An End to Evil
The summary on David Frum's latest book, "An End to Evil," is as follows: "Frum's latest book "An End to Evil", co-written with Richard Perle has been widely criticized. Slate Magazine called it a "fevered wet dream of a national-security superstate"."
I don't believe that this is a fair presentation of the book and, unless there are any reasonable objections, I will change it to be something more fair.
I find it odd that all comments related to his past books are glowing, and this one criticism is being removed. The article as it exists now does not contain a single critical sentence of Frum. How could this be possible for such an outspoken, polarizing and prolific public figure? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia tries to be very careful with biographies (see wp:blp). In short, we have to be careful not to be slanderous and anything critical must be appropriately sourced. While, in theory, this applies for positive information as well, in practice it's unfounded negative information that can really blow up in wikipedia's face. Of course criticism should be added, but it must be well founded. TastyCakes (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why no mention of his brother, Matthew? Reference is made to his sister Linda, but not to Matthew. Yes, I know he is adopted, that has no bearing on whether to mention Matthew or not.
--Atikokan (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think the issue is not that Frum's brother is adopted but that, judging by your links, he has not done anywhere near as much to get this name into the press. I'm not sure he satisfies the notability criteria. --Saforrest (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. I'm not sure what the norm is but it is fairly common to say something simple like X has a sister, [name], and an adopted brother, [name]. Keeping WP:BLP in mind, particularly the section on privacy of non-notable individuals, we should be cautious about listing names, occupations, residence, family history, etc. But in most cases mentioning the names, occupations, and relative ages ("older sister", etc.) is okay if there are major sources out there. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
why romney lost
i added 2 mentions of his new e-book, I tried to be neutral in it's summation.