Talk:Joan Juliet Buck

Controversy section

This section is completely overblown. No doubt there was a controversy, but it was not the defining fact of this woman's life. It does not merit the coverage it's currently getting: close on half of the entire article! It's a classic case of recentism: in ten years' time who's going to care what Buck said to Piers Morgan on CNN February 9, 2012, or what the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles or the Philadelphia Inquirer said about the piece? And I'm sorry, but edit-warring over whether to include Michael Totten's comment while including a ton of other quotes is just silly! Here is an old version of the article. It's a balanced, easy-to-read biography with a short section on the controversy. Between then and now the article has grown from 5,000 kb to 22,000 kb with almost no additions to the other—more relevant—sections. That Controversy section in the old version might usefully be expanded by another couple of factual sentences, but the rest of what's there at the moment ought to be edited with extreme prejudice. --Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no response to this, and the edit-warring has continued, I have gone ahead and edited it. --Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Assad controversy was not the defining fact of the subject's life. Given the amount of comment, attention, discussion and debate that it has attracted in the media, it is by any reasonable measure the defining fact of her professional life. I argue that all references be restored. Redactor1802 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if this hadn't happened, she wouldn't have had an article? Then how come she had an article for years before it happened? It is a significant part of her life, yes, but my edit describes the controversy to the extent that it was a significant event in her life. The other "references", as you call them, don't add anything to the facts of the case; it's just quoting more and more media figures for the sake of it. Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The same two users have continued to expand the section, and to edit-war without any discussion here on the talk page. Therefore I have edited it down slightly more than I did the last time. The section is now purely factual, and doesn't give "her side" or "her detractors' side", except for the initial reaction to the initial article. So there is no longer any need to add any more quotes to "balance" it one way or another. If you want to create an article about the controversy, please do, and write whatever you want. But anything that has been added to this article has been unencyclopaedic and messy, and I will continue to remove any such cruft in the future. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire, I completely disagree that you are editing with the intention of making this article "neutral." I added a relevant section about the press reception to Buck's "mea culpa" article. I see no reason why this was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1shmt (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

One, I didn't say I am editing to make it neutral - I am editing to make it readable. If you think it is relevant that the second article was also criticised then just say so without the flowery quotes. Two, you write "Michael Young said..." as though Michael Young was a household name; he doesn't exactly jump out from a Google search, and Now Lebanon isn't exactly a world-renowned publication either. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Scolaire's points about the Michael Young and Now Lebanon adds being unhelpful to the article. The section already says the Vogue article "caused a furor within foreign policy circles", that "publications and web sites including The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic attacked it as an ill-timed 'puff piece' that ignored human rights abuses under Syria's Ba'athist regime" and we note that Buck was clearly fired from her job over it. More is just character assassination.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's not what I said! I said "if you think it is relevant that the second article was also criticised then just say so". I am more and more coming to think that I should not have removed all reference to criticism of the Newsweek article. It should probably be added as a single short sentence without quotes, and citing a well-known and reliable source (The Guardian perhaps?) Scolaire (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the Guardian piece was actually a blog as well! I have simply said that "bloggers on The Guardian, The Tablet and World Affairs websites were critical of the Newsweek article". I think that that is factual, relevant and verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Totten

IPWAI has just (once again) added the following: "Michael Totten responded in World Affairs, that although Assad was not a war criminal when Buck wrote her piece, he was a totalitarian dictator." Responded to what? To Buck's assertion that her contract with Vogue had not been renewed? When IPWAI made that edit before, it followed a quote from Buck that there was "no way of knowing that Assad, the meek ophthalmologist and computer-loving nerd, would kill more of his own people than his father had and torture tens of thousands more." That sentence has (rightly) been removed, so the "response" no longer makes sense. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, on reading the cited source, Michael Totten did not write that in World Affairs; he wrote it in his blog, which is on the World Affairs website. There's a world of difference. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto on the Michael Totten. See my comments in the above section.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Buck "publishing" her story on Asma al-Assad

Isn't it technically impossible for a writer to publish a piece in vogue without it being assigned and edited and approved by Vogue?--198.185.164.128 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean, "Vogue published a piece by Buck" was better than "Buck published a piece in Vogue"? I tend to agree. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Balance issue and questions

Scolaire, I think you might be caving into IPWAI and 1shmt a bit. Not all of the reaction to Buck's Newsweek piece was negative. Here's the liberal Israeli Haaeretz [1] and CNN's Erin Burnett (not a blog) also had Buck on her show and complimented the piece saying it was better than the Vogue piece [2]. The latter was in an earlier edit.

Also, blogs also revealed earlier than Buck's Newsweek piece that she was fired from Vogue, but we can't use because they are blogs?

Lost in the description also is that Vogue also objected to Buck saying that Asma was picked because she was thin, a clear overstepping of the line in the magazine's eyes (Do but don't say we do). Many blogs mentioned this.--Aichikawa (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Haaretz link tells me that "the full text is available for subscribers & registered users", so you're going to have to tell me what that says that's sympathetic and usable. That Haaretz was "less condemning" is certainly not usable. The Daily Beast link shows a CNN presenter interviewing Buck and saying the Newsweek article is worth reading and she "liked it better than the original." Well D'uh! What else is an interviewer going to say? That's simply not encyclopaedic.

Neutrality is not a matter of saying something "nice" for every criticism that's mentioned. Basically there are four or five facts that are relevant: (1) she wrote an article; (2) the article was criticised; (3) she wrote a second article; (4) it was also criticised (plus (5) she tweets). I have presented these four or five facts in a concise and neutral fashion. If there was a sixth fact—that somebody called the Newsweek article incisive or groundbreaking—that would also be added. But the fact that a couple of people didn't find it as bad as others did, that's not worth adding.

Blogs revealing earlier than Buck's Newsweek piece that she was fired from Vogue? Vogue objecting to Buck saying that Asma was picked because she was thin? Who cares? Not notable facts. Not encyclopaedic.

If you think I am "caving in" to certain editors then you don't know me very well. I didn't "cave in" to you, did I? I had another think about what is worth saying and what is not, and my latest edit is the result. My advice to you is to try to lose the battleground mentality and be more collaborative. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)