Talk:Timothy Noah

Notability tag

Someone posted a notability tag and did not explain reasons in talk. That is bogus, any issues should have been explained in talk before tagging. Noah is a senior journalist at one of the major online magazines. That makes him notable by most definitions. --66.31.39.76 12:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The tagger should have explained the reasons in talk but I would not describe this oversight as "bogus", particularly as a simple flagging is a restrained action. I don't see any indication in the bio or the explanation above that solidly shows Noah is encyclopedically notable. I think its reasonably justified for someone to tag the article as having notability issues - or even submit to afd and have it out there (at least that would actually give some belated grounding for, to put it politely, Noah's complaining yet dramatically misinformed article about his supposed "eviction" from wikipedia) Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww, you're just PO-ed because he nailed on the head the biggest problem with online cliquery, which, though full of good and knowledgeable people, Wikipedia certainly has. No comment on whether Noah's "notable" or not, all I know is I read his column every week.--Ben Applegate 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I too am a daily reader of Slate and other publications but don't make the facile proposal that every journalist I read on a regular basis has a claim to encyclopedic notability. I note that Noah's baseless Slate article on wikipedia is now the banner headline on the Slate front page today - complete with the ridiculous cartoon of a wiki-fascist-cop giving the oppressed Noah his marching orders. And this is not dramatically misinformed? Neither Noah nor the Slate web team seem to have bothered to check the accuracy of his claims since the piece was published several days ago - he has merely added an update claiming that a Wikipedia sysop gave him a "stay of execution" after reading his article - again this is an inaccurate version of events. Noah has been quite snooty and presumptuous about "Wikipedia sysops" but apparently has yet to bother to find out how the afd process actually works (he still thinks its down to a discussion amongst admins for instance). I would be able to take Noah's accusations about so-called cliques more seriously if he actually bothered to get his basic facts right about Wikipedia Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't this question of notability be resolved by finding and citing a couple of links about Timothy Noah? In his "eviction" essay he claims that there are none, but wouldn't something like this NPR story count (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5034363)? Or here's a CNN article about the "Washington Zoo" book in which Noah is interviewed (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/05/10/williams.noah/index.html). I'm guessing there are other interviews with Timothy (about the book) out there. Wouldn't they count as well? Lastly, here's a published essay whose subject is a criticism of one of Noah's articles (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14968). Taken together, isn't that enough to meet the notability standard? Vandelay 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Then just add that to the article or raise it in afd. It's no big deal tagging articles with notability or references tags or taking them to afd. I think it is a big deal when people (not you) try to browbeat others from refraining from this kind of important oversight action. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text

This was removed on Feb. 24:

"On February 24 2007, Noah wrote an article for Slate concerning the impending termination of this Wikipedia entry [1]. Minutes after doing so, its deletion was provisionally halted. Noah's article pondered why in an infinite (cyber) space, Wikipedia would police the question of whether someone is notable enough."

I think it's interesting enough to leave in. Thoughts? PRRfan 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah has written lots and lots of Chatterbox articles; the only reason to view this as more interesting than any other is that it mentions Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself making that distinction would sound my bias alarm. EldKatt (Talk) 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only rationale that I can think for leaving it in is because the article is specifically about the wikipedia entry itself. Since there has been a published work about this article, shouldn't that be mentioned on the page? But I agree that it does seem to give off an impression of bias. Are there any guidelines on something like this? MrBleu 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah's article about Wikipedia's notability policy does not significantly represent Noah's overall work as a journalist. This does not mean that there's anything wrong with his article per se, just that it's not a particularly typical or noteworthy example of his writings. The only reason that it even seems noteworthy enough to include here is that it's about Wikipedia. (If Noah had written a column about the Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial policies, would we even be considering it for inclusion?) I think his article may be worth including as a reference somewhere else — perhaps on the notability policy page? — but not on the Timothy Noah article itself. --Sheldon Rampton 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why err on the side of excluding information rather than err on the side of including it? It's true that this article could certainly stand to be fleshed out quite a bit more, dealing with Noah's more frequently-covered topics, but the bottom line is that Noah's WP item is interesting, there's no reason to leave it out, and Wikipedia is not paper - editors don't have serious space constraints that prevent them from leaving stuff like this in. Which is, ironically, the very point Noah makes in the article people are trying to delete. Fumoses 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This has more to do with WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects than notability. The additions relating to the notability Slate article are more related to this Wikipedia article than Noah or his work as a journalist. I also think that WP:NPOV#Undue weight might be relevant; is the blurb on the notability article being included because it is representative of his work as a journalist and warrants mention in an encyclopedia article on Noah or is it being included because it very recent (see Wikipedia:Recentism) and relates to Wikipedia? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The section isn't self-referential, and Noah's piece isn't strictly about his own Wikipedia article. It's about Wikipedia's broader policies on notability and how they're rooted not in necessity but in the need to maintain certain social codes. As Noah himself notes, my aim was not to reinstate myself but rather to argue against Wikipedia's "notability" standard itself and to use it as a newfangled illustration of our society's love affair with invidious distinction. http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2/ Fumoses 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Noah has written 100s of articles and said many things, why is this one being given special attention? It doesn't belong in the article because we have rules against that kind of thing, please read WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects. You need to justify why this article deserves special attention to be noted, much less have its own entire section. -- Stbalbach 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you're the one asking "why is this one being given special attention?" when you're the one going out of your way to delete this section, and doing so not on the basis that it's inaccurate information, but on the basis that it's just information you don't want there. It seems pretty clear that this topic strikes a nerve here, especially looking over at the talk page on notability. Noah basically said that Wikipedians spend hours and hours deleting factual, interesting material in order to make themselves feel big. I can understand how leaving that in an article that was only recently spared from deletion would be merely adding insult to injury for the deletion zealots. Fumoses 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach is right. If we split to an article called Timothy Noah's views on Wikipedia it would fail WP:N, because there would not be multiple independant sources covering the topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I initially thought that the reference should be included, but upon reading WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects, I think it's clear that it doesn't meet the criteria. While Noah's criticisms may be valid, this isn't an issue of people deleting things based on their whim, this is an issue of following the established guidelines. That's all we have to go on in cases like this. MrBleu 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fumoses if your unable to say why Noah's opinion about Wikipedia is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia article (any encyclopedia article, not just Wikipedia) than you really have no case. Attacking me and other Wikipedians by suggesting we are not operating in WP:Good faith and have some sort of intentional bias only shines a bad light in your direction - what's your bias? The rules are clear on this WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects. Occasionally these things are notable enough to be included, but in this case it is not. If you really still object then follow the conflict resolution guidelines. -- Stbalbach 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The typical text about his "Eviction" piece for slate takes about a third of this article. Timothy Noah has been writing 100s of columns for many journals for many years, how we can justify giving this one column such undue precedence is beyond me. Timothy Noah is notable, a single column in Slate magazine is not, it really is that simple. --Xorkl000 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed AfD

I've closed the AfD on Timothy Noah, as it would only serve as troll magnetry. He's notable enough, and enough crap has been stirred up about this article, that it better serves the project to attempt to improve the article via discussions on the talk page than running it through AfD. If you disagree with the close and wish to discuss it, drop me a message. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a guideline proposal that could help to avoid problems like this altogether. Its at Wikipedia:Notability (journalists). Its similar to the pornograhic actor guideline but with guidelines specifically for journalists. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed this article went from normal, to AfD, to speedy keep, to journalist responds in the press, all in the same day. I'd say to Mr Noah, notability is at the heart of Wikipedia, it is why people use it, to filter out the ocean of data available on the internet - otherwise everyones wife, kids and pet would have an article on Wikipedia. See Newpages to see how quickly they are rolling in. -- Stbalbach 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it went from normal, to journalist responding, to AfD, to speedy keep. The article wasn't nominated for deletion until after Mr. Noah said it had been. JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your right. It was flagged as non-notable on Feb 18th [2], and then the first edit on the 24th was a link to his Slate article. It was then actually AfD'd by User:Kendrick7 around 5pm. Since then it has become a real battle ground over a number of content issues. User:Jersyko is making the best edits and holding it together. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I can't see how anyone can say the AfD was closed properly... but I'm not going to do anything 'till this cools off. I don't want Noah whining about us again. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo, you didn't get to delete something! And it's Noah that's whining? Fumoses 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, remain civil, and do not make personal attacks against other editors under any circumstances. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand this close. I don't see a WP:POINT violation, so I'd say closer wasn't assuming good faith. I also see a bunch of arguments on the page which basically are either hand waving or "he might not meet our standards, but I don't care so I'm gonna say keep anyway." Not exactly sure where any of that meets criteria outlined for a speedy keep, but whatever. GassyGuy 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. Reverting should always be a last resort, and if you must revert, please use a meaningful edit summary. There has been almost virtually no discussion going on between those people reverting one another - not even any attempt to communicate through a meaningful edit summary such as "please refer to talk". This is not how we should be resolving article disputes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war section=

Removed this section as I don't see why (and the article made no effort to indicate) why Noah's published opinions on the Iraq War are encyclopedically notable, and this was a possible WP:SOAPBOX violation. I'm sure he's written many more-or-less informed articles on numerous serious and non-serious subjects - unclear why this was singled out for inclusion. He is not a specialist political commentator nor has his journalistic identity been characterized by his position on the Iraq War. If there are articles which are representative of landmark (e.g. published books), watershed and/or celebrated work by Noah, and can be shown to be so, these are more appropriate for the article than summaries of random short op-ed articles Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)