Talk:Nedra Pickler

NPOV

A previous version of this article was speedily deleted as an attack. Because of this, I think it's especially important to maintain a neutral point of view in this new version of the article. A lot of the criticism of Ms. Pickler's writing is that it is filled with damaging insinuations. Whether or not that's the case, Wikipedia should aspire to a higher standard.

Some relevant bits of contention:

• It's not clear from the sources whether Bush called her "Baby" (i.e. "Nedra, Baby, ...") or "Nedra Baby", and in any case, I couldn't find any indication this happened more than once. In light of this, I don't think it's fair to make the same assumption that the Houston Chronicle blogger makes ("Bush calls her 'Nedra Baby.'") -- at least not without attributing that statement. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand has a longer record of making comments both pro- and anti- Pickler. I didn't dig deep, but he seems to have used the same pet name for Pickler more than once. In any case, if this kind of thing can be reliably sourced, so be it. But it seems to me that it ought to be put in context, lest it be read as an attempt to tar Pickler with a degree of intimacy that can't actually be documented.
• I don't think a point-by-point refutation of Pickler's article from the day before yesterday belongs here. Imagine if the Thomas Friedman or Maureen Dowd or George Will articles would look like if every contentious writing of theirs was dissected. I don't see anything wrong with referencing the Obama article or the reaction to it, but it should be placed in context of her career. After all, this is an article about her. It's a little odd that half the text is about an article she published two days ago. (It's possible that more detail might be appropriate in the articles on Obama, or on the 2008 presidential race.)
• Any critique of Pickler or her works should be sourced, rather than original: For example, I agree that "The voices are growing louder asking the question..." is "weaselly". But it's not our place to make that judgement here. If Pickler were notably criticized for her use of weasel words, on the other hand...

--Shunpiker 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear from the sources whether Bush called her "Baby" (i.e. "Nedra, Baby, ...") or "Nedra Baby"

It's clear to me.

Imagine if the Thomas Friedman or Maureen Dowd or George Will articles would look like if every contentious writing of theirs was dissected.

It would be really long, and some material would be removed. This article is not long. Consequently, no material needs to be removed, which is what I presume you are advocating for.

I agree that "The voices are growing louder asking the question..." is "weaselly". But it's not our place to make that judgement here.

It's not a judgement, it's a fact based on the definition of the term 'weasal word' and the contents of the quoted sentence. What you are arguing is that the article can't say what we both agree is true. — goethean ॐ 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The only criticsm of Pickler seems to come from one article at Media Matters, and does not qualify as a WP:RS, and even if it did, it most certainly violates undue weight. As such, I am taking the liberty of removing the material. After reviewing WP:BLP, I would also have to conclude that MMFA does not meet the criteria for use in a WP:BLP, and could be excluded on those grounds alone. Hempbilly 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the material. Please use the discussion page to hash this out instead of deleting what appears to be directly relevant information from multiple sources, not just MMFA. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The basis of the "complaint" is one piece from MMFA, and one from a blog. The supporting material, from multiple sources, is a violation of WP:SYNT. Hempbilly 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)