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 an mean old wiki-fascist-cop giving the oppressed, mournful Noah his marching orders (and the headline "Whacked by Wikipedia" as if Wikipedia was run by triggerhappy gangsters). 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)

Is there any validity to the following claim by Noah: "I note with interest that Stacy Schiff, author of the excellent New Yorker article cited above, failed to impress Wikipedia's arbiters of notability by winning the Pulitzer Prize in biography, writing several other well-regarded books, and receiving fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It wasn't until she wrote her Wikipedia piece that she became sufficiently notable to be written up in Wikipedia."? This was in the article he wrote about his "eviction" from Wikipedia.Jlujan69 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article he wrote brings up a lot of good points about notability standards and some of the paradoxes that operate therewith. For example, I've always considered Wikipedia to be a treasure trove of knowledge about porn stars, profesional wrestling and Star Trek. And yet, acclaimed journalists and broadcasters are ignored because they are not public figures, apparently. Is this to suggest that there needs to be a separate Wiki for these people? I think while syops may b**ch about some fleeting details in the (Noah's) article that show a disregard for minutiae of the admin/enforcement process, they can't ignore some of the issues it raises. This article needs to stay, and I wouldn't be opposed to including the slate article as a source (or at least slate as an external link.) Xwoodandwater 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the part that I have reinstalled several times deserves to remain: wikipedia needs to be a self-conscious endeavor, and thus it is noteworthy that Noah's recent article reflects on the notability criterion. Frodeman 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an absolute non-sequitur. Wikipedia's almost ridiculously self-conscious; the question is whether Noah's articles about Wikipedia are notable to his biography. It's been said before and I'll repeat it: if this biography were anywhere besides Wikipedia, we wouldn't even be discussing whether to include these articles. JDoorjam JDiscourse 06:04, 27 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)

That section of the Noah article did not violate WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects because it wasn't purely self-referential. As I pointed out before, Noah's Slate piece isn't just about this article or its potential deletion; it's a broader argument about Wikipedia's standards and how they're ultimately rooted in the need to maintain status and reinforce social hierarchies. This is a broad subject with broad implications for how we continue to reinforce social codes long after technology has made those social codes unnecessary. If Noah keeps writing on this subject - and I have a feeling he'll get at least one more piece out of this - he could go somewhere very interesting with this.

As far as good faith goes, the subtext of this entire debate is that this isn't merely an article about Noah, nor is it a section about Noah's article being up for deletion. It's a section in which Noah mocks Wikipedia's standards and those who set them as pompous - and it appears in an article that was recently pulled from AfD to the disappointment of those who wanted it gone. That Noah's article appears to have been saved in part by that same piece in Slate can't have endeared Noah - or his Slate piece - to the people who wanted to scrub the entire article in the first place. If I were being uncharitable, I might conclude that some people saw the inclusion of the section on Noah's piece as an insult to them and how they do things on Wikipedia, and responded accordingly. If I were being uncharitable. Fumoses 13:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time a Slate article about Wikipedia lent notability to subject, and then we wrote about it in Wikipedia -- we saw that sort of self-referential effect on the Cyrus Farivar article and the whole Wookiefetish thing. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination).  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

argument about Wikipedia's standards - it is not notable what Noah thinks about Wikipedia. Let me ask, if you were writing a short biography article about Noah anywhere else besides Wikipedia, would you include Noah's opinions about Wikipedia? Of course not, he is a pundent who issues opinions on everything every day. Wikipedia articles are copy-left meaning they can be re-produced in print form, on CD's, copied into other works, etc.. we are not writing articles for Wikipedia, that is why we have a self referential rule, these are generic articles.

Your making Noah's opinion about Wikipedia into some kind of "statement" that Noah is "mocking" Wikipedia and therefore people who want to delete it are biased - which is wrong on a number of accounts: 1) Noah is not mocking Wikipedia he is making an honest attempt to understand the issue 2) It really doesnt matter what he says, that is not why it is not included in the article - aks yourself why I personally went through the trouble to link to the Slate article with a footnote in the article, and at the top of this talk page, and in the Wikipedia in the News article - I went out of my way to spread the Slate article all over Wikipedia. Your theory is just wrong and frankly you seem to be taking this very personally, I wonder what your connection is. -- Stbalbach 13:57, 26 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)

This is an argument for expanding the Noah article to include more information, not an argument to exclude information which is already present. Fumoses 12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an argument to exclude. Obviously, my preference is to expand the article, but not if doing so violates undue weight. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, on reading the above it appears to me that you are also taking this personally. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia to argue from experience. However, I do know that I signed up in order to ensure that Timothy Noah's views were expressed on this forum. I read Slate daily and can recall the articles he posted about his wife. I have read the undue weight link that was provided to myself by Jersyko. My question is - if I was to summarise a large portion of Noah's work such that his entry was expanded and the wikipedia article was restricted to a few lines, would this satisfy you? If not, why? (please provide a detailed explanation or, to be perfectly honest, I will think it is because you now have an emotional interest in ensuring it is not present).PhilistineWA 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see the article expanded. The two relevant policies are WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects and undue weight. So long as the notability bit is carefully worded to avoid self-reference and does not take up an inordinate amount of the article, I'm fine with including it at some point. However, I'm a bit wary of including it at all at this point given that the article discusses very few of Noah's other articles, signifying recentism in my view and granting undue weight to the notability subsection (as opposed to the Iraq subsection, which is undoubtedly an issue of great importance to pundits over the last several years and should likely be discussed in any such article). Ideally, the article would be expanded exponentially over time to cover many of Noah's views. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a good compromise to me. Stblabach - are you of a similar opinion?PhilistineWA 16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable. Fumoses 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

He wrote one short article. One. He is not known as a Wikipedia commentator, he is not widely quoted as one, it is not something he normally covers. If that changes and he becomes a Wikipedia pundent and starts publishing more articles about Wikipedia than it becomes notable enough to mention. How is that for a compromise? -- Stbalbach 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, keeps coming back. Oh well, I'm unwatching this page. Whoever is left once this is no longer WP:RECENT, please clean this up. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But wait, what about when Colbert had that segment where he told people to edit the African elephant entry? That made it in. I can see the arguments of the people who want to exclude it, but on the other hand, doing so seems to be trying to ignore an issue that has already come up. What I'm trying to say is, shouldn't someone looking at the article be aware that there was this issue that was made public, which sparked a discussion about notability standards, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baligant (talk • contribs).

Made it into what? It's not in the Colbert Report article, either of the articles on Stephen Colbert, or the elephant article. I believe it's in Criticism of Wikipedia, as it was an extremely notable example of that, but it isn't anyplace else. JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:17, 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)

David Fuchs - personally, I thought his article was quite insightful.PhilistineWA 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the article was insightful doesn't really matter, the question is whether this entry meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion Maracle 16:54, 26 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)

Makes no difference. With this news mention, whether he was notable before doesn't matter -- he's notable now.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:26, 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)

I'm tempted to protect the article to stop the continued edit warring, but I'm hesitant to do so given the potentially bad face it presents to new users (which is why articles on the main page aren't protected while there). In any event, if the edit warring continues, I will be more amenable to protecting the article (regardless of the content of the revision) until the discussion is completed on this talk page. That said, we would all be wise to discuss, not edit, for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have seen the locking of the page as an attempt by wikipedia to suppress criticism. As it is, seeing my edits deleted prompted me to sign up and find this page.PhilistineWA 15:51, 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 on the Iraq War nor has his journalistic identity been characterized by his position on the Iraq War. If there are articles or books which are representative of landmark, 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)

Isn't Noah's stance on the Iraq war notable for the same reason any other pundit's stance on the Iraq war is notable - because the Iraq war is one of the major defining political issues of the current decade? A Wikipedia user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like Mickey Kaus and Matthew Yglesias. I also fail to see how including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed fairly dramatically over time - is a WP:SOAPBOX violation. Fumoses 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If Noah is notable as a pundit, so are his views on the big issues. An anonymous editor removed the Iraq War section, writing in the Edit Summary essentially: "Why this subject and no others?" The answer, of course, is that other subjects might well be included. Wikipedia's not paper. PRRfan 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this is worth including. Obviously, it should not be given undue weight, but because this is undoubtedly the biggest issue to be dealt with by American political pundits over the last several years, surely it warrants some mention. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I would submit Noah's comments on the Iraq war are "celebrated" given a) his notoriety as a journalist for one of the most well known (and well read) online magazines; and, b) the dramatic change in his views over time.PhilistineWA 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Glad to see someone call out the arbitrary, even childish nature of the deletion process

---

Re: the above.

The trouble is, Noah isn't interesting enough - or prominent enough - to require descriptions of his views on individual issues. He hasn't played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War, nor on anything else. He is significant enough to have a small entry; but it's total overkill, and rather preposterous, to start cataloguing his opinions on numerous events, major or otherwise. Unless they significantly, and notably, and provocatively relate to his own status or person as a writer - or have impacted public opinion, government policy, intellectual trends, etc - there is no point at all in detailing the information. An encyclopaedia should aim for a proportionate depth, and relevant breadth, in all its entries; the only difference between an online and an offline one should really be that the former doesn't require the often damaging omissions or brevity of the latter, not that it can offer a thoughtless, automatic, totalistic chronicling of everything to do with anything. This is why Wikipedia entries on Presidents are not as long as whole books written on Presidents. See? - I also believe the Wikipedia reference in the entry, now that Noah has written again on it, and now this continued squabble has arisen, has become too much a matter of tedious self-referentialism, and on reflection offers little or nothing substantial (trivia or otherwise) to the piece for all the crap that's been thrown about because of it. Can we delete it please? -- Best, CAWP (chris.a.w.parker@gmail.com)

The section in response to the question of Noah's suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. His forceful agreement with Powell's speech to the UN, and his subsequent withdrawal of that agreement are the most notable, or at least most noted, aspect of his career. This sequence of articles is certainly more notable than the fact that he lives in the Takoma Park neighborhood. His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War." Ray 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, because there's a discussion on point on this talk page, please discuss here instead of merely removing the Iraq paragraph (consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion right now, in any event). · j e r s y k o talk · 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

-- More notable than where he lives? Yes. But an encyclopaedia is a reference work: essential facts like that must be included. I'm sure the year in which Reagan was born isn't notable - as in of especial importance - but it is an elementary fact and therefore has to be there. What's your point? It makes no sense.

It's dumb to use such a confusing argument as the basis for including this completely irrelevant section. Noah's switch did NOT have an effect on public opinion. Not a bit. His views on the Iraq War are one of any number of average, unexceptional, insignificant facts. For someone like Christopher Hitchens - central and prominent in the public debates over the war - it of course would be perfectly correct to include it. But not Noah. Just leave the entry as it is: modest, covering the essential facts, well-referenced and accurate: exactly the proportionate length for such a mildly important figure.

cawp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.230.9 (talk • contribs).

His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War." That grandiose statement from above and the idea that his response to Powell's UN speech was some kind of landmark event in the American public sphere comes across as absurd puffery - can the commentator prove this? I doubt that even Timothy Noah himself would claim this. We shouldn't be turning articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues or highlighting ones we subjectively think are "the issue of the day". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and whether the Iraq War or the all his major issue oped columns (which are generally brief columns, not detailed papers) are summarized, this comes across as boosterish undue weight/ WP:SOAPBOX promotional content. Hence the balance tag I've added. Noah is a moderately well-known columnist, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he is influential enough to be treated as if he is some remarkable political thinker of the moment . Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

References Question

According to the Slate article[3], Noah himself has made several changes to this article.

Apparently those are this one[4] documenting his position at Slate and this series[5] documenting other aspects of his career and his residence in the Takoma Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

This appears to be within Wikipedia guidelines, but is there any mechanism to supply these contributions as the needed citations? Ray 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Might want to add this reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/?GT1=9129 Harvardy 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he edited Wikipedia, but whether he lives in Takoma Park. We'd have to twist ourselves into a self-referencing pretzel and violate original research rules in order to tie the article to a specific set of edits and then use that as a source. Under a strict interpretation, we need a secondary source that specifically states he lives in Takoma Park. If he mentions it in a future article, that'd be perfect, but for now we're short a reference for that. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not ignore all rules, & use some common sense? If it appears that he anonymously editted his own bio to add the fact he lives in Takoma Park, & there is no reason to suspect his word (e.g., it gives him some kind of self-promotion), why not simply accept that he knows where he lives & accept the edit as reasonably plausible? -- llywrch 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for certain that it was Noah who made the edits, first of all. Second, the information remains in the article, just with {{fact}} tags. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is more easily solved by the "favor privacy" principle within Wikipedia's policy for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, meaning that since the number of children and his neighborhood of residence is not relevant to his notability, it should be deleted. 66.167.49.179 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

If it's not verifiable by a secondary source, it has no business being included in a tertiary source, no matter how important it is - and I doubt Noah's place of residence is that crucial. Johnleemk | Talk 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's WAR!!!

According to the top banner headline for Noah's article on Slate.com, he's at "War with Wikipedia" and the war is "Raging On". According to the article headline for the same article, he's been "Rescued by Wikipedia". Defcon 5!! Man Overboard!!!! Outstanding. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)