Talk:Jeffrey Toobin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article seems a bit self-aggrandizing. Is it really necessary for us to know that he went to a private grammar school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickerage (talkcontribs) 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


What is the nationality of his surname? Is it related to the Estonian surname Tubin? Badagnani 09:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that he must be related to the African Tubins. If he is a white man, then ALL African-Americans must be whites as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

where was Jeffrey Toobin born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Why is no information about the ethnicity of Toobin and his family? Why is this information ommitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it is clear that he is half black and hlaf white. He MAY call himself Jewish or something like other types like him do when they are more in the white world than the black. I recall this just like Ben Savage. Being "Jewish" does not take away from the black heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


I believe it's clear that an article in Politico ( includes Toobin when it says "For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList. The story goes on to specifically single out one of those "left-leaning" "magazine writers" "talk[ing] stories":

But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList.

Do you have a reliable source that demonstrates that Politico's characterization of JournoList's members as "left-leaning" is incorrect? Drrll (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't employ sources in this manner here on Wikipedia. You can't use them to connect the dots. Find a source that directly discusses Toobin's views. Gamaliel (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you don't have anything that contradicts Politico's characterization of JournoList's members in general, and Toobin specifically, as "left-leaning." Drrll (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion regarding Toobin's political views, I only insist they are accurately represented according to Wikipedia's views. WP policy prevents us from making connections or inferences using sources, it only permits us from reporting what they directly say. Taking an overly broad and unproven generalization - all of the 400+ members of group X are Y - and then applying it to a single person is against OR, BLP, etc. If you want it in the article, find a source that talks about Toobin specifically. The issue isn't that I'm disputing the characterization, the issue is that you don't want to find a proper source. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey's comments on JournoList are just now, 7/10, coming to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Proposed Journolist addition[edit]

In March 2009, Politico revealed that Toobin was a member of the private discussion group JournoList, where "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics" "talked stories and compared notes." Regarding the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate to John McCain, Toobin remarked as follows: “what a joke...I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”

The first sentence is obviously sourced to Politico. The second sentence is sourced to The Daily Caller, but also to The Washington Post (among others). Drrll (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't normally cherry pick comments made by people, particularly when made in a private discussion group. Has some reputable and reliable source written about the particular quote as being of some significance? Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The consensus so far at the RSN on The Daily Caller is that it is a reliable source. The quote is also given significance in the Washington Post, by media reporter Howard Kurtz: Drrll (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he said stuff on an email listserve is irrelevant to him and his career, and given the tiny, tiny size of this article, an WP:UNDUE issue as well. Gamaliel (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Gamaliel's edits. It is not appropriate for editors to cherry pick comments made in emails and add them to an encyclopedic article. If a reliable source writes an article focusing on Toobin, and that source mentions the significance of some comment, then the views of the source might be worth mentioning. The same procedure applies to a book written by a subject: it is original research (WP:SYNTH) to cherry pick comments from any primary source. A secondary source is needed to provide an analysis of the context and significance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be irrelevant if not reported anywhere, but the fact is that it was reported by four sources (Daily Caller, The Washington Post, CNN, and Fox News). That's a lot more sourcing than much of the John Gibson quotes that you support. Why isn't it WP:UNDUE for the similarly short Gibson article (without the quotes material) to include all of those quotes? Drrll (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, Gibson is a professional controversy stirrer and thus his article will primarily discuss things he stirs up on his TV and radio shows. Toobin is a professional journalist and the article should primarily discuss his journalistic work. To devote such a large part of the article to some irrelevant email comments is ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
And what WP policy (or even guideline) is that, allowing for vastly different treatment of journalists based upon a specific occupation held for a tiny portion of Gibson's adult life? That quote definitely relates to Toobin being a "professional journalist", as evidenced by reporting in a WashPo news column that always focuses on journalistic ethics, as well as coverage by two journalistic ethics news shows. Drrll (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Gibson hasn't been a journalist for some time, though if you want to beef up material regarding his work with The Hollywood Reporter or Rivera Live, you have my complete support. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you don't want to address the lack of WP policy for justifying your double standard, nor the fact that the quote was reported by sources that discuss journalistic ethics. --Drrll (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been discussing it, I don't know how you keep missing it. of course there is a double standard, as they are two entirely separate things. One is a professional journalist who made private email comments. The other is a professional pot stirrer who made public comments while stirring the pot at his job, which is pot stirring. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your arbitrary distinction between the two. What I haven't seen from you is a WP policy basis for this double standard. I haven't yet seen policy which grants current journalists special protected status in WP. What to do with someone like Linda Douglass--I guess she's reentered special protected status since she has left the Obama administration and has gone back to being a journalist. Drrll (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you don't understand, because if you did, you wouldn't claim that I'm advocating "special protected status". I'm simply stating - again, as I have from the beginning - that as per common policy - namely WP:UNDUE - that a significant fraction of a small article should not be given over to something insignificant like private email comments that have nothing to do with his notability, a long career as a professional journalist and legal analyst. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're not advocating a special status for current journalists, then WP:UNDUE would equally apply to John Gibson, unless you selectively and arbitrarily apply the policy. As I said before, Toobin's comments were noteworthy enough to be reported in the Washington Post and CNN by a media reporter--unlike Gibson's comments. Drrll (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've explained how I'm applying the policy repeatedly. Every one of your comments takes a selective spin on part of what I said and ignores the rest of it. And now you're also ignoring all that coverage of Gibson's comments and pretending it doesn't exist and isn't cited his article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My point, inadequately made, was that a straight reporter (whose domain is reporting on journalism) reported the comments of Toobin, whereas the Gibson comments were mostly (entirely?) referenced by opinion people. Is there a version of the material that you would support in the article? You seem to have suggested such in the BLPN when you mentioned that a compromise could be made if sourced to other sources than The Daily Caller. I did reduce the quotes from two to one, removing an entire sentence. Drrll (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I could easily envision some version of that material in the article, but the key issue for me is UNDUE, which you haven't directly tackled in relation to this article. A mere 131 words are devoted to his multi-decade career, so we can't justify 100-200 words on some private email comments that will be forgotten next month. Everything else is tangential to that central problem. The only solution I foresee is expanding the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That's fair. I'll do some research on Toobin to look for more material on his career if you'll do the same. Drrll (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely admire your efforts to improve this article while I was away this weekend. I've made some edits to the journolist stuff that I hope we can both live with. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Removing the separate section is OK, as is removing the Daily Caller reference (although I disagree and the RSN disagrees about it not being a reliable source), but since Toobin's quote was included in the WaPo story, mentioned on Fox News Watch, and discussed on Reliable Sources, I believe that it belongs in this article. I think a solution that might work would be to include the quote in the footnote. I think that would also work for the Spencer Ackerman article, where his abbreviated quote is referenced 4 times on cable news shows (all three major channels), and at least 5 times in print/online. As far as the JournoList article goes, I believe that the quote belongs in the mainspace of the article, as many individual quotes are included (given that the subject is JournoList) and Toobin is the most prominent individual to be quoted on JournoList (see also Ronnotel's comments on JournoList Talk about its inclusion in the article). Drrll (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Offensive and false information[edit]

I don't know if I'm handling this situation correctly. I am not a wikipedia expert. But this is Jeff Toobin. Someone has been posting offensive and inaccurate information about my personal life. I have removed it, but someone keeps putting it back in. I have no desire to control anything people say about my work or politics, but this hurtful and incorrect information should not be on the site. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie87 (talkcontribs) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what's false about the material you keep removing? The source appears to be reliable to me. Eeekster (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you know of other sources that contradict the original source? Drrll (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, is the person that the Wikipedia entry is about allowed to edit his own entry? Roberts1963 (talk) 08:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
See WP:COI. There are rarely "always applicable" rules at Wikipedia, and while I have not looked at the edits referred to above, this talk section appears to be an excellent example of proper procedure (rather than edit war, the person posted a comment here). If anyone has evidence of undue COI, it should be raised initially at this talk page, and if warranted at WP:COIN. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that the information Jeffrey Toobin objects to is the fact that he has an out-of-wedlock child with Casey Greenfield, the daughter of CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield. While that fact may be uncomfortable for Toobin, it has been widely reported and ought to be included in his wikipedia entry. Here's a source that should pass muster: Dain Waris (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Toobin is correct[edit]

Yeah, but even if it's true he's been sleeping with someone other than his wife, how does it characterize or assist readers in understanding his role in the public arena? Answer: it doesn't. The only reason to put it here is to smear him, so he's right, and it should be removed. And you know, a lot of the other stuff seems to have been added with a specifically right-leaning agenda, on the assumption that (a) he's a leftie and (b) lefties are un-American, and deserve to be shat upon. This is no longer an NPOV biography, it's a calculated attempt to cast dirt on a particular writer. Why? I have no idea, but perhaps his book on Clinton might be the source of the evident animus with which some parts of this "biography" have been written, because he supported Clinton against his enemies in that book. So maybe, just maybe, crapping on Toobin is a way to re-fight that battle as in, if Toobin is a bad man therefore Clinton must be guilty, even if he got off. In any event, this whole article needs a thorough re-write from an NPOV point of view. As it is, it has cherry-picked "facts" that have only one point really, and that is to say: Toobin is a bad man. Theonemacduff (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Added new yorker piece on citizens united decison but don't know the page numbers and/or issue number.[edit]

Help? and yes i know it is an excerpt from The Oath. it is needed here as it is used in the citizens united article to describe the decison.

Jewish Category Addition[edit]

Who is a Jew? -According to halakha, a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. But, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.[1] IBestEditor (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Katz, Lisa. "Am I Jewish?". Retrieved 8 November 2013.