Talk:John Podhoretz

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Podhoretz' comments on Wikipedia

Podhoretz doesn't have much use for Wikipedia, judging from his recent comments in the NRO Corner. Of course, some of the info in older versions of his Wikipedia article was suspect, to put it mildly.

The NRO Corner is tossing around various opinions about Wikipedia and similar ventures. It all started when Kathryn Lopez noted that John Derbyshire's Wikipedia article accurately recounted his disagreements with many other NRO writers. Derbyshire wasn't amused, Jonah Goldberg (predictably) was, and other writers have chipped in pro-wiki and anti-wiki comments. Casey Abell 19:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sabotage on this article seems designed to support Podhoretz' anti-wiki comments. At least other contributors have removed the nonsense. Casey Abell 19:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll

Carroll criticized those who thought she beleived her statements. She could just as easily have meant those to her left who agreed with her as those to her right who thought she was brainwashed. 216.139.142.18

Completely unsupported. Please show a link where Carroll "criticized" anyone on the right or left who "thought she believed her statements." Your ridiculous assertion that the "left" agreed with her coerced statements is more unsupported nonsense. Eleemosynary 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podhoretz doesn't have much use for Wikipedia, judging from his recent comments in the NRO Corner. Of course, some of the info in older versions of his Wikipedia article was suspect, to put it mildly.

The NRO Corner is tossing around various opinions about Wikipedia and similar ventures. It all started when Kathryn Lopez noted that John Derbyshire's Wikipedia article accurately recounted his disagreements with many other NRO writers. Derbyshire wasn't amused, Jonah Goldberg (predictably) was, and other writers have chipped in pro-wiki and anti-wiki comments. Casey Abell 19:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sabotage on this article seems designed to support Podhoretz' anti-wiki comments. At least other contributors have removed the nonsense. Casey Abell 19:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

If other people enjoy looking at Podhoretz's wet, hairy back, that's fine with me, I guess. But please don't label my replacement of the swimming pool picture with a less disgusting one as "whitewashing." Really, I couldn't care less about John Podhoretz. I barely know who he is. I just didn't think anyone else's unsuspecting eyes should have to be subjected to...that...when they click on this article. I do, however, suspect that some people are acting out of a petty dislike for someone rather than a sincere desire to make Wikipedia better. Oh well, I tried. dbtfz ^talk 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you also removed the "nicknames" section and erased a link to a New York magazine article about Podhoretz. That's why I labeled your actions an attempted whitewash. Article diffs are a nice remedy for dissembling. Eleemosynary 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Photo from Pajamas Media

An anonymous user, 213.86.213.196 (with a history of vandalism warnings) is apparently hell-bent on removing the photo of Podhoretz in the pool, claiming it's an attempt by me and others to make Podhoretz look "foolish." Here [1] is the source of the photo, from Pajamas Media, over an autobiographical sketch by Podhoretz. It's quite clear that Podhoretz approves of the photo, which does not make him look foolish. One could argue it makes him look quite human, even jovial. Removing it to suit some POV notion of "respectability" is POV. It should stay. Eleemosynary 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to assume good faith with respect to your obsession with this photo. You have a history (Drudge, K. Lopez, et al) of making somewhat demeaning edits to conservative pundit pages and then claiming "whitewash".

The current photo is an official PR photo and is in keeping with photos for other public figures. In the spirit of consensus, I'd be interested in other editor views on the pool photo.

My vote is to delete. What say others?

Obsessed with the photo? It seems you're obsessed with deleting it, then launching personal attacks. I have no history of "demeaning edits" to anyone you've mentioned, except by removing bias. If you want to talk "history," check your Talk Page here [2]. It's rife with vandalism warnings (something you've falsely accused me of, btw). It even seems you've removed votes for deletion. And you suggest it's difficult for you to "assume good faith"? LOL.

But if it's an "official PR photo," why isn't Podhoretz using it at Pajamas Media? Perhaps the B&W is a "former" official photo.

Oh, and you might want to register. It's easy to do so. Less accusations of sockpuppetry that way. Eleemosynary 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right. The argument is over whether to use the photo of Podhoretz in a suit, which has no source or copyright information at all, or the one of him in the pool, which clearly fails to meet the requirements of the license that it has been uploaded under? The fact that the pool photo comes from Pajamas Media in no way indicates that it "is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." All we know is that Podhoretz has agreed to its use on one the Pajamas Media site. Until copyright is resolved neither photo should appear. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense. And I have to plead guilty to not knowing a blog photo wasn't Wiki standard. I'll remove the photo, and I hope the anonymous user understands to find a license before posting the other photo. Thanks. Eleemosynary 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. I think this should be considered consensus for now. Thank you OpenToppedBus.

(Non-)relevance of internet-dating factoid

I'm going to revert Eleemosynary's restoration of the fact that Podhoretz and his wife met online.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this was a comprehensive article on a well-known figure with an extremely-detailed biography section, this fact *might* be appropriate (I say might because there's plenty of examples otherwise; for example, see Abraham Lincoln and note that it spends exactly zero space on how he met his wife.) But in a brief article on a non-household name public figure in which other (much more relevant and encyclopedic) facts are his parents' and wife's names, his education, and his jobs? The five Jeopardy! wins are arguably quite relevant to a man of letters who has specialized in pop-culture issues, an impressive personal accomplishment (I say this as a one-day non-winner contestant myself), and carry a reasonable amount of general interest. But Internet dating? I'll bet that over the years a prodigious columnist/blogger like Podhoretz has also gone on record regarding his favorite color, the subway line he rides to work, and whether he played with Erector Sets growing up. Should Wikipedia recorded these facts too?

Sorry for writing so much about something so insignificant, but WP:NOT is something people ought to be much more aware than they seem to be. Yeechang Lee 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was worth your writing about, thanks for doing so. That particular detail may be insignificant, but the question of whether such details should be included in biographies is a very significant wiki-issue, and worth addressing in cases like this. Babajobu 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative author" Andrew Sullivan

Exactly how "conservative" Andrew Sullivan should be regarded is a matter of some dispute. I've replaced the judgment call with the non-controversial phrase "blogger and columnist". Casey Abell 06:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article additions and reorganization

I've added a number of items to the article about Podhoretz' opinions on various political issues and his remarks on Wikipedia. Of course, continued expansion of the article is welcome. I also converted the web references to standard footnote format and created a bibliography section for Podhoretz' books. Casey Abell 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last section

The last few sentences, the part extolling the virtues of his "humor" and writing, while perhaps a sarcastic dig, do not belong in an article on Wikipedia. J-Pod himself would be appalled by the flagrant misuse of objectivity. 68.192.53.216 09:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Criticism of Podhoretz is certainly allowed in this article, which is not a puff piece but an objective evaluation. The section you refer to is balanced because it also contains Podhoretz' response to Sailer's criticism. Casey Abell 13:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a Christian?

The article Themes in Avatar includes an excerpt of Podhoretz criticizing the movie for allegedly being un-Christian. Is Podhoretz himself a Christian? Currently the article does not mention his religion. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, as I was fairly certain he was not Christian, but rather, Jewish, as his parents both are. I have no idea if he has converted to some form of Christianity or is in fact an atheist though. He writes for Commentary magazine, which is mostly Jewish-themed, but that doesn't mean he is Jewish. It would be helpful to figure this out for his BLP article. I'll see what I can do. I just tried asking him on Twitter (I had other motives for doing that, which have nothing to do with Wikipedia, and I did not disclose that I had any role pertaining to Wikipedia as an editor or otherwise). That is rather confrontational, but at least it is a starting point.--FeralOink (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Podhoretz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061029031306/http://www.greatertalent.com/speakers/speakers.php?speakerid=432 to http://www.greatertalent.com/speakers/speakers.php?speakerid=432

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on John Podhoretz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Podhoretz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked conversation

In the "Other commentary" section, what does it mean to say that a conversation was "spiked"?173.61.223.136 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Tibbetts[reply]