Talk:Karen Arenson

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I know Arensen only form reading her and from my awareness of a single controversy in which she was involved. She covers an important beat for a major paper and, therefore, has undoubtedly been involved in other controversies and, even more likely, she has won awards for her work and is probably notable for stories she has covered first or better or more intelligently.

She is noteworthy for the her participation in the columbia story. But I hope that rather than removing this entry because I only know this much about her, the entry will be allowed to remain until someone who knows more can post on her more professional work on other stories. American Clio (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio[reply]

Please read WP:BLP1E and address the issue if you want to remove the prod. Relata refero (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the proposed deletion tag because a Google Book search shows that her writing is frequently cited by authors of books, which makes her notable apart from the one incident referred to in the article. There isn't any one of these references in particular that can be cited - it's the totality that makes her notable. Also she is pretty clearly notable for the fact of holding several senior positions with one of the world's most influential newspapers. Any concerns about WP:BLP1E should be addressed by expanding the article with other information, rather than deleting an article about a clearly notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting problematic. I am searching for admiring reports on Arenson's work, and keep finding angry, critical ones.

She reports lots of stories that read well when I open my morning Times. But third-party sources seem to criticize. American Clio (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) American Clio[reply]

I think I understand the problem. She does lots of good reporting (I read her, I know) but nobody writes articles saying "Karen Arenson is a very good reporter" They only write it up when she blows it. so, you can cite her mistakes. But if you want to say what a competant reporter she generally is, there is nothing to cite.

so, I could add more links to more people who dislike what she writes or more errors like the Brooklyn Poly thing. I won't.

There doesn't seem to be another big violation of journalistic ethics like the Columbia story. But that one was serious. Scads of coverage. All condemning Arenson.

So, the page is newsworthy. I'm not sure she did ever earn any prizes (except that she gets to work fo the Times and live in a swanky Manhattan neighborhood - which as a life-prize, isn't shabby) . Certainy newsworthy. Certainly a competant journalist. How do you produce wiki-worthy evidence for that though?

American Clio (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)American Clio[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

The article as it reads now is not a biography of a person. Rather it discusses several incidents in the persons life. We need to either expand the article to make it a biography or move the content to a different page that discusses the incident.

This article needs much work!!

Can someone take some time and research her? FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the article some and added information about her retirement from the Times. We still need more information about her to make it a biography. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph[edit]

I've removed a paragraph from the article. Simply put, we're talking about someone with a long career in journalism. Given that, it's a serious distortion and misrepresentation to describe her career entirely in terms of one incident that, from the sources, wasn't even a major story (we have only NYT sources). More to the point, though, this isn't how you write a NPOV biography - you don't just fill in a detail here, a detail there. You start with a general overview, and expand specific portions. This article started with a scandal, not with a biography. And that's not OK. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the proper remedy is for you or someone who understands her career to post material expanding on her career. Not to remove this apparently lone incident in which she acted in unethical manner.Elan26 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]