Talk:Linda Greenhouse

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

Greenhouse Not a Lawyer and Also Has a Clear Ideological Bias[edit]

Shouldn't the article make it crystal clear that she is not a lawyer? And that her opinions merely reflect her ideological bias?

journalism conference?[edit]

I'm not sure how notable this journalism conference in Aug. 2007 is. It seems like a minor kerfluffle at best. ... In the meantime, it was not very understandable from the text, so I added a little more detail so one can at least understand what happened. But I'm happy to have it deleted altogether. Thoughts? --lquilter 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - This seems to be a minor spat. This whole article needs work, and I'm not even sure she deserves her own page. Are all Pulitzer prize winners considered notable?—G716 <T·C> 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if all Pulitzer Prize winners are notable; I haven't given it much thought. But Greenhouse is clearly notable -- she's the major writer and commentator on US legal affair for the mainstream press. --lquilter 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree, although I would consider Nina Totenburg of NPR to be on par with Greenhouse. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

marital status[edit]

Does info about her husband add anything useful to the article? Does this violate any wikipolicies on biographies of living persons? I removed the text about her husband as it does not seem to fit, but am willing to re-insert. —G716 <T·C> 23:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly common to include basic biographical facts of personal nature in biographical articles. Births, deaths, marriages, and divorces, are matters of public record, so they're not "private", per se, and I don't believe they would violate WP:BLP (at least, I haven't seen it in there). However, they should be referenced -- so if no third-party source has chosen to write about this information about Greenhouse then we have no reference for it. --lquilter 14:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, if I come across a ref, I'll add back in. I'm going to read her Radcliffe speech and some of the articles about her in the next few days to see if I can make the article here a bit clearer. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

criticism[edit]

I put back in some notable and verifiable information on the controversy over Greenhouse's vigorous expression of her personal views including on court issues she covers. I understand the concern that this section (including the Harvard speech is now too big) so maybe the Harvard speech shouldn't be it's own section and should be merged? But I think this information is important as it was a very big story. I certainly wouldn't object to adding positive criticisms that are sourced or more information on other aspects of Greehouse's career. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)) Also, I would support cutting down her quote to the parts I think are relevant and not already covered: "It was clear the extent to which our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world." The rest is already covered. And I wouldn't object to taking out the Simon and Garfunkel bit, but if it adds something that's fine. Isn't there already something in there aboue her being a "child of the 60s"? Maybe not.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

The criticism section is way longer than her career section for someone her age. How sexist can you be? C'mon, we can do better.--71.167.166.219 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Abortion[edit]

Shouldn't there be some material here, at least an acknowledgement, of Greenhousee' recent book on the abortion controversy prior to Roe v. Wade? --Christofurio (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

The criticism section has undue weight relative to the rest of the article, and seems to cherry-pick comments for its description of each incident. I've already gone and removed two one instance where what someone said was taken out of context. It'd be a good idea to do a comprehensive review to make sure the coverage is balanced. wctaiwan (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The criticism will not be balanced because it is criticism. The question is whether these are notable or agenda/slander.--WatchingContent (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No. The test is whether it is UNDUE. Please read the policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, so what is UNDUE? Writing about it? Because I don't see two-sides presented. I'm not asking in challenging manner, I'm asking for clarification.--WatchingContent (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linda Greenhouse. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Linda Greenhouse. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)