Talk:Mary Eberstadt

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

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.

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.

POV-section tag

We need WP:BALANCE. Where is the negative commentary about Eberstadt's work? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martha1991, please do not remove the tag until it is resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad--I am just learning. I have added in citations. Update didn't work because we're both in there, but will add these additional citations when you exit. (Martha1991 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No problem, but citations do not fix the problem. You might want to refer to Wikipedia's five pillars. Verifiability and neutrality are separate issues. The POV-section tag is for neutrality: if there are going to be positive opinions about Eberstadt's books then these should be balanced against negative opinions (if any). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politically conservative

The addition of "politically conservative" in front of EPPC is unnecessary. Users can look up EPPC and draw their own conclusions. EPPC's work seems predominately philosophical, so I think the addition of "politically" is unnecessary bias. Instead, we can describe it as a "conservative think tank," as done on Ed Whalen's page. (Martha1991 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The word "conservative" is added to EPPC in this article to give readers a sense of Eberstadt's political affiliations, which are highly notable in any article. The word "politically" is added to distinguish the word "conservative" from other meanings (such as "Tending to resist change or innovation"). I fail to see any bias in the use of the word "politically" in this context; it is used all over Wikipedia and does not imply the organization is "political" any more than the reliable sources used in its support. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then will we also add "politically conservative" to every mention of EPPC on Wikipedia? Other fellows and authors from EPPC, after I quick search, do not have this tag on their affiliation with EPPC. Regardless, I don't care that much; I've changed to "a conservative think tank," which I think will be considered uncontroversial. (Martha1991 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, ideally it should be added to the first mention of EPPC in every article in which EPPC's political orientation is relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are you determining that EPPC's political orientation is relevant? (Martha1991 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Editorial discretion I guess? All decisions in Wikipedia are made by consensus. In my view readers generally want to know the political orientations of the subjects they read about when those subjects are even remotely political. (FWIW I've added "politically liberal" in numerous other articles.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary degree

Why is the reference to Eberstadt's honorary degree deleted? It is footnoted. (Martha1991 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I deleted it with the following edit summary: "honorary degrees are not education, and redundant." In hindsight I'm not sure why I added the "and redundant," but I stand by the first part of my explanation. I could see her honorary degree being put in the "Seton Hall University Commencement Address" section or in a new "Recognition" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see that Ruth Ginsburg's honorary degrees are in a new "Recognition" section. I will add it there instead. (Martha1991 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

removal of accolades re-printed by publishers

Martha1991, I think an explanation of some of my recent reverts might be helpful to you. When notable commentators state notable opinions about Eberstadt's books, by all means that should be included in the article. However, two important points:

We should cite the original source material (e.g. Will's column), or if available, a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper article. Citing to a publisher's website or Amazon is inappropriate.
As stated in the POV discussion above, the positive opinions should be balanced with any notable negative opinions.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So we have to add in negative reviews of her work? And, also, are all quotes from a book's praise sections on their publisher/seller's sites inappropriate? (Martha1991 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, we have to add in negative reviews of her work. No, the quotes themselves aren't inappropriate, but they must cite reliable sources such as the original content or news articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverts

Martha1991, with this edit you undid a whole bunch of my prior edits without explanation. Could you please restore my edits, or explain why you reverted them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know why the content about Eberstadt's address at Seton Hall was mostly deleted? The citation was to a USA Today article...It used to read:

"The choice of Eberstadt as the school's commencement speaker brought dissent from some faculty members, whose complaints were dismissed by the university as would-be impositions on Eberstadt's intellectual freedom.[22] USA Today listed Eberstadt's address in its compilation of notable 2014 commencement speeches, alongside the speeches of John Kerry, John Legend, and Eric Holder. [23]" (Martha1991 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Martha, when I deleted the USA Today source my edit summary read: "rm USA today listing, improper use of WP:PRIMARY source, source does not say these speeches were notable." Please review our policies on verifiability, original research, and promotion. The USA Today source does not explicitly say anything about the notability of Eberstadt's speech. It's nothing but a collection of quotes that someone at USA Today thought might be of interest to readers. Using it in the manner you are proposing appears to be promotional. And you reverted the preceding sentence without explanation. Please make a greater effort to collaborate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her own site?

How about adding an external link to https://maryeberstadt.com/ ? Simon Grant (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]