Talk:Maureen Dowd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Can we have a photograph

It would be nice to add a face to this article. QUINTIX 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Videmus_Omnia. Good choice. An unattributed source 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of example of irreverence

I re-included "for example, referring to Donald Rumsfeld as 'Rummy'." because I felt it was important for the reader to get a quick sense of Dowd's writing style. It doesn't seem POV to me, and there can certainly be no disagreement with the underlying sentiment that she is in fact a rather flip writer (not that this is a good or a bad thing). Meelar (talk) 02:12, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Another example could be her almost constant reference to the president as "W." breaking from the Times standard of using Mr. Bush.--malber 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But "W" and "Rummy" are used by a wider swath of the population. Some of Ms. Dowd's other given monikers tend to be used pejoratively. --JD79 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

her marital status?

yes, i'm curious about his seemingly obvious fact.

She is single and has mentioned this in her column a few times. I do think the article is somewhat POV in general. She's not as liberal as the article makes it sound. I won't edit unless I come up with specific examples.

She includes these nicknames because she is making fun of Bush's use of nicknames, including the name "Rummy"! I don't know if Bush has used the nickname Vice for Cheney.--140.247.114.34 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Dowd's marital status (she has never been married, now at age 56) seems to be of debatable factual importance to her biography as a public figure known for her opinion columns and former career as The New York Times' White House correspondent during the George H.W. Bush Administration. By "debatable," I mean a case can be made either way as to the relevance of her status as a "SWF". On the one hand, Dowd herself makes great comedic use of her dating woes in some of her columns and in her book, "Are Men Necessary?" Hence, the case can be made that Dowd has made her marital status an important part of her public persona. OTOH, it has nothing really to do with what she writes in her New York Times column, except in an oblique sort of way, in that every commentator's world view is shaped at least somewhat by their own personal perspective on life.

She has been romantically "linked" in the press to a number of celebrities, including Michael Douglas, when he was playing the title role in the 1995 movie "The American President," and with the film's writer, who went on to create the television series "The West Wing," Aaron Sorkin. Newsweek has reported that Dowd is "a repeat guest/dinner companion" of CBS late night television talk show host Craig Ferguson. [1] And fellow Times columnist John Tierney[2] and Dowd have both admitted to a past romance, with some rather unusual details finding their way into the public domain. So "go figure," as the saying goes. Although Dowd admits to getting "lots of dates" (her words), she is famously secretive about her romantic exploits, which prompted Tierney to tell her he thought she needed to "see a shrink" (quote attributed to Dowd herself) for treating a relatively common and innocent office romance between two single adults as if it was "an affair."[3]

POV check

I've added the POV check to help balance out the article which is currently far from neutral. --Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems distinctly neutral to me. Positive: She won a pulitzer. Negative: Accusations (not assertions) of misrepresentation of quotes. Coining of 'dowdify' is a fact. Her allegedly irreverent tone is presented as a negative or a positive, depending on your outlook. I don't think there's anyway to NPOV the given information. However, if you can add some more information which you think will make for a more balanced article, then go ahead. RMoloney 10:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RMoloney, the version posted right now seems to have achieved NPOV. I admittedly did not go back and look at all the changes that have happened since the version that was POV flagged. Can anyone cite a good reason why the POV tag should stay?--Isotope23 18:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

W most of the Wikipedia articles on current politically active people, either the first sentence, or at the very least the first paragraph, identifies their political affiliations. This one does not and Ms Dowd most definitely has a strong leaning and a very loud voice.

Who has identified Dowd as a "liberal"? What is a "liberal" anyways? Has she identified herself as one? Dowd has written "Bushworld," an unflattering portrait of the president; but that does not immediately mean that she is a supporter of whatever Bush is against. When Dowd was lambasting Pres. Clinton on a weekly basis, did that make her a conservative?

You're not going to be able to slip in the "liberal" label without some justification. --Rookkey 00:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rookkey. Her lack of official political affiliation, her criticisms of Clinton, etc. mean that there is no NPOV way of summarising her politics in one phrase. Someone who is familiar with her writings (I'm not) may like to summarise her stance on some issues (Iraq, abortion, etc.) so a reader can get an idea of her politics. RMoloney 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Check Maureen Dowd's column for January 27, 2005. She identifies herself as a member of the "liberal media elite". She does it for humor, but my interpretation is she's pretty clear in her own mind where her politics lie. YMMD

"I'm herewith resigning as a member of the liberal media elite. I'm joining up with the conservative media elite. They get paid better." --Maureen Dowd, column from January 27, 2005 with obvious sarcasm

I think the liberal tag should stay.--malber 15:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree w Malber - others in Wikipedia are identified w political labels. Consistency(?).

This is absolutely ridiculous. A political trend to label those that criticize the current administration as "liberals" is no reason to include it in an encyclopedia article. When she identified herself as the "liberal media elite", she was making fun of just that. Political labels, when they do appear on wikipedia follow the format:

"A commentator with a conservative point of view, ..." (Limbaugh) "... with a predominantly liberal point of view." (Franken)

Neither of these appears in the first sentence, and anybody familiar with her work knows that this cannot be said about Dowd. Throwing in "liberal columnist" in the first sentence describing her is absurd. --Andreyf 08:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

71.193.3.242: You have edited this article 7 times now, labeling Dowd as "radical" and "liberal". Each has been reverted by different people. From your history, it is obvious that you are making political statements all over. Please keep your opinions your own, as this kind of input is not welcome and only hurts wikipedia. Please stop. --Andrey 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you win. But IMHO the lack of consistency is equally damaging.

I think we could do without the sarcastic comment under her photo from the recent article "What's a woman to do?". In fact, the photo should probably be removed as well. But I'll leave this to someone closer to the prose.

It could have been much worse.--malber 14:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

194.215.75.17 Ann Coulter has skinnier legs than Dowd..

I'm just trying to adapt to the anglo american american dilemma discussion [4].

Links to reviews of "Are Men Necessary" were removed for several reaons. First, the links that were included were all skewed in the same direction. Second, the book has been reviewed by thousands of critics, some favorable and some not. By including links to only a few of the reviewers, those reviewers are given more weight than others. Thus, it could be construed that Wiki is endorsing the opinions of some critics but not others.

I reversed this since I do believe that all sides are represented here. Whether the book is good or excellent, the methodology is what is being analysed. Of course, Dowd never claimed to have done a serious research so it's ok to say that her "methods" are unscientific. I invite other to make a decision. Mhym 03:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The book "Are Men Necessary?" is a personal commentary. The deleted links only pointed to the opinions of critics, not established facts, concerning the subject of this article and her work. The link to the publisher did offer a factual synopsis of the book thus I have restored it.

The work is an opinion essay. It does not cite any sources. Thus, other critical examination is highly appropriate. --malber 04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WHAT!?

The bar photo of Dowd contains this description: "Maureen Dowd performs copious research before writing each column." Huh? What does this have to do with the photo?! What evidence is there that her research is copious? She has been caught making severe mistakes several times in her writing, and, as noted in this peice, she is notorious for using ellipses to make a quote give a different message than the original speaker/writer intended. So, this is my case for deleting this description: A. It has NOTHING to do with the photo and 2. It is NOT backed up with any other experts or fellow journalists asserting the fact, just the statement its self.

WAIT A SECOND! LOL! Is the person who said that the description was sarcastic, is this the same one? If so, LOL! That IS funny!

That people like *unsigned* above edit Wikipedia is rather depressing. 128.103.14.120 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

she is "close" to William Safire

what is the point of the sentence saying she is "allegedly close" to William Safire? it might as well just come out and say they are having an affair. better yet, i don't think speculating on who is having sex with who should be part of encyclopedia entries unless there is some basis for it.

• it mearly shows that they have a close relationship, i.e. good friends. she has mentioned this relationship several times in her articles.Kiwidude 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

in that case could we just say they are good friends? i don't know how anyone else reads it, but i took the phrase "allegedly close" as implying an affair. since she has said that she is good friends with him, there is definitely no need for the word "allegedly". i won't make any changes unless people agree with me. RonMexico 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If she has stated this in her column, these artilces should be cited as references for this remark. --malber 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do a search in the NYT and you'll find itKiwidude 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps since you know that she mentioned it in her column, you could be so kind as to find it and include the reference in the article. --malber 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very well. Kiwidude 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

The part of this section that deals with the criticism of Are Men Necessary? should be tightened up. I feel that the reactions of other journalists and pundits are extrememly relevant. We have plenty of referrences, but this section should say more than "See review article..." or "See so-and-so's take here...." This is asking the reader to go somewhere else for the content when these responses can be paraphrased here and referenced with inline citations or footnotes. --malber 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of references was moved to the reference section.

I posted three links to criticisms of Maureen's work: "Are men necessary." Two of the links were critical of the book. One of them was in defense of the book. They were deleted with the only explanation, "non-notable criticism." That does not seem a valid reason to delete the comments. I am replacing the content deleted, and invite discussion of the subject.

For future ease of reference, here is the content in question: Dowd's book entitled Are Men Necessary? was regarded by some as anti-male, and self-obsessed. See e.g. http://fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml ; http://www.john-ross.net/maureen.htm In response to the second article, Salon columnist Rebecca Traister published an article defending Dowd's book. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2005/11/28/expiration_date/index.htm Nathaniel

Liberal tag

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Maureen Dowd (and Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this? WBcoleman 09:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This has already been addressed on this discussion page. Just because Maureen Dowd loathes George W. Bush doesn't make her a "liberal". She despises Bill Clinton and relentlessly attacked him in print for years...does that automatically make her a "conservative"? And Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, and Limbaugh are undeniably and proudly conservative, and therefore should be described in that way.Hal Raglan 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

hear hear!Kiwidude 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"both conservative and liberal sources" implies that all book reviewers fall into one of these two convenient categories. take out the "both"

Her writing is undeniably polemic. The sources makes reference to particular publications which are known or implied to have a political slant either left or right (e.g. Village Voice vs. The Wall Street Journal). The phrase is there to state that criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum were generally negative and wasn't necessarily bias from a political perspective. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In Australia

Maureen Dowd is currently in Australia, promoting her book. She is quoted in both the Melbourne and Sydney broadsheets as saying she's looking for an Aussie bloke. Remarks that, at the age of 20, she fell in love with an Aussie expat while in Dublin. Thought this is an interesting take on her personality. (--previous unsigned comment by 202.44.183.77 (talk · contribs))

I wouldn't take it too seriously. For the most part, Americans are enamored of Australian culture (see "Myths and contradictions" section), and it sounds like she's just being friendly. —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dowdify - msg to raglan

I'm the guy who corrected it from the original "dowdification" to "dowdify" (which gives hundreds more hits on a web search). You claim conservative bloggers use the term. I don't read blogs and I've heard it/read it many times (first learned it in Newsweek). Suggest the "conservative bloggers" line you seem to favor so much be NPOV'd.

Thanks for writing, anonymous. If, as you claim, you've heard/read the word "many times", and you don't read blogs, I would imagine it should be extremely easy for me to locate numerous usages of the word in reliable, non-blog, non-partisan sources on the internet. I just did a Google search of "dowdify Newsweek" and, after ten pages, found nothing that links directly to any article that ever appeared in that magazine with that particular term. (I'm not saying such an article does not exist, just that I couldn't find it in my admittedly cursory search.) A search of just "dowdify" leads to numerous pages of links to rightwing bloggers and editorialists, with sites such as bushsupporter.org and www.gopbloggers.org. I could find nothing to suggest that this word has become common parlance outside the conservative punditocracy. The way you want the sentence to read implies that it has become accepted as a "real" commonly used word, which it clearly has not. However, since my search revealed that its not just conservative bloggers but also conservative editorialists who use the term, I will make a modest change in the article reflecting this. At any rate, if the reference to "dowdify" remains in the article, its important to note what (small) percentage of the population utilizes the term. I don't understand why you seem to believe there's a POV problem with that. Hal Raglan 03:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

HOKAY. You're being reasonable, I'll return the favor. Let it stand.24.10.102.46 05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Msg to raglan. I did a quick and better search of my own. I have to agree, most of the hits were conservative blogs, but I also got some that could have been ANYTHING (the word is used on a couple of blogs that discusss things like: the New York Yankees, and blogging definitions). By taking off the limit and going to the back of the list I got a couple of "maybe" liberal and one definitely liberal sites. http://experts.about.com/e/m/ma/Maureen_Dowd.htm I don't want to get into heavy research, so I'll just point out two things and leave the actual decision to you. 1) Maureen Dowd identified herself as a liberal a few years (months?) ago. 2) At least one (neutral?) dictionary specifically identifies "dowdify/dowdification" as being used by writers/blogger/etc. of BOTH persuaions.

Your call.

Thanks for doing continuing research on this. If it takes the two of us multiple searches thru Google to find any use of the word beyond the world of conservative bloggers/pundits, I think that proves my point that it really isn't a particularly well-accepted term. I still believe the sentence should simply stay the way it is. Hal Raglan 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another msg to Raglan: Just did another google search on "dowdify". You might want to do it yourself and reevaluate your decision on whether to include it. Got a LOT more hits than last time and several were definitely liberal, and maybe liberal MSM. Have fun. And thanks67.174.53.196 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on your recommendation, I just did a quick Google check of "dowdify". The first two hits were to blogs (www.brookesnews.com [conservative] and truthintaylor.blogspot.com [unknown]). The third hit was to the wikipedia entry on Ms. Dowd, and wiktionary also includes the word. The rest of the first twenty results were all conservative blogs. I stand by my edit. My point still is the same: "Dowdify" has not been accepted into the language as a commonly used word, despite unending attempts by conservatives to make it so. Google bases the listing of their results on popularity; if this term was regularly used outside of blogs/websites, it would be reflected immediately in a Google search--I wouldn't have to search thru page after page. But if you can in fact find examples from a notable mainstream source that indicates "dowdify" is used with any frequency outside of conservative blogs/websites/editorials, then edit the article and link to the source accordingly. Just make sure its a reliable source (i.e., not "Urban Dictionary").--Hal Raglan 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from "Career"

I removed the following paragraph from the "Career" section:

When George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, Dowd wrote about how her well-to-do siblings were all committed pro-life social conservatives who actively supported Bush (see www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289510/posts). She said her siblings are "beyond" merely being "red" (Republican conservative), and are "crimson".

I don't feel it is particularly relevant to her career. It might be suitable to a "trivia" section that many other articles about pundits have, but I don't see it as a remarkable quote. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo OK to use?

I took out the remains of the deleted first photo. I hope that was OK to do. I think it is obvious that the article needs a new photo. As for the second photo, the info on the photo says that it is copyrighted. I don't think that it should be used on WP at all. Steve Dufour 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took the "artistic" picture off and added her official NYT photo. Steve Dufour 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WORST possible picture?=

OK, that picture of her is possibly the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. No wonder people attack the "liberal media,"--- they're horrified with its grotesqueness!

Presumably, this is an example of "conservative" "thinking". It comments rather pithily on itself, I do believe.

That said, it's also correct in one point, at least: that is a truly horrible picture. If I weren't trying so hard to practice WP:AGF, why, I might even suspect it was a deliberate ploy of some sort. In any case, isn't there some better picture out there we could fair use? Ugh. Eaglizard (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the original uploader blew the photo up from its original size (which should never be done). The photo in question has her sitting beneath a bright light reflecting off of her forehead. While it's not that obvious in the original photo, the enlargement process made the lighting stand out. —Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be. It reflects her writing style. Actually, if anyone is actually interested in a decent picture, my wife met her a few months ago when she was covering the Philly debate. Drop a line on my page if interested. --Art8641 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Art8641

I've removed the gossip

(From the author's talk page)

Please cite passages like the one you tacked onto Maureen Dowd, or else it shall seem as though either you know something that we don't, or you have spun a yarn. But in any case -- please, don't spread gossip on Wikipedia. --VKokielov (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The story is true [5], but may not be of encyclopedic importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.140.163 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism removed

Source and add back in. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dowd has also come under fire for a rather casual use of language to make a point. An example came in her December 9, 2007 column when Ms. Dowd observed that she had seen graffiti mocking the Mormon Temple in Washington, DC. Ms. Dowd used the phrase "When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington." The term "kid" gave some of her critics cause for distress as Ms. Dowd would have been at least 21 years old when the spires were mounted, and the phrase "Surrender Dorothy" was inscribed on a freeway support structure.

In a NY Times op ed piece on December 23 2007, Dowd reported Bill Clinton's aides attempted to stop an interview with Charlie Rose on December 14, 2007 because Clinton was becoming agitated. She neglected to report Rose stated the interview ran over the alloted time, and Clinton's aides were concerened about his subsequent appointment rather than the content.

Additional Information

The essay referred to above was part of a conversation among several writers (Peggy Noonan and myself included). As for the graffiti, I have seen the "Surrender Dorothy!" graffiti myself (I lived in the DC area from 1986 to 2005). It was spray painted on the overpass, with the temple in the background. I also remember an article in the Washington Post, a number of years back, in which that overpass and those words were discussed, saying that the words have been appearing for years, only to be removed and replaced. As for the word "kid", she's an editorial writer, more artist than reporter or lawyer -- and, at my age (46), 21 sounds like a "kid" to me.

66.235.8.243 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Jeffrey F. Sturk

"commonly"

In my perception, "commonly" means "as practiced by many people", whereas "usually" means "as a matter of habit." That is the original sense of "commonly", in accord with its root, "common." The phrase "commonly referred to" means "called by many people", not "called many times". --VKokielov (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Help on Wiki stuff

I am not a wiki savy user, and I edited the crtiscism part with a reference. I would like to include the letter in the article. I said "In 2005, Dowd was harshly addressed by answersingenesis.com for her article on creation/evolution debate and President Bush. She wrote an article that attacked the answersingenesis creation museum. Mr. Ken Ham, the founder and president of answersingenesis wrote this letter to the New York Times:

"Dear editor,

“It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” This phrase from Macbeth aptly describes what is probably the most bizarre newspaper commentary on the creation/evolution controversy I have ever read.

To see that the Times would even accept such a disjointed and absurd commentary as Maureen Dowd’s (February 3) is equally bizarre. In fact, a local reporter (who is not a creationist) read Dowd’s commentary and said to me: “That’s not the sort of article I would send to a prospective employer when applying for a journalism job!”

Dowd, who wrote so knowingly about our museum without speaking to anyone here (apparently she just went to www.CreationMuseum.org for her research), composed a mocking commentary without discussing any real scientific issues. She then transitioned from our museum to President Bush and the debate about social security!

So how does one slam the president? Well, of course, you start with the Creation Museum!

From Shakespeare to the Scriptures (“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” – Romans 1:22), there’s much good writing to help expose bad writing.

– Ken Ham

President, Answers in Genesis, builders of the Creation Museum; 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd., Petersburg, KY 41080; (859) 727-2222"

However, his article was ignored by the New York Times, and a letter was not sent back to Mr. Ham.[16] "

I would like this all to be included, but I don't know how to do it, if someone could "clean it up" for me, I would be most appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.78.252 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New photo

Courtesy of Art8641, we now have a new photo at Image:Maureen dowd.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cropped version is here: Image:Maureen dowd pic cropped v2.jpg. If you like it better than present pic in article please let me know. Dr.K. (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Barred from McCain's plane?

Is this real: http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/288

Howard Kurtz drops this tidbit into his column: The company may have been more pleasant than that of McCain aides, who have barred Dowd from the candidate's plane.

If so, it might be worth a mention. Jake (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the personal stuff?

Her personal life is very interesting. She's had relationships with well known and connected people. She makes fun of celebrities and seems to look down upon fluff and yet is involved in that world. This would be an interesting section. Many other biographies here have the personal stuff, where is Ms. Dowd's? I believe it is very relevant here and not gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.238.10 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section again

This entire section is ridiculous. Several editors have scoured the Internet looking for bloggers and commentators who dislike her. Unless this particular criticism is noteworthy or important in some way, it doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that section could be split up between the "Writing Style" section and "Frequent subject matter". Mostly it is very valuable information, but the "elipses" thing needs to be explained better or it is not worth keeping--either this is an accusation of misrepresenting someone, or it is a pointless nitpick. Mrs. Anonymous Biological Robot (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Viriditas, I am trying to decide if this section would be better simply deleted, pruned, or worked in elsewhere. That someone with a blog complains about Dowd is absurdly non-notable.CAVincent (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It suddenly seems relevant what she, her editors, and bloggers have to say about each other. 97.116.80.62 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is of the type that gives Wikipedia biographies a bad name. It reads like an un-funny comedy roast, or just a gripe session by people who find her offensive (and probably vice versa). Her criticisms can be brutal, but she is a serious commentator with a large audience. Wikipedia should not be a forum for people who want to take her down a notch because they don't like what she has to say. HowardMorland (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly a fair characterization of this section. The sources are solid and the criticism seems valid and noteworthy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears entirely fair and accurate. If you could be bothered to read the article before reverting, you would find that there is already criticism in the article, properly merged into the appropriate sections. Now, close to 50% of this article is devoted to hit pieces, cherry picked criticism from free weekly alternative papers and blogs and film critics. Do you think that is acceptable? I've removed most of it. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed from main article

Per the above, I've removed the criticism section here for discussion about what belongs in the article and what doesn't. In case anyone accuses me of acting rashly, as the discussion above shows, I waited eight months to do this. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Shortly after she won her Pulitzer, the free weekly alternative paper, New York Press printed an article that analyzed Dowd's columns and concluded that Dowd appears to do little reporting and tends to "dumb down" her subject matter by viewing it through the lens of pop culture. A 2002 article in The Weekly Standard, explored Dowd's alleged narcissism and tendency to reduce "political phenomena ... to caricatures of the personalities involved."

In 2003, Dowd was accused by James Taranto, of the Wall Street Journal, of being intentionally misleading—inserting ellipses, for instance, to change a quotation's intended meaning. This resulted in a new common word "dowdification" to accurately quote but only enough to change the original meaning of the statement.

She has repeatedly been criticized by Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler for trivializing and making baseless accusations about Democratic politicians. For example, on January 31, 2007, the Howler criticized her for trivializing the campaigns of female politicians, and in particular that of Hillary Clinton. In 2007, Dowd was accused by National Journal writer Jonathan Rauch as being a "villain of journalism" in an interview with the magazine Reason; Rauch added that his criticism was not personal and that he considered Dowd "very good at what she does." Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, admitted: "I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, [Dowd] went over the top this election season." Fellow Times op-ed columnist and former editorial page editor Gail Collins came to Dowd's defense in a subsequent public letter to Hoyt.

Film critic David Denby devotes an entire chapter to Dowd in his 2009 book Snark, and identifies her as one of the foremost practitioners of "snark" (sarcasm, snide remarks). He writes: "[S]he has not - as far as I can tell - a single political idea in her head. Not one...She writes as if personality, appearance, and attitude were the only things that mattered. For her, politics is a stupid, despair-inducing entertainment, a tale told by an idiot signifying vanity. Despite all her larks and inventions, she's essentially sour and without hope."

Plagiarism controversy

Talking Points Memo blogger "thejoshuablog" found a paragraph in Dowd's May 17, 2009 Times column that was extremely similar to one in a May 14 blog post by TPM editor Josh Marshall, and accused her of plagiarism. Dowd, already known for finding similarities between an August 1987 speech by Joe Biden and an earlier one by British politician Neil Kinnock, said that the virtually identical paragraph was simply "a line" told to her by a friend, and that she had never read the blog. She left unclear whether the "line" came from a verbal or written exchange with the anonymous friend, and did not explain how the paragraph wound up copied with the exception of two words in the original blog post. Since then, Dowd's column has been updated with a correction that references Marshall and notes the lack of proper attribution in the original piece. Later, Clark Hoyt also criticized Dowd, saying "readers have a right to expect that even if an opinion columnist like Dowd tosses around ideas with a friend, her column will be her own words. If the words are not hers, she must give credit."

Writings about the Catholic Church

Dowd has also been criticized for some of her writings about the Catholic Church. This could perhaps be included in the criticisms section, along with appropriate sources of course. [6][7][8][9][10] ADM (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of people who want to use Wikipedia as a platform to push their POV, and they find that this page is a great way to do it. However, unless you can provide good arguments (and sources) for including it, you'll have to take a ticket and wait in line. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good arguments can be made, i think that she is (like a million other people) rebelling against the church and makes bigoted stereotypes against it as a result. Good arguments were made in Philips Jenkins book "anti-Catholicism; the last acceptable prejudice". Peppermintschnapps (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please point out a single thing she has said that is "anti-Catholic". Promoting the rights of women and children is not "anti-Catholic". Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Gore criticism

Media Matters for America criticized Dowd for her constant criticism of Gore and published a compilation of her previous takes on him.[17] Yet in a Fresh Dialogues interview, she said, "I was just teasing him a little bit because he was so earnest and he could be a little righteous and self important. That’s not always the most effective way to communicate your ideas, even if the ideas themselves are right. I mean, certainly his ideas were right but he himself was - sometimes - a pompous messenger for them."

Hardly a notable, relevant, or accurate criticism. Gore most certainly came off pompous, and Dowd was entirely in her right as a columnist to note it. This criticism by Media Matters is ridiculous and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Dowd's being criticized for having an opinion that is supported by historians: "many voters found the vice president pompous and arrogant..." Paul S. Boyer et al. (2008). The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People ISBN 0547222807. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Conason

Joe Conason's little tirade against Dowd in Salon criticizes and singles her out for having an opinion about Gore that "reflected the conventional idiocy of the times (and the Times), along with many, many others." The small portion of his criticism that was put into this article neglects to mention that she acknowledged in more recent times that "we and the world would be in considerably better shape today had Gore -- whom she described as "prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq" -- ascended to the Oval Office instead of the current occupant." But, that's not good enough for Conason. No, Conason wants Dowd to note "the guilt of the media in that travesty" and confess to her "starring role...on the subject of Gore, replete with false accusations and trendy sneering..." This is relevant to a biography article, how? It looks like some people are using Wikipedia to settle old scores, and this shouldn't be allowed. We need to focus on her biography and delete everything else. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Frequent subject matter

Propose eliminating this time-sensitive section in its entirety and focusing on her biography instead. Currently we are being informed about her comments concerning Al Gore from 2000. Hopelessly out of date and untimely. This is precisely why biography articles need to focus on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dowdification

While blogger criticism of anyone is not inherently unusual or encyclopedia worthy... when that criticism leads to the formulation of common eponymous slang, that eventuality is noteworthy and they contributing factors can be included for context without editorializing upon their veracity.

I think it's important to include some entry about the definition of "dowdification" and origin, and therefore mention the WSJ accusation without commenting upon its merit. Perhaps just mark it as a reference without quoting directly from it as such:

In 2003, Dowd was accused by James Taranto, of the Wall Street Journal, of being intentionally misleading through use of ellipses in quotations. While accusations of deception are commonplace in opinion journalism irrespective of merit, this exchange was notable as the origin of the common eponymous slang "dowdify" and later "dowdification"; meaning to accurately quote but only enough to change the original meaning of the statement.

Someone can clean up my language/grammar/citation, but I think the point is still valid 76.176.105.0 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Op-ed pieces are not inherently reliable sources for use on Wikipedia, and we tend to greatly limit their use unless they meet several criteria for inclusion. If "dowdification" has been covered in other, more reliable sources, I will gladly add it. I looked a while back, and couldn't find anything, so I removed it. One litmus test for inclusion (there are many) is to present at least two reliable sources showing the term has currency. Does this term pass that test? I don't see that it does, but I'm willing to change my mind. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud

There was a phrase tagged with {{citation needed}} in regards to Dowd referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "I'm a dinner jacket". Her column on September 26, 2007, said "It also raised [Ahmadinejad's] profile on the evening news here. Katie Couric dryly has told people that she remembers how to pronounce his name with the mnemonic “I’m a dinner jacket." I replaced the Mahmoud phrase with a Barack Obama reference. APK whisper in my ear 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal life?

Most notable living people are graced with a section on their personal life. In contrast, MD only has a section on early life, and then several sections pertaining to her professional activities. Can someone put together a personal life section? Marriages, children, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.236.70.107 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

She has not married and she has no children. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic controversy

Discussion collapsed to avoid disrupting the flow of the rest of the talkpage discussions, as suggested at WP:BLPN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The removing editor cited WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. WP:BLP - BLP concerns must certainly be taken into account when writing this section. However, all statements in this section were taken from reliable references or were attributed to the source. In addition, the section does not attempt to say that Maureen is anti-Semitic, but rather reports on a controversy that erupted regarding an op-ed she wrote that was viewed as anti-Semitic. WP:UNDUE - this is not a "fringe" view, have a look at all the attention and condemnations it received. We have sections above on similar controversies. WP:NPOV - what is not neutral about this has not been identified, but it is all based on the reliable references. WP:NOR - the references are to The New York Times, Politico, and The Atlantic. To claim that these are not reliable, published sources is silly. I would appreciate a response concerning this, and whether the concerns expressed here can be elaborated upon so the section can be improved and re-added. --Activism1234 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Please see this notice at WP:BLPN. And keep your comments about "silly claims" to yourself. Don't use my necessarily brief comments in my edit summary as an excuse to start attacking my edits. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Chill out, I haven't attacked your edits. I'm explaining why I feel it doesn't violate any of these policies, and asking for an elaboration on them so it can be improved and re-added. --Activism1234 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC) You could start by not calling any claims silly, especially since I never made any claims that these sources are not reliable. In fact I went out of my way not to invoke WP:RS. Anyway the point is moot. This discussion should continue at BLPN. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Are we all reading the same article? I haven't seen anything "anti-Semitic" or even "anti-Israel" in this piece by Dowd. I have to ask, what are her critics smoking? All I see is her calling the hawks and warmongers out on their bullshit—bullshit that the American people are sick and tired of paying for. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you Viriditas. I agree with you as regards the type of critism she received which I find highly spun. Her comments were given a very high degree of negative spin by her critics. But even then they didn't come out to accuse her explicitly of anti-semitism but qualified their comments saying that she may not have been aware that she was being anti-semitic. That is according to their own highly spun commentary. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις00:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC) The charges are so ridiculous, one has to wonder if the conservative right has finally lost what's left of their mind. Dowd was quite clearly referring to the use of the word "slither" by Wolfowitz, who used it on Fox News to refer to our president's position on Libya. What we are seeing here is the kind of Fox News pushback we've all come to know and "love". Any single person who has levied this charge against Dowd has lost the right to use the term "anti-Semitic" in the future. This is pure hogwash. Wikipedia isn't a Fox News outlet where you can make false statements and then retract them in small print. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Indeed the spin of the comments against Dowd is so high that one has to wonder about what these commentators think about the intelligence of their intended audience. You also got it right regarding the use of the term "slither". Although Wolfowitz first used it against Obama, they turned around and spun it against Dowd like a spinning frisbee. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Predictably, Politico helped fan the fire on this. It's often difficult to tell the difference between the right-leaning Politico and Fox News. I would like to see one single piece of evidence showing that Dowd has ever written anything anti-Semitic in her entire career. If anything, she has been a friend to American Jews. This kind of rumor-mongering by Politico and others should not be easily forgotten. These pseudo-news outlets are less interested in reporting and more focused on infotainment. If they are trying to disinform the American people by distracting us from the real issues facing this country, then they are doing a fantastic job. Regardless of your politics or what you think of Dowd, she is one of the few reporters left in America who lays it all out and tells it like it is, come hell or high water. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC) My gut tells me you are right Viriditas. Your free-wheeling commentary is evidence that you are very familiar with the issues involved and unlike the anti-Dowd commentary your analysis sounds very intelligent and convincing. I am not anywhere near as familiar as you apparently are with these issues. But like everyone else I can see when WP:OR rears its head and I always try to correct it. This was such a case. That we both agree on the background of the issues, even though our personal backgrounds are so different, should come as no surprise. But that's the magic of Wikipedia. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Viriditas, I refrained from mentioning above that this entire talk discussion between you and Dr.K falls straight under WP:SOAP. However, after another editor reinserted the content with different wording and eliminated possible BLP concerns, you blanket removed it with an edit summary that explains it was your personal opinion dictating the edit. You wrote, "column had nothing to do with religion or anti-Semitism. This an attempt to smear a BLP and it will not be allowed." However, that is your personal opinion. If reliable refs say otherwise, we report these reliable refs in a neutral tone and with BLP concerns taken into hand, rather than simply not including it because our personal opinion disagrees with the reliable refs. That's not how Wikipedia functions. I hope that you will understand this and re-insert it. --Activism1234 21:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC) The material was recently added back and I've removed it. The claims made about Dowd and her column are not substantiated by any actual evidence but rather represent a partisan opinion that is neither notable nor supported by any admission of wrongdoing by the publisher nor any retraction by the author. Anyone can make an allegation, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to make that claim encyclopedic. The claim itself must rise to the level of notability, and this one does not. There is nothing about this allegation that can be supported by any reasonable person. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Those are some serious statements, accusing Politico, leading journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, the managing editor of Froeign Policy, etc, of being unreasonable people. We can't decide that simply because you disagree with them. --Activism1234 21:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC) The statements are nothing more than political spin accusing Dowd of "unintentional" anti-semitism. This is non-notable election-year trivia, badly conceived and written at that. They don't deserve to be in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Once again, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what's a "political spin" or not. Saying it's a political spin in an election year is speculation, and can't be proven or backed up. We edit based on reliable references, and Politico, The Atlantic, and Foreign Policy are all RS. --Activism1234 22:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Not every piece of tripe is notable enough to be included. If another newspaper, say the New York Times, reported on the report of Politico et al. and commented then we could say that this met the criteria for inclusion. That two or three political commentators disagreed with her is not notable and should not be included in the article. Reporting on it ourselves is synthesis and original research. Collect's attempt was deeply flawed as it made assertions not backed up by the sources. This occurs when we take it upon us to become reporters for non-notable events and try to smooth things into the article using WP:OR and SYNTH. Having said that I am fully aware that you are never going to agree with me or Viriditas. So instead of this meaningless back and forth let's wait for some more editors to chime in. This way we both save our time arguing in vain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC) We don't need to wait for the NYT, Politico is RS enough. I don't know whether that was deliberate or not, considering that the NYT isn't going to say that a column one of their writers wrote had anti-Semitic undertones... Of course, if the issue is that only a few significant people blasted her column, we can always throw in Daniel Halper from The Weekly Standard, Jonathan S Tobin from Commentary, or Max Fisher from The Atlantic and soon-Washington Post comments. I refrained from doing this, as there's no need to pile on, but it does show that there were many reactions blasting her article. I repeat - it is NOT for Wikipedia editors themselves to say "This isn't significant" or "Her column didn't say that." That's for RS outlets. And currently, we have many references blasting her column, which we can report in a neutral tone that takes BLP concerns into hand. --Activism1234 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Why is noone reporting that the phraseology "slither" was first used by Wolfowitz regarding Obama and instead everyone is attributing it to her as if she invented it? I'll tell you why. Because all the references you added against her are from her political opponents and fail NPOV. You don't get to cherry-pick all the articles from her opponents and put them in her BIO. This is not how NPOV is achieved. Add to this BLP and we have a serious problem. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Since when are Jeffrey Goldberg and Blake Hounshell her political opponents??? Is that unsourced speculation??? --Activism1234 01:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC) No. It is informed observation. We cannot parrot the sloppy commentary directed at Dowd in the article without noting the gaping logical inconsistencies. Regardless, please stop this line of enquiry because I already predicted we are not going to agree. This is a wiki community. Let other members of the community chime in. I think we are too far apart to agree on anything and it is an utter waste of time to keep arguing between us. And please stop the visual gimmicks like repeat question marks. One question mark is enough. It defines the question. Multiple question marks are excessive and ultimately insulting. I will not tolerate abuse and insults in this discussion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC) "No. It is informed observation." So in other words, it's what you think. While that's welcome, it's not how Wikipedia works. You need an RS to back yourself up. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT and personal opinions about what her column is/isn't doesn't defeat an RS. --Activism1234 02:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Could you please explain, in your own words, why this should be added to a biography? All we have is a few critics saying "Well, her words could be taken this way if you play them backwards with a black light during a full moon." Really? This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. This material has no place here. Do you know how many columns she's published? Each and every time she write a column, somebody crawls out of the woodwork somewhere and cries, "Waaa, she can't say that, waaa!" Why is it notable that somebody somewhere disagrees with her? It isn't. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)@Activism: Again, please spare me annoying visual gimmicks like bolding. Now let's see what Dowd said: Paul Wolfowitz, an Iraq war architect, weighed in on Fox News, slimily asserting that President Obama should not be allowed to “slither through” without a clear position on Libya. Politico wrote: Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a "neocon puppet master" who was leading the neocon effort to "slither back" into power.Such language, to say nothing of the questionable legitimacy of her claims, struck experts on American-Israeli relations as an inappropriate (though perhaps unintentional) appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. Do you see how Politico accuses Dowd for using the "slither" term, without acknowledging that Wolfowitz actually used it first for Obama? This is political spin and violates NPOV. This is biased and unfair commentary about Dowd. Its inclusion in her biography would violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. But, obviously, don't take my word for it. Let's wait for more input from other editors. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC) What I see or do not see isn't relevant here - my personal interpretation doesn't trump what Policito's reaction is. The same goes for any editor. --Activism1234 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Please, in your own words, explain why this material is important to add to this biography. Also, please point to a similar article of GA/FA quality that contains similar information about opinions and speculation. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Firstly, this isn't a GA/FA quality... It's a "start-class" article. Would a B-class article suffice? Try Mel Gibson. Secondly, Wikipedia is based on relaible sources. I demonstrated a number of sources and condemnations of her opinion column - it generated much controversy and received significant coverage. It is legitimate to put this in - as long as it's neutral and takes into account BLP concerns. However, the editors here have morphed from opposing it on BLP grounds to opposing it at all because they disagree with it. --Activism1234 05:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC) It doesn't matter if the current assessment is less than GA/FA; our goal is to improve it as if we are working towards that goal. As for your comparison to Mel Gibson, that is absurd. Mel Gibson has a long and sordid history of anti-Semitism that has been documented both in his personal and professional life, in recordings and in his work of art. There isn't a single person on the planet that disputes Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism, and it is a matter of public record. With that said, how could you possibly compare Gibson's history of anti-Semitism with critics of Dowd's piece? Her column had nothing to do with religion or Jews. Her so-called critics claim that it might or could be interpreted as anti-Semitic, even though most people agree that such an interpretation is a speculative stretch, and it is an opinion that appears to be promoted by partisans to score political points. There is not a single thing in common with Gibson and Dowd. Gibson has apologized many times for his anti-Semitic comments, many of which were recorded and witnessed by his friends and authorities. The fact that he apologized for them indicates that he recognized they were wrong. It also does not require any interpretation as his comments are explicit and easy to understand. On the other hand, Dowd has not made any such comments nor is she known for making them. Furthermore, the comments that she did make were taken out of context by her critics to attack her. There is no comparison between Gibson and Dowd, and for you to say that there is presents a huge problem for your future here on this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC) "Her column had nothing to do with religion or Jews." Again, the next few lines just deal with your personal opinion. Personal opinions are great, but Wikipedia uses reliable refs, not personal opinions. Please see WP:SOAP also. Once again - personal opinions don't trump reliable refs. Btw, while I agree that Gibson has a long history of anti-Semitism and it'd be silly to deny it, notice how the article still uses words like "Alleged anti-semitism in The Passion of the Christ." That's the neutral part and taking BLP concerns into hand. I wouldn't mind contesting that wording, but to contest it I would have to use a number of reliable refs which say outright he's anti-Semitic, rather than simply offer my own personal opinion. Lastly, I'm not comparing Maureen to Gibson, I offered an example of another article. --Activism1234 05:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Her column had nothing to do with religion. That's not my opinion but a statement from Dowd's editor, Andrew Rosenthal. Did I mention that he's Jewish? Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Jeffrey Goldberg says: Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews. (Later, Hounshell wrote, "(A)mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK.") Politico mentioned: Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a "neocon puppet master" who was leading the neocon effort to "slither back" into power.Such language, to say nothing of the questionable legitimacy of her claims, struck experts on American-Israeli relations as an inappropriate (though perhaps unintentional) appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. So we have Politico calling her alleged anti-semitism unitentional, Hounshell wrote, "(A)mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK. and Jeffrey Goldberg said: Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype.... All these commentators conveniently don't acknowledge that her use of the term "slither" was precipitated by Wolfowitz's being first to use it against Obama, and then go on to accuse her of being "unintentionally" or "unknowingly" antisemitic while Hounshell does not explicitly make any anti-semitism charge against her. It is highly unfair to Dowd to be accused of being an anti-semite and not know it because there is no defence against such a charge. Including such an ill-defined and hard-to-defend-against charge in her BLP, makes it even more unfair. This is clearly political spin centred around the term "anti-semitic". Such politically manufactured and artificial charges should not enter her BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC) By all means, go ahead, make it clear in the article they said that perhaps Dowd was being unintenational... That's taking BLP concerns into hand. Your entire last paragraph is WP:SOAP and lamentations that an RS didn't say what you wanted. Please read WP:SOAP before making these types of comments again. There's no need for them here. --Activism1234 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC) You keep throwing WP:SOAP multiple times and all over the place as if you were in a run-away laundrymat. It is ridiculous and disrespectful to your fellow editors. But I don't care. I spent enough of my time trying to explain logic to you. You don't want to listen, that's your problem. Please stop beating this discussion to death. Consensus is not on your side. Your edit is not going into this article. I am sorry if I sound harsh but I am sure you can find a better thing to do on Wikipedia than trying to stick to Dowd the ridiculous label of "unintentional anti-semite" and insult your fellow editors by throwing repeatedly WP:SOAP at them for no good reason. End of story. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC) It isn't disrespectful, I'm pointing out a serious flaw in the arguments here - namely, WP:SOAP, which has been ignored and ignored, by lamenting a personal view on her opinion piece. Personal views don't trump RS, personal views are not RS, Wikipedia is not written based on personal views. Notice again how this discussion has changed from "Removing section because of X, Y, and Z," and once some of these concerns were addressed, "How can you even think her column is unintenationally anti-Semitic? ME, I don't view it that way! So we can't put this in." --Activism1234 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC) We're not transcription monkeys. Please explain, using whichever policies and guidelines you like, why this opinion is notable/significant/encyclopedic to include in this biography. Dowd has written many columns, many of which have attracted controversy, particularly those about the role of the Catholic church. In some of those examples, she has stated a view that can be shown to be controversial, such as the role of women in the church. In such a case, we can, with evidence, show a quantifiable difference between her opinion, public reaction to this opinion, and reaction by relevant authorities. In this way, we can support inclusion of such a "controversy" because it actually exists. Contrast this with the idea of a manufactured controversy which cannot be proven to exist and whose opinion rests solely on partisans wishing to score political points. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Viriditas, "manufactured controversy" is your opinion, not those of RS outlets. See WP:RS. The coverage it got establishes WP:NOTABILITY. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid excuse. Feel free to add other controversies, I don't know any others so that's beyond my control... --Activism1234 06:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) It doesn't matter what my opinion is. You've been asked at least twice to explain your rationale for inclusion. As the editor proposing to add content, you have the burden to defend your proposed addition. My opinion has no bearing on your failure to meet this burden. And again, we aren't transcription monkeys. We don't repeat what any source says just because it says it. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Although you are throwing around all kinds of WP abbreviations, one of which is WP:NOTABILITY, I don't think you read it carefully enough. NOTABILITY is a criterion which applies to topics to determine if they deserve their own articles. It does not apply to material which is to be inserted into an existing article. This is a WP:BLP: material to be inserted here must be of very high quality, as opposed to contrived speculation designed to humiliate Dowd, and be notable and relevant enough to be included. As I demonstrated above it is impossible to use this material because it is manufactured political spin, unduly defamatory for Dowd and the allegation it makes about Dowd is extraordinarily strange, contrived and impossible to prove or defend against. Because of these reasons it is not worthy of inclusion into the article. It is also weak criticism because it is not alleged that Dowd is anti-semitic, with the requisite strong evidence being provided, but rather it is suggested, through pure speculation, that she may be "unknowingly" or "unintentionally" anti-semitic. How can you accuse someone of being "unknowingly" anything? What is the meaning of this extraordinary accusation? How can anyone defend against such a ridiculous charge? How can this unfair and unprovable charge be included into the BLP of this person? Wikipedia is not a repository of unverifiable and unsupportable allegations, especially in a BLP. It would be WP:UNDUE weight and a WP:NPOV violation accusing Dowd of being "unknowingly" or "unintentionally" antisemitic. It is also defamatory, condescending and designed to humiliate Dowd, because it suggests that she doesn't have the intelligence to control her actions or realise their impact on others. These are indeed extraordinary claims about Dowd and are clearly unsupportable by the sources which you provided. The WP:BURDEN of proof is upon you because you insist on adding this information to the article. Unless you provide expert proof that Dowd is incapable of recognising if she is anti-semitic or not, your edit is not going in. Instead of throwing around all these WP guidelines and policies at the editors you don't agree with, it would be much better if you stopped beating this WP:DEADHORSE once and for all. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC) In addition your sources are not reliable for all the extraordinary claims being made. These claims about Dowd are just political opinion pieces, out to score political points against Dowd, and not to provide sober analysis of Dowd's actions by using ...a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments, as stated below per WP:SOURCES: The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully. These contrived and stretched political opinions against Dowd do not come close to satisfying WP:SOURCES and per the highlighted: Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully, they also fail WP:BLP and by a wide margin. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC) "As I demonstrated above it is impossible to use this material because it is manufactured political spin" - once again, your opinion, not those of an RS outlet. Obviously, whenever accusations are made there will be some controversy and supporters and opponents. But that doesn't diminish the fact that the accusations occured... --Activism1234 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC) "Accusations occurred" is not a legitimate argument for adding the material. For the nth time, please choose whatever policy and guideline you like to argue for inclusion, because as it stands, this material is neither accurate, significant, or encyclopedic, as it does not rise above the low level status of a partisan rumor intended to malign a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC) The difference between you and I in this discussion is that you keep citing your own personal opinion. Whether I agree with the accusations regarding her column is irrelevant, and I have never once said my own personal opinion, or WP:SOAP. Simply, I have used the statements of RS outlets. See WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, WP:BLP concerns have been taken into account... Again, the section was removed originally for a variety of policy reasons. Once they were "fixed" by another editor, the discussion all of a sudden became "No, I don't agree with what the RS says, so let's not include it." If you can come up with an actual policy or perhaps an RS backing you up, add it here. But please, don't constantly repeat the same thing. There's no value in repeating the same thing. --Activism1234 00:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC) No, that is not acceptable. The editor adding material has the burden, not the editor removing content. This is especially true when we are dealing with BLP's. You cannot even think about adding this material until you have properly defended it, which by all accounts you refuse to do. So far, your entire "argument' consists of "sources said it, so we repeat it", which as we all know is completely false. So, you need to answer the question why this material is important to add to this biography, and you need to explain it. Please don't try to distract this discussion again with "that's your personal opinion". Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Not really. It was an important controversy that gained some pretty prominent attention by high-ranking people. On the contrary, the only arguments I've heard against it are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thus the lengthy "rebuttal" of these allegations, regardless of fact that personal opinion is not RS. --Activism1234 00:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Viriditas here. Unless you satisfy the concerns we raised, this discussion is over. Goodbye for now and feel free to have the last word. I will not be coming back until you satisfy the concerns I raised in detail. Enough of that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I have repeatedly explained and explained and cited Wikipedia policy, all I've been getting is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to walk away, fine. --Activism1234 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC) No, you have done nothing of the sort. Your entire argument for inclusion rests on two weak elements: 1) the fact that an accusation was made and that it was reported does not merit automatic inclusion, and 2) a blanket assertion of importance not on any evidence that the accusations are significant as found in the sources. In other words, you have made no valid argument for inclusion. Just because accusations were made and just because that accusation was reported does not merit inclusion. Further, you have not supported your assertion of importance with evidence (i.e. a source saying "this is important because..."). If anything, the sources indicate that these accusations are baseless and without merit, and lack importance. Lastly, I have explained over and over again, using specific examples, why this information is not important. You now have to show why it is. Do you understand? We do not have the burden, you do. The fact that you spend so much of your time trying to malign a BLP with the weakest of the weakest accusations you can find tells me we have a problem larger than this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I've understood this perfectly from the getco, which is why I've consistently explained why it merits inclusion, even briefly. It was a significant widespread controversy that the mangaing editor of Foreign Policy, a leading journalist in The Atlantic, among others, commented on. The scope establishes WP:NOTABILITY. "If anything, the sources indicate that these accusations are baseless and without merit, and lack importance" - does that really make sense? Does it honestly make sense that a person would condemn a piece and then say "Oh btw, my condemnation is ya know baseless and without merit, not important either?" Not logical, and simply doesn't make sense. Why is it important to note the accusations in Mel Gibson's article? It's not going to establish peace in Myanmar. Simply put, it's an article about him, and discusses him. I think that a critical issue here is the lack of communication regarding what exactly is WP:SOAP, and to what extent personal views on pieces should trump RS outlets. I highly recommend having a look over these policies, rather than pushing again and again personal views on what you think about her column. The acusation that I'm trying to malign a BLP is a violation of WP:AGF. I'm not doing anything of the sort, and I'm more than happy with including certain people's statements that perhaps it was unintentional (perhaps it was not). I don't have anything against Maureen Dowd, and I am willing to include all relevant information, rather than censor it. I've spent a lot of time here in order to reinforce the principles of how Wikipedia functions, rather than allow editors to get away with editing Wikipedia based on their own personal views that they will freely use as a reason to censor Wikipedia. --Activism1234 01:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC) First you threw ample amounts of WP:SOAP then you throw WP:CENSOR. These arguments are useless. Viriditas, no need to argue any further because WP:CONSENSUS is clear so far. Two editors agree this is not going in. One does not, but guess what. There is no need for unanimous consensus. The majority is just fine. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Sigh... Another Wikipedia policy that is being used in the wrong way. WP:CONSENSUS is NOT a majority vote. If the majority (2 editors) disagree with content and thus say it shouldn't be added, that's not grounds for censoring it. If you want to ignore this, go ahead. --Activism1234 03:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Another distraction. First you claim our personal opinions are getting in the way of you meeting the BURDEN for inclusion now you say it is our use of policy? Sorry, but you have to show why this information is important enough for inclusion. You can't assert significance, you simply have to demonstrate it. We all know you can't, so will you agree that this discussion is now closed? Otherwise, you will have to show why the information you want to add is important for this biography. You have a choice to make: either close this thread as resolved and move on, or show with evidence how this proposed addition is important to the topic. Your choice, your decision, no distractions. Put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC) "First you claim our personal opinions are getting in the way of you meeting the BURDEN for inclusion now you say it is our use of policy?" I have never said such a thing. I have commented that there is a lack of inforamtion regarding policy and a lack of citing policy against including it here. I have commented that initially, policy was cited to remove it, but once this was taken care of, the debate morphed into simply removing it due to personal views on her column. I have explained multiple times throughout this thread why it should be included, and it's really distressing that I need to repeat it again and again and again, when it's written right here above multiple times... It shouldn't be that complicated - I've answered the question, yet instead of citing policy or rebutting it, I'm just being told to say it again... And again... And again... Is there even a point then? --Activism1234 03:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC) On the contrary, you haven't answered any question here, you've deflected and distracted from answering every question. You were repeatedly asked to show and demonstrate the significance of the material, and you refused each and every time, choosing instead to assert significance rather than providing evidence showing it is important to this article. You were given a final choice, show this material is important or have the thread closed. You refused to show it, so I'm closing this thread as resolved. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC) How about we not unilaterally make our own decisions about whether this debate is over and then frame the archive as blaming the other editor??? We haven't resolved this dispute at all. If you don't want to take part in it further, that's fine, you can go. But this dispute hasn't been solved. Again, if there are any BLP concerns regarding the passage that was inserted... I'm happy to discuss and fix them. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid excuse to simply remove a section, and is suspicious to go from policy reasons to pure personal opinions. Would you like it if I went ahead now and closed this, writing, "Editors repeatedly fail to understand Wikipedia policy, believe WP:CONSENSUS is a majority vote, and believe that an RS doesn't matter if their personal opinions are different?" Of course not. So let's refrain from those types of actions, and contribute to a lively and interesting debate to reach consensus on which course to take. --Activism1234 04:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC) There is no "dispute" (except for the one you are manufacturing) and you've already decided that this issue is resolved since you refuse to answer any simple questions about your rationale for inclusion. At this point, you are being disruptive by ignoring the questions you are asked, and your continued editing here serves no purpose. No, you cannot malign a BLP with accusations that lack any and all evidence, and no you cannot malign a BLP with accusations that are not considered significant or important, and no you cannot malign a BLP with personal assertions of importance. We are done here. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highly subjective comments on her personality

"She portrays powerful women like her as victims of the male-dominant culture. For mostt part, she is dishonest when she writes about men and women relationships and her story is always one-sided. She is a loner and she longs for male friendship very badly. She hides her weakness for men by portraying men as bullies and family is something that she can live without. And then she blurts out that she will make a good wife. Thus, one can sense the frustrations of a feminist in not finding a mate of her choice"

This is highly subjective, and such POV comments should not be listed on Wikipedia.

Kurtz' Washington Post profile on Dowd (currently used as cite for a thing or two and listed in the footnotes, "Sex and the Single Stiletto") does a fairly good job - without turning shrill or unfair - of bringing out both her probable vulnerability and her weaknesses as a writer - her double standards, her tendency to pull the victim card and claim immunity for herself, her thin-skinnedness in the face of any criticism (something she openly admitted to Kurtz). Of course those weaknesses can be turned into good money in the media climate of today, where wilful pundits are more important than any sort of cogent analysis.83.254.151.33 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Days as a reporter

She was a reporter for 21 years before becoming a columnist. Yet this Wikipedia article does not describe a single story she broke, a single scoop, or a single article that won her recognition. What's up with that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking around, it seems that Dowd is most well known as a reporter for writing about then-Sen. Biden lifting passages from Neil Kinnock. This seems well worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maureen Dowd. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126084252/http://www.nywici.org/matrix-awards/hall-fame to http://www.nywici.org/matrix-awards/hall-fame

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)