Talk:Michael Wolff (journalist)

Untitled

Please build up.TCO (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor citations and overly promotional

Entire sections lack citations. Some citations do not support the statements or rely on the subject's own blog. Like the Newser article, there is a promotional tone to many sections. I will add templates and help clean as time permits.--Yammie2009 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090509174332/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/webscout/2008/10/michael-wolffs.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/10/michael-wolffs.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Delete the first paragraph in the criticisms section as the source does not exist.

"In its review of Wolff's book Burn Rate, Brill's Content criticized Wolff for "apparent factual errors" and said that more than a dozen of the subjects he mentioned complained that Wolff had "invented or changed quotes" that he attributed to them." Expiscor64 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the dead link and corrected the information in the paragraph to reflect what the source says. Thanks for pointing out the problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

In reading Mr Wolff's page it seems to me that there is no commentary on the reception of his books or writings, only critical opinions. 71.191.189.211 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined. If you have specific wording you'd like to see, and a reliable source for that wording, feel free to post another edit request, with that information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

In the citation for the article "BALD TRUTH: DIVORCE FOR WOLFF" change "Dovorce" to "Divorce" Brandonhaslegs (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the catch. --Mondo Beer (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

I've removed the two sources below from the article, since they do not add anything to the article by themselves and should more appropriately be used to expand content (see WP:ELMAYBE). There are plenty of reviews of any of his works, and it seems arbitrary to highlight two. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Haigh, Gideon (March 2009). "Vanity Fare". The Monthly. 43: 54–55. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |day= (help) Review of The Man Who Owns the News.
• Carr, David (December 26, 2008). "Plowing Through the Door". The New York Times. Review of The Man Who Owns the News.

Since Trump is a living person, any mention of Wolff's anti-Trump book must mention its disclaimer that not everything in the book is true

I added the following to the article's intro, which had already mentioned Wolff's anti-Trump book:

The 10th page of the book's prologue includes a disclaimer which states: "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Bk33725681 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

References

I disagree with any mention, and this disclaimer should not be reposted verbatim, especially not in the lead of this biography per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. It would be fair to succinctly claim (ideally using a third-party source) that Wolff admits some of it may be untrue. Lastly, common terms like prologue and disclaimer should not be linked, per WP:OVERLINK. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Wolff, the journalist/author. The disclaimer may be appropriate for an article on the book, Fire and Fury where it already is used, but not here per WP:OFFTOPIC. --Zefr (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at Fire and Fury but I could not find anything clearly stating this. 198.150.11.41 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump's legal threat

We have a sentence saying that Trump's threat of legal action is "unprecedented" and "threatens first amendment rights". The sentence is sourced to the Washington Post, but that WaPo article seems to me to be overhyping its point, with slender evidence. The article says the concern has been raised by “legal experts and historians” (plural), but then cites only one person, a presidential historian at Rice. And after saying “unprecedented” it points out that Richard Nixon did the same. This all strikes me as rather breathless overkill - as well as basically irrelevant for this biography of the author. I would like to delete it. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

i'm unclear how much you are proposing to be removed. The threat of a lawsuit is a relevant controversy, so I believe should remain; but I support removal of the statements of it being "unprecedented" and "threatens first amendment rights" given the concerns you mentioned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course the threats and the C&D letter should remain. I am suggesting removal of this sentence: According to legal experts and historians, threats of litigation by Trump as a sitting president against a book author and publisher were unprecedented, and challenged the freedom of speech protected by the U.S. First Amendment.[31] Sorry if I was unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I added that sentence and the WAPO source accepting that it is from a White House reporter (Parker) and editorial team covering Trump from campaign to present. I recognize the potential for it to be interpreted as hyperbole, but it is a placeholder report on an issue created by Wolff and the book: that a president is trying to silence a publication and its author, an action threatening First Amendment rights, and that is a "recent precedent" (since Nixon). I still feel the statement and source have merit, as they state the obvious and evolve from Wolff, and so - one might forecast - will establish him in history as the author a president tried to silence. Perhaps we can rewrite it. Draft: "According to a Washington Post report citing "legal experts and historians", threats of litigation by Trump as a sitting president against a book author and publisher were unprecedented, challenging freedom of speech protected by the U.S. First Amendment." It's likely the reporters were using one source, the Rice University historian, as a summary. Further, the freedom of speech-1st Amendment mention is relevant context that non-Americans might not readily know. --Zefr (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think it should be removed (placeholder for an issue that might become a part of his legacy sounds like WP:CRYSTAL), but I'm not passionate about it. Let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a lightening-rod issue, with others adding to the freedom-of-speech chorus, like Vox, Politico, Newsweek, Time Magazine, and The Atlantic. Perhaps waiting a week will reveal more. --Zefr (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The world contains many, many lawyers. I'm one, and it isn't "unprecedented" at all. So somebody needs to rewrite the main article to get it more factual, which it presently is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk • contribs)

The sentence was reworded to state "threats of litigation by Trump against a book author and publisher were unprecedented by a sitting president", which is not different in meaning than the prior version and now seems safe enough to say in perspective of previous presidents, including Nixon. --Zefr (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Starlog essays

I'd like to know if he's the same Michael Wolff who wrote a series of essays for Starlog magazine, 1987-97. It may well be a different writer, but the essays were unusually outspoken (for that magazine), on topics including robots, dinosaurs, immortality and computers. ProfessorAndro (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing not. From https://www.amazon.com/Cosimos-Raven-Michael-Wolff-ebook/dp/B00BTNAL10 - "Michael Wolff is a movie critic, freelance writer, former radio disc jockey, former this, former that, former all the usual things one becomes former at while pursuing a writing career. His stories and articles have appeared in publications as varied as Starlog Magazine and Action Comics. He occasionally plays well with others."[emphasis added]

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

1980s

For those wondering what Woff was doing between the 1970s and 1990s, the following was in the article three days ago, but apparently has been removed because there were no explicit sources. I invite interested editors to do more research and put the content back (if true), this time with citations.

1980s

After publishing his first book, Wolff received an advance to write a novel, which he never finished. A college friend, Steven J. Hueglin, who had become a successful Wall Street banker, asked for Wolff's help in evaluating investments in media companies. He pulled him into a career as a media business entrepreneur.[citation needed]

In 1988, Wolff took over the management of the magazine Campaigns & Elections. He became involved in advising start-up magazines, including Wired. He also raised financing for media companies and new businesses.[citation needed]

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2018

There is not enough emphasis on the fact that Michael Wolff is not a credible reporter. He invents the story and documents his own opinions as opposed to recording the facts and reporting them, and he has a long documented history of this in nearly all of his writings. This latest book, "Fire and Fury", and a previous one, "Burn Rate", are prime examples of his so called journalistic practices. This is not being reported in the current article, but it needs to be for the sake of truthfulness and true journalistic excellence. Omitting this is doing the people and Wikipedia a great disservice. VeteranUSA7275 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: - This is clearly your opinion which is not supported by most of his history, as sourced in the article. For an edit request, as described: "you must provide a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it," with sources per WP:RS. --Zefr (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jewish

Wolff is Jewish. Please add to 'Early life' section. Thanks.--78.49.12.180 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but hasn't been mentioned in any of the mainstream articles about him (this source is a special-interest publication), so not worth including. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Most if not all specific knowledge is found in "special interest publications" and I assume you understand that when reading natural sciences articles, which rarely if ever are sourced from main stream media and almost exclusively from special interest publications. Kekmon (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

-But the article does not state Wolff is 'Jewish' and it is not relevant to this article. If you have an article where Wolff is quoted, speaking about his 'Jewish' faith, then it could be added. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

JTA article does state it: "Anti-Semitic? Wolff, who is Jewish, equivocates." I find this information highly relevant to his background, as Fire and Fury has chapter 10 almost entirely dedicated to describing "tribalistic feud" between jews and non-jews in White House and New York construction industry. Kekmon (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Found it, "Wolff, who is Jewish, equivocates." [1] But is this enough to add it to the article? Perhaps if we had more than a word in passing about Wolff being Jewish is a very generic way, then it might be enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is questioning that Wolff comes from a Jewish background, but that is a very broad category and without being able to narrow it down with more detailed reference sources than "Wolff, who is Jewish," should not be entered. Being Jewish can be anything from a past cultural and ethnic background to going to temple daily for prayers, to some of the more extreme religious prescriptions; none of which are detailed in that one line. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the background information the better. Yet in absence of more information some information is better than none. There is never adequate information, only less or more. Now we have less and have to work with it. Kekmon (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also riddle me this: if "No one is questioning that Wolff comes from a Jewish background" (uncontroversial), then why is it having it visible on his Wikipage as nice little detail such a no-no (controversial)? Doesn't make any sense. Kekmon (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It could be that his 'Jewishness' is that of my ancestor, Anna Samson, and have little to do with his life today or like my Presbyterian father, it is of little consequence in his daily life. More important is the importance Wolff places on Judaism and it's importance in his life which is why it matters not in this article, as the Kirk mattered not in my father's life when he became a Catholic. We have no details to place his Jewishness in context of his life and works, so without that context, it should remain left unsaid. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The existence of chapter 10 in FaF provides ample context and also raises urgent questions. Either he is a jew or he is antisemite obsessed with jews to describe jew factions working against non-jews in such a vivid in-depth fashion. Kekmon (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

My family's Jewish experience shows me the issues of one's Jewishness is far more complex than a single line in a single article. More importantly, is that Haaretz leaves it out of their article and that is telling. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How exactly are your jew experiences relevant to Michael Wolff? Kekmon (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In that one very short sentence in a off journal can not sum it up, any more than it can for Wolff. Why does Haaretz leave it our of their article? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Why does a simple fact need to convey some experience in the first place? Facts don't care if Wolff has "issues of one's Jewishness" or of "User:C. W. Gilmore family's Jewish experience" or "importance Wolff places on Judaism and it's importance in his life" or any of that. He is jew or he is not jew. Simple. Any expansion beyond that is bonus but not necessary to state the cornerstone fact which allows expansion of subject. You have this backwards, friend. I also don't know what Haaretz is, is it official jew catalog? Kekmon (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz is a liberal/progressive Israeli newspaper with a reputation of accuracy in details. Details that are missing from "Wolff, who is Jewish," which tells us nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Haaretz also ran the story: [2] but this says more about Wolff's impression of Trump than about Wolff from my reading of the article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I can find nothing about Michael Wolff's religion or religious views and the cited article does not mention it either. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with C. W. Gilmore that his religious faith is not clearly relevant here; that it can only be found in a single article out of the countless ones published about him is evidence enough of that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we need more substantial sourcing to establish that Wolff's putative religion merits inclusion. Per the intro of WP:BLP "We must get the article right." If only one source mentions it in passing, it's probably better to omit until a rather personal and private statement about religion can be clarified/given more context. Claims about someone's religion need excellent sourcing. The JTA may be reliable, but even reliable sources get things wrong sometimes. And we should never include facts just because we feel they elucidate other facts: that risks violating WP:NPOV ("this minor fact should be given undue emphasis because I like it") and may involve or invite original research. Ideal would be something like an interview where Wolff personally describes his faith/belief/cultural background. --Animalparty! (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the fact that Haaretz ran the exact same story but without any mention of his 'Jewishness' bring into question if it should be part of this article. I searched, but I can't find any other outlet that made the statement and it would be wrong to make such assumptions only be end up with egg on your face. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pugnacious personality

The article currently states that "Wolff is known for his pugnacious personality". Is this a quote? An assessment by the article's author(s)? A self description? Does such a description without references meet Wikipedia's biography guidelines? Can this be looked at? Thanks Emjaikey (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Emjaikey