Talk:Nat Hentoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 28, 2017. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.


I think referring to his various social and political positions as "idiosyncratic" is a personal opinion and not a fact. - Marauder — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact, however, that the constellation of positions he holds is a relatively rare one. Peculiar or unique to Hentoff? Perhaps not entirely, but certainly far removed from the ordinary. There aren't many Hentovians around. He wanders back and forth across the lines that separate most pundits. Agree with him or not, to call his worldview idiosyncratic or original is not to disparage it but to do it justice.Jackaroodave (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context, his "idiosyncracy" seems entirely to be his general pro-life position. In any case, the statement is not referenced, and should be, or should be removed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


The article still needs a fair amount of expansion for a figure of his stature. The career info is cursory and the lede doesn't fully reflect the contents of the article, as of now. The sources should also be double-checked for reliability and secondary sources used instead of primary sources for highlighting the key parts of his political commentary. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning czar 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, mate. I intend to work on this article next weekend when I'd have enough time. —MBlaze Lightning T 01:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nat Hentoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nat Hentoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article. Face-smile.svg

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • We need a source date for all the web citations (if possible, as all of them may not mention one).
  • Also, replace references 17, 23, and 24. They do not seem reliable.
  • References 29, 30, 31, and 36 are not working, so replace that too.
  • There are a lot of places with two continuous spaces.
  • "which published his work until his death" his only one work or works?
  • "and his writing was also published in..." was it only one writing or writings?
  • Link Boston, Massachusetts.
  • @MBlaze Lightning: Lastly, there is a slight copyvio issue. Would be great if that could be dealt with.
  • Done
It still shows with this and this. Just slight paraphrasing is required. @MBlaze Lightning: Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Done :)
It is still present with the first one (nytimes). A slight paraphrasing will do. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Adityavagarwal: What that tool shows as a match are names of awards, publications, and common phrases ("the son of", "was named one of", etc). Nothing to be concerned about.MBlaze Lightning T 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Although, if you check now, it is done. Face-wink.svg

The rest seems fine to me. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Great work! The prose is especially good, as there were almost no errors. It is a definite pass! Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Things missing[edit]

This article is missing some things. First, there is no description of his writing style – a major omission for a writer! Second, there's no mention of his liner notes for albums; he wrote hundreds (at least) of them. Third, there's not much on his early life and what there is leads to more questions: in what ways did Sweeney influence him? What did he study at university? And at Harvard, and did he complete his studies? And at the Sorbonne? Not mentioned: what led to his interest in jazz/music generally? Did he play? Fourth, there's no sense conveyed of what impact his writing had: he received some awards, but did any of his campaigning (on musical or non-musical matters) have any effect? What were the reactions to / comments on his writings? Filling in these gaps would create a better picture of him. EddieHugh (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And more... the lead states that he was a historian and novelist, but the main text barely mentions anything about history, and his novels, as far as I can see, aren't mentioned in the text at all (only in a list at the end). EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)