Talk:Gwen Ifill/Archives/2013

Is there a free photo around?

In any case, I'll request a photo. Free if possible. Smallbones (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

bizarre non sequitur question?

This sounds like editorializing to me. I think that the responsible party should remove it to remain as objective as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.107.134.10 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Mention should be made of Ms. Ifill's calling herself a moderate when she has repeatedly chosen to cozy up to the right wing. This site lists some examples: http://www.blackcommentator.com/138/138_fr_hack_journalism.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litch (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The last point in the article sounds biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.172.180 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm removing it. Ryanluck 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Linking to one opinion piece in an opinion-based magazine isn't sufficient for such a broad statement to be included in this encyclopedia. Ryanluck 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then get a second link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.252.4 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since none of the above buttheads mentioned what this is about why not delete the discussion about it too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.16.58 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Buttheads, butthead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.252.4 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph is out of the scope of a biographical article. Liar.thief.vandal 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

2008 vice-presidential debate

Obviously the choice for the debate was part of a fix. But without proving it a section on controversy should be opened as this is going to hit hard and hot after Friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.252.4 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Her upcoming book and alignment with the Obama campaign should be made clear, especially in the context of her moderating the debates. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.71.242 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.252.4 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Why has this article been blocked from editing? I smell a political rat in this decision that has influenced those in control of removing the Edit tab. The controversy of a tainted debate has been well publicized now throughout the media and at least the documentation of the controversy should be allowed in the article. She has written a pro-Obama book with the plan to release it on Obama's assumed inauguration (a business move any publisher would make if they assume who's going to be elected). This is not an opinion of whether she is indeed pro-Obama or not, but the fact that the controversy is real, discussed and being reported in mainstream media throughout the country and by Thursday Oct. 2, 2008 throughout the world. Jeff Crouere has reported on this story (he is also with PBS): http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/US/Politics/President_Race_2008/Gwen_Ifill_Debate_Moderator_Is_Pro_Obama___7630.asp. Its also been reported on national news outlets. By tonight, (Oct. 1, 2008) it will be everywhere. Now there is talk of bringing in a co-moderator because of this highly publicized controversy that Wikipedia wants to squash by not allowing editing on the article (probably until after the debate). I recommend Wikipedia allows editing or there will certainly be talk of the political influences upon those in charge of this site. Is Wikipedia being manipulated by political powers? Media4TruthOnly (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Editor KCinDC wanted to know how the books tagline is known. The book's description has been done by the publisher and is even available at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Politics-Race-Age-Obama/dp/038552501X It states, 'In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.' This statement, while not completely 'pro-Obama' can certainly be included in the article. If this statement is not true, then she really needs to notify her publisher. Media4TruthOnly (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A blurb is normally something that appears on a book jacket. Since there's no book jacket yet, that's not a blurb. Maybe a "publisher's description". Would be better to have a more reliable source than Amazon, which is full of errors. Maybe the publisher's site. (Why is this talk page so garbled?) —KCinDC (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KCinDC. Publisher's description is the proper way to explain this. The text was from Random House: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385525015 . Also, this talk page is certainly garbled. Media4TruthOnly (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is not blocked from editing as stated somewhere above. It is semi-protected, which I believe means that your account must have existed for at least four days in order to edit the article. Not too much to ask, in my opinion, especially when the subject of the article has suddenly been placed in the middle of an imminent presidential election by some politicians and pundits. In any event, there was something about this in the article, but in a fairly POV, inaccurate and poorly sourced manner; someone else edited most of it out, and I just restored most of it, but I have rewritten it and added an actual source. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite of the sentence about the book was well-written and balanced, IMO. I've removed the additional material about the "publisher's quote" as it's completely redundant to what is already written (and seems less than WP:NPOV as it simply cherry-picked one part of that paragraph with the intention of mention Obama again). Also, the part about "criticism" was very well written (See WP:WEASEL for example) and gives far too much weight to what is simply a couple of news cycles worth of talking points for some blogs and pundits. The criticism would have to become far more notable to warrant inclusion in a WP:BLP. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The actual book's description by its publisher (Random House) can certainly be included. It is not POV and is sourced. Source: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385525015 'In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power. Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history. THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.' As described by Random House, the book's publisher. Media4TruthOnly (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of names mentioned in there. Any reason Barack Obama was the only one you're trying include in the article? Would you have any objection to using this more descriptive sentence? "Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history. " --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking to. I'm not the one trying to only put in the one line "blurb" that someone else mentioned. I just want the book description to be sourced from Random House the actual publisher. If others want the entire description or just excerpts, then that is fine by me. I still don't see the harm in including the part about Barak's presidential campaign as that is a key part of this book according to the publisher and his name is in fact in the very title of the book. It isn't assuming he becomes president. I feel that part of the description is non POV. Maybe some are just sensitive in the way they view that description. Media4TruthOnly (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to be possible to get rid of the sentence about the complaints, I expanded it. Presumably it can all go away in a few days after the Republicans get through making excuses. —KCinDC (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's possible to get rid of it, in fact it's necessary. Edit-warring is not a reason to leave bad edits in an article (and edit-warring can be dealt with separately). The sentence doesn't belong (for reasons already discussed) and I have yet to see anyone make a case for it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the cherry-picked quote from the publisher's description is back. Obama's name is already in the book title, so I see no reason for pushing an extra mention of him into the text except to promote a political POV. —KCinDC (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And now the "primarily focusing on Barack Obama" is back, which clearly contradicts the description given by the publisher, in which Obama is only the most recent of many politicians mentioned. —KCinDC (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What POV do you read into this. Are you anti-Obama? The title of the book isn't ...Age of Rice, Jackson and Obama. Now, I don't agree with "primarily focusing on Barack Obama" as that is not in the publishers description, but to complain about the line from Random House stating 'stunning presidential campaign' is strange. It is a quote, properly sourced and most agree from all parties that his campaign is historical. I'm independent and see nothing wrong with including properly sourced descriptions of the book, and do not see it as cherry-picking, but if you're offended by Obama, then that is your opinion. The description from Random House begins with those lines regarding Obama's campaign and therefore they obviously believe it has a lot to do with the content of the book and it immediately captures the readers attention doesn't it. Media4TruthOnly (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

KCinDC, if the moderator was Brit Hume and he was writing a book with John McCain in the title, would you say that it shouldn't be mentioned on his page? She's writing a book praising Obama that will be published on Inauguration Day. That's notable to the point that at the very minimum, it should be included in the article. Please stop trying to censor Wikipedia to support a candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDestructo (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MrDestructo, if Brit Hume's article had a third of its text devoted to a one-day controversy (whipped up by, say, Daily Kos and Americablog, after Obama had approved Hume as a moderator), suggesting that it was the most important event in Hume's life, and the text was duplicated in the debate article, so that all the arguments had to happen in two places, then I would think that would be a problem. I wouldn't have to do much about it, though, since Michelle Malkin would send over an army of people to remove the complaints. —KCinDC (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We now have a biography of a living person with a "controversy" ranging over three of the five sections, before the debate has even occurred. How can that be anything but undue weight, recentism, and a violation of BLP policies? —KCinDC (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So add more about her other achievments. THis is a big issue about media bias and impartiality. Judges aren't supposed to try cases where they have a conflict of interest and they at least are supposed to disclose them. Same with legislators and reporters. This is pretty basic, despite Ifill's excuses. She messed up bad, and it's not right. The issue isn't whether she can be fair, but whether reporters should at the very least disclose their conflicts of interest and in which cases they should recuse themselves when they are supposed to be impartial but are beholden more to one side of an issue or campaign. If anyone objects to my edits, then i would also like to add this: "The McCain campaign said it had not seen Ifill's Post interview, or been aware of her book, until Tuesday." http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/gwen.ifill/index.html I think my changes are accurate and needed to complete the picture of the issue involved. I also objec tto the statement that review of her performance were generally favorable, this is POV, and I don't think it's accurate. I've heard a lot of criticism of the job she did as moderator and I'd be happy to offer sourced information substantiating these concerns.

(Wallamoose (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Bring your sources to the criticism otherwise we have no idea what you mean. Hobartimus (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourced information already posted here under the "Trim" topic. This discussion isn't well organized. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Primarily

The Washington Post, in a Style section profile of Ms. Ifill in September, mentioned the book:

“To the extent she can carve out any spare time, Ifill is working on a book called “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” She focuses on the Democratic nominee and such up-and-coming black politicians as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Newark Mayor Cory Booker.” [1]

Also, how is this the "publisher's description"? It clearly says "Editorial Reviews - Product Description". Khoikhoi 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The book description comes from the book publisher Random House. See above, within discussion, for the entire description directly from the publisher.Media4TruthOnly (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it is the publisher's description: The Breakthrough by Gwen Ifill - Hardcover - Random House. That's word for word what's on Amazon's site. The book primarily focuses on Barack Obama and his campaign according to the publisher, but that doesn't mean that's all it discusses. I included references to Deval Patrick and Cory Booker after reverting your revision, but now those references look oddly placed due to your last revert. I think that you should undo your last revert because the text it removed is supported by the source and is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amwestover (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, but where does it say here that the book primarily discusses Obama? It indeed states that it sheds new on the impact of Obama's presidential campaign, but then it goes on in a detailed paragraph to discuss mainly African American politics in general.

Again, primarily doesn't mean that's all it focuses on, but judging by the lead in paragraph of the publisher's description of the book and the title of the book itself, the additional material is meant to shed additional light on Barack Obama and his presidential campaign. Otherwise I don't think they would've described the book that way. An alternative to primarily could be significantly but I don't think that's accurate. I think primarily is the better wording.--Amwestover (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Primarily" is clearly wrong, from the publisher's description, and even more clearly wrong according to Ifill:

Ifill said Obama's story, which she has yet to write, is only a small part of the book, which discusses how politics in the black community have changed since the civil rights era. Among those subjects is Colin Powell, secretary of state in the Bush administration.

—KCinDC (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I was actually about to quote from the exact same source. Thanks anyways though, this is what I heard on CNN as well, that judging from the title is an inaccurate perception of what the book is mostly about. Khoikhoi 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm judging by the publisher's description of the book, not the title. Publisher's descriptions of future publications are based on outlines provided by the author. Since Ifill hasn't even written the book, we don't really know what the ultimate outcome of the book will be: it could focus more on Obama than we expect or barely mention him at all. Regardless, all we really have is the publisher's description to know what's been promised and what is expected. Including Ifill's quote saying that Obama will be a small part should definitely be included, but that shouldn't negate the publisher's description. --Amwestover (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the author decides what she wants to write about and what goes in her book, not the publisher. Ifill is the one who's writing it, so she obviously is more qualified to say what's in the book rather than the publisher, whoever he/she may be. Khoikhoi 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense for her to tell her publisher one thing and then for her to tell the Associated Press that Obama is only going to be a small part of the book. Her comments in the Associated Press article do not negate the description of the book by the publisher. --Amwestover (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The publisher is concerned with marketing the book, so obviously in the current election season they're going to be playing up the presence of Obama in the book. That's no doubt why he's in the title in the first place. That doesn't make it correct to say that the book "primarily focuses" on Obama. —KCinDC (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No doubt the publisher is trying to capitalize on the election season, especially with a release date targeted at Inauguration Day. And maybe if Obama doesn't win the election the publisher may want to focus more on black politicians in general. But the publisher will ultimately decide what goes to print so the author's comments on the content of the book while it's still a work in progress shouldn't negate a publisher's description of the book. And according to the description of the book, the purpose of the book is to shed light on Obama and his campaign -- which I think qualifies Obama to be the primary focus of the book. --Amwestover (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No one's negating the publisher's description, just your interpretation of the publisher's description, which seems to be ignoring all of it except for the phrase about Obama. There is no evidence that the book "primarily focuses" on Obama, so it's just wrong to insert that into this article. —KCinDC (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Amwestover) The publisher never explicitly said that the book is mostly about Obama, while the AP source is very clear. This is how you are interpreting it. Simply because it mentions Obama in the first paragraph does not mean that "primarily" is the appropriate word here, especially when Ifill says "small part" (two words that clearly contradict each other). Khoikhoi 04:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The leading paragraph of the description explicitly mentions that the book will shed light on Obama and his campaign, so how would that not make Barack Obama the primary focus of the book? If more significance were meant to be paid Deval Patrick and Cory Booker then they would be mentioned in the leading paragraph as well. --Amwestover (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the book will shed light on Obama and his campaign. It will also shed light on plenty of other topics, as the description says. There is nothing in the publisher's description that says Obama is the primary focus. We have evidence from the author that Obama is not the primary focus, and we have zero evidence on the other side. —KCinDC (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text:

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

Obama and his presidential campaign are the central issue through this entire book. The point of the rest of the topics discuss is to shed light on the central topic. The second paragraph of the description ends with "Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history." which is obviously a reference to the election season and vicariously Barack Obama. If you're hung up on the use of the word "primary focus", then maybe "main topic" is more appropriate; but based on the description of the book, Obama is clearly the central theme and an important subject to this book. --Amwestover (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. You're interpreting a source that is relatively vague in its description of whether Obama is or isn't the subject of the book. This is particularly inappropriate when we have two other reliable sources clarifying that he actually isn't. Who is going to know more about what the book's about: the author or the publisher? Khoikhoi 05:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The description indeed mentions that the book will shed light on Obama and his campaign, but according to this article, Obama is mostly, if not entirely covered in a single chapter in the book. Khoikhoi 05:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that her comments aren't significant, but according to the publisher's description of the book, Obama will be a central theme and the publisher ultimately decides what goes to print so their description should take precedent. In addition, according to Ifill's comments she hasn't even started writing the book yet, so what she's planning to do and what she ultimately does may be different. --Amwestover (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the source says that she hasn't written Obama's part of the book, not that she hasn't written any of the book. And how do you know that the publisher will ultimately decide whether the book is going to be mainly about Obama or not? Khoikhoi 05:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, I misread. She does only specify that she hasn't written Obama's story yet. And it's standard procedure for the publisher to review the script of a book and provide their comments and suggestions on the text. If they don't like anything about the book or don't like the direction that it took, they'll want it fixed before printing. It's very similar to any other media distributor.--Amwestover (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that in any typical case it is standard procedure for the publisher to review the script of a book, critique it, and change it if they want. However, even if the publisher's description said very clearly that the book is primarily about Obama, based on your argument, the publisher would have stated what he wants the book to be about, and Ifill would have agreed with him. Yet we have two very recent articles (from today/yesterday) stating that this is not the case. To assume that she does agree with the publisher in regards to the direction of the book, that she wants the book to be mostly about Obama, would be original research. Khoikhoi 05:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ifill objects to the description of the book given by Fox News and McCain, as "pro-Obama." “Since I haven’t finished the book, it’s interesting people think they know what’s in it,” she said.[2] --Appraiser (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

Since people seem determined to expand it, does it really make sense to have the whole book controversy here and in the debates article? Maybe have a pointer from this article to that one? —KCinDC (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the appropriate place for contributions about Ifill's book since there isn't an article devoted to The Breakthrough yet since it hasn't been released yet. However, I think for the purposes of organization and reducing clutter that a separate section should be created focusing on the controversy surrounding the book. Right now people are contributing various sentences and comments here and there which are taking way from the focus of the original paragraph.--Amwestover (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A separate section would be giving it seriously undue weight in this article. This controversy is hardly a major phase of Ifill's life. It's related to the debate, and coverage of it should be in that article. —KCinDC (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that her article wouldn't be getting edited right now if it weren't for her book and her involvement in the debate, I highly disagree with what you're saying. This controversy is the only reason that many people even know who she is; evidence of that can be seen in the history of the article. The intent isn't to give the controversy undue weight even though it is notable, but in order to organize the material. The controversy surrounding the book and her involvement in the debates and the publishing of the book should be separated and right now they're not. --Amwestover (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you hadn't heard of Gwen Ifill before today (in which case, are you really the best person to be editing her bio?), but I certainly had. This is a biography, not a news article. The controversy might be significant to the story of the debate, but it's not a big part of Ifill's life. Devoting a section of her biography to the controversy would be inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. —KCinDC (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the last 250ish edits to this article which span four years, half were made in the past week. This controversy has been significant and made her more well known to the general public. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to include it in her biography. Just because you knew who she was before this controversy doesn't make you any more qualified to edit this article than me or anybody else contributing on Wikipedia.--Amwestover (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of edits frequently indicates controversy. It doesn't indicate notability. We don't expand every few-days-long controversy into a section in someone's biography. And again, this is a biography, not a news story (see WP:RECENT). I get that you think this is incredibly important today, but it's unlikely that it will be a big part of Ifill's life. —KCinDC (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has doubled in size since this controversy came to light. Your view that this isn't significant is clearly contradictory to the rest of the Wikipedia community. Just because something is recent or controversial doesn't mean that it's not worthy of being included in a biography. Tell ya what, revert all contributions related to the controversy surrounding this and time how quickly they get added back in. --Amwestover (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(no title)

Ifill's book (its contents) and its publication date were a matter of public record (and publicized) as early as late July 2008 - anybody "googling" Ifill would have know she was writing a book about African-Americans in Amer. politics. That was not a secret (Random House advertised her book in their early Sept. 2008 catalog to bookstores). Why is the McCain campaign bringing this issue to the fore now ? 69.236.84.241 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 69.236.84.241 (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

One reason is that she did not disclose this tidbit of information to the Commission on Presidential Debates before accepting the position, nor did they or McCain's campaign know about it. Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081002/D93I484G3.html MrDestructo (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Imus

The Imus "cleaning lady" stuff should probably be in the article, but it has to be sourced. Also, this doesn't exactly sound like a "vigorous" denial. —KCinDC (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Trim controversy

Now that the debate is over and the controversy didn't actually develop into anything, we should trim the discussion of it down to something that doesn't give such undue weight to something that's not significant to Ifill's biography. —KCinDC (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I doubt it should be in there at all. As predicted, it truly was just one day of blog chatter, completely irrelevant to her biography. And since Palin did okay in the debate, nobody is looking to push that POV anymore so the edit-warring is probably behind us. I suppose we can wait a few more days before doing anything about it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it stands. It details quite clearly what happened, is fair to Ifill, and is integrated cleanly into the paragraph on the debate. While I don't think it deserves its own section, I think it does merit a mention. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The failure of Ifill to disclose her book project as well as her travels with Obama, to her news program's audience and AMAZINGLY to the debate commission is an outrage. I am a huge Ifill fan, but her decision making and her excuses are an outrage. It doesn't matter whether you can conduct a fair debate, it matters that you do your job with integrity, honor and honesty, and Ifill failed miserably. This is the type of failure to disclose and conflict of interest issue that is a big part of the corruption in Washington DC and the media. And even if Ifil didn't let he work or her bias enter into her news coverage and debate work, it's still improper not to properly disclose and inform the audience about her conflicts of interest. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

“Clearly her books aren’t going to do as well unless Obama wins, so it looks like she has some investment, literally, in one candidate or the other. And she’s supposed to be sitting there as a neutral arbiter during the debate,” said NPR’s Juan Williams, a FOX News contributor. “I think the world of Gwen Ifill but I know there’s a perception problem.” There's a good grouping of interviews and quotes regarding the controversy at youdecide2008. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Here's a quote from CNN's Howard Kurtz: "Ifill says, she views this moment as the daughter of a black minister who marched in civil rights demonstrations and who she wishes were alive to see what Obama has achieved."

Here's a video of her disparaging coverage of the Republican convention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zafLsAtp_Q

Here's of an interview where Ifill questions whether Palin can be Mom and VP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpXKBZVuK9I

(Wallamoose (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Here's a site for PBS's ombudsman where he tried to defend Ifill from numerous letters criticizing her coverage of the Republican convention and Palin announcement in particular.

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/ (Wallamoose (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, doing your own original research using a bunch of YouTube clips wouldn't be at all appropriate, of course. As for third-party sources, it's no coincidence that all of the quotes about this come from the same day. I haven't seen a single article (from the left or the right) written after the debate that says she was unfairly biased. Have you? Face it, this was a single day of blog chatter and had far more to do with nervousness about Palin's performance than about Ifill herself. Since Palin did okay, the issue has been dropped. The whole thing is far too minor to merit much, if any, weight in the biography of her life and career. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The controversy ended up being much ado about nothing, and the references to it here should be cut down greatly or eliminated entirely. If more detail is needed, it can go in the article about the debate, where those interested can find it. I haven't seen any other examples of BLPs with sections devoted to one-day blog brouhahas, even if those were mentioned in reliable sources. I'm not even sure Ifill's book should be mentioned in the intro, since that's not what she's known for, and it seems like unnecessary promotion. All sorts of notable people have books coming out, and I don't think many have those books mentioned in the intros to their articles. —KCinDC (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness the New York Times, (which also reported on this if I recall correctly) is hardly a blog. Hobartimus (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As you've said repeatedly in the Sarah Palin talk, the fact that something is mentioned in a reliable source is not in itself enough to include it in a BLP. It still has to be significant enough to go into the biography. A controversy that is whipped up for one day in preparation for a debate and ends up being dropped after the excuse is deemed unnecessary does not rate the amount of text devoted to it here, especially since it's covered in the debate article as well. —KCinDC (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are of course right, my comment was only response to your description of the issue as "one-day blog brouhaha". It wasn't an argument for inclusion just a correction to the statement that the controversy would be blog related. Hobartimus (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Repetition and undue emphasis

The recent edits by Wallamoose gave us this paragraph:

Prior to the 2008 Vice-Presidential debate, there was controversy over Ifill's neutrality, related to her failure to disclose to the debate commission or her PBS news program audience that she has an upcoming book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama to be released on inauguration day.[12] The upcoming book was reported on and appeared in trade catalogs as early as July 2008, well before Ifill was selected by the debate committee, but she made no effort to disclose the conflict of interest issue to the public, the debate commission, or the McCain campaign, even though the sales of her book would benefit greatly from an Obama/Biden win.[13][14] Ifill responded to criticism on blogs by stating, "I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation. The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job."[15]

(1) There's no reason to repeat the book title, which appears in the previous section. (2) The text has both "failure to disclose to the debate commission or her PBS news program audience" and "made no effort to disclose the conflict of interest issue to the public, the debate commission, or the McCain campaign", which is repetitive, and there's no source for some of the claim. (3) There's no source for the claim that "sales of her book would benefit greatly from an Obama/Biden win" (and the inclusion of "inauguration day" seems to be WP:SYNTH). (4) The edit removed the sentence at the end reporting about Ifill's actual performance in preference to giving yet more weight to people's claims about what her performance might be like. —KCinDC (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address the redundancy issue you've raised. However, your efforts to remove sourced, verifiable, and notable information that has been discussed extensively on this board is unwarranted. Several wikipedians have noted that this was a major controversy and that it warrants mention. It has not been made into it's own section, but it easily can be. Everyone has been quite reasonable, but you continue to remove information highlighting the conflict of interest and issues of bias. Please stop. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

You simply reintroduced your additions and deletions without addressing any of my points except the source for the claim about book sales. All the redundancy is back. Why is it so important to repeat the book title, for example? Why are you determined to state twice in one paragraph that she didn't disclose her book? My edits did not remove any sourced, verifiable, and notable information. They merely removed unsourced info and repetitive information (which was already in the article elsewhere). This was in no way a major controversy, and your stating that it is doesn't make it so. Now you're introducing still more contentious information, such as the complaints from listeners. Every journalist and pundit gets complaints from listeners, and ombudsmen sometimes address them. We don't put a paragraph on listener complaints into every bio of a journalist or pundit. Please stop adding your contentious content to this bio without discussing it. —KCinDC (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to consolidate why don't you put together the numerous sentences mentioning that Ifill's upcoming book was written about here and there. Couldn't this be consolidated into a single sentence? Yet, I notice that mention of the fact that the McCain campaign wasn't made aware of the upcoming book until the day before the debate has been removed. Also, you've tried three times now to remove sourced, notable and verifiable information about the financial interest Ifill has in an Obama victory. I believe that violates Wikipedia policy. If you don't want to have the whole book title I'm happy to refer to "an upcoming book including coverage of what Ifill calls "the age of Obama". Would that be better? The controversies about bias and one sided coverage have received ample media coverage and a lot of interest. So they need to be included in the article, as you've been told repeatedly. I understand you don't think they are important. So, as a compromise, they remain only a few sentences in the article. If you'd like I can add additional quotes form other sources to show you that this is a widely covered issue. But I think the way it's covered now is reasonable. I suggest you'd be better served to add information you think should be included rather than trying to remove the work of others. FYI, Ifill has also traveled with the Obama campaign. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

You suggest that I consolidate the numerous sentences, yet every time I do that you revert the changes and reintroduce the repetitions of the book title and the lack of disclosure. That part isn't so much about content as just making the article readable. I understand that you think this one-day controversy is an essential part of Ifill's biography, but I don't understand why it's so important to you to have things repeated again and again. Are people going to forget the book in the course of two paragraphs? —KCinDC (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a repetition. One sentence introduces the controversy. And a second explains why it's a controversy. That's two sentences. There are lots of quotes and articles I can add. I haven't. I think I'm being quite reasonable. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

I think the controversy deserves mention in the article, but it's important to include the fact that the AP (and even the ultra-conservative Washington Times) carried the book announcement on July 25, 2008, well before the debate moderators were chosen. That fact clearly trumps the assertion that Ifill failed to disclose it to either the debate commission or McCain's people, which sheds light on the entire "controversy".--Appraiser (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"That fact clearly trumps the assertion that Ifill failed to disclose it to either the debate commission" the fact that Ifill did not disclose it to the debate comission is an undisputable and indeed undisputed fact. Ifill said so herself. Hobartimus (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"correspondant"

When this page gets unlocked, perhaps someone could correct this spelling error? It's "correspondent" Hairhorn (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama book

How come her book isn't listed in the Library of Congress (as books normally are many months prior to publication)? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Flu season took out half the librarians, and the other half were attending a team-building excercise in a Zen monastery in Kyoto. StrangeAttractor (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Snarky criticism of Sarah Palin

Ifill tweeted "Sarah Palin: party like it's 1773! ummm," She was attacking Palin's intelligence and/or knowledge of history. This was covered by at least two reliable sources--The Washington Examiner and The Washington Times. The relevance to Ifill is that it goes against her claim to be an objective journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs)

This isn't court, Ifill isn't on trial, and we're not trying to disprove her "claim" of objectivity. At least, we shouldn't be. This is an encyclopedic biography, in an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. The mere fact that something appeared in a news outlet does not mandate its inclusion - all the more so when the item is clearly trivial and is covered largely or solely by partisan sources. This is covered in WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Publication in reliable sources does not require its inclusion, true, but this is something that provides insight into the BLP subject regarding her career. The Washington Examiner and The Washington Times are not substantially more partisan than the left-leaning New York Times. What specific WP:BLP language would prohibit use of this material in your view? Drrll (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Washington Times is clearly understood to be more partisan, and a less encyclopedic and reputable source, than the New York Times. The Examiner is even more partisan; our article on the paper is informative and well-sourced in that regard. I don't feel compelled to play the pedantic letter-of-the-law game, where I pick a quote from WP:BLP and then we argue about its meaning indefinitely. The spirit of WP:BLP clearly enjoins us to write respectable, encyclopedic biographies and avoid giving excess prominence to obscure trivia (like he-said-she-said tweets covered only briefly and only in partisan media). Your phrasing makes it clear that you're on the hunt for evidence that will impeach Ifill's objectivity, but I don't think this rises to the bar for inclusion or notability in an encyclopedic biography. I disagree that this item provides any meaningful insight into the subject; can you seriously image Britannica mentioning this in its biography? At present, it seems to be a passing blip in the conservative media. If you like, we could ask for additional opinions at WP:BLP/N. MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if it gets mentioned in other news outlets. I did see it mentioned on AOL News: http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/sarah-palins-party-like-its-1773-statement-ignites-partisan-blog-bashing/19681862 . Drrll (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It got a mention in Politico (newspaper): http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Ostracizing_Fox.html. Hardly a partisan source. Drrll (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Er... the source is a blog post about bad blood between NPR and Fox, and mentions Ifill in a single passing sentence at the end of the blog post. Additionally, the source's exact words are that "right-leaning blogs have been having a field day with... Ifill's apparently sarcastic tweet..." So the source simply says that right-wing blogs are making a big deal of it, which underscores the partisan and non-newsy nature of the subject. To summarize, it looks a bit like you've cherry-picked a trivial, passing mention from a newsblog, and even that mention underscores that this is a matter of interest only to the partisan blogosphere. I'm not seeing how that adds up to something that should be covered in an encyclopedic biography. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs by news organizations are perfectly acceptable sources according to WP:RS: "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." On the other hand, there is no policy that states that passing references in reliable sources disqualify their use. Drrll (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"...there is no policy that states that passing references in reliable sources disqualify their use." Maybe not "disqualify," but there is a policy that raises serious questions. as in UNDUE: "[D]iscussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." That seems to be precisely what's going on here. IronDuke 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell; this is a tiny, tiny story, and its inclusion violates WP:UNDUE. If it somehow metastasized into something more, the matter could be revisited. IronDuke 18:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweets

It seems pointing out her support of Democrat bias when it comes to saying Ann and Mitt Romney are partying while blacks drown is not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is the same WP:UNDUE problem, a remark about a trivial event regarding a non-notable person who is not the subject of the article. I removed it. --hulmem (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)