Talk:Juan Williams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jamaican?

The footer places Mr. Williams in the category of "Jamaican-Americans" but there is no reference anywhere to him being Jamaican. Panamian, yes, but not Jamaican. He is also in the "Carribean-American" category, which is questionable depending on whether Panama fits within the category of Carribean.

Liberal

Juan Williams is a liberal? I guess anything right of Tom Tancredo counts these days, huh?

Whatever one thinks of Juan Williams, this page is unworthy of him; needs a thorough edit--spelling, for starters. George Kaplan 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right--it's written very sloppily.

Anybody here a good writer who know Juan's work very well?Bona Fides 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed 4 spelling errors.solargroovy 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks really great now everyone, great job! -71.192.72.141, Sept. 2nd

Heritage

Many thanks for the last edit about him not being Latino. Chivista 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Family Planning, birth control, and the morning-after pill

Is neutrality going long distances to avoid the word abortion?--Mokru 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Liberal?!

I would say he is a moderate Conservative or a Centrist-- the label "Liberal" doesn't fit.

Sean7phil 16:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Juan was originally a liberal or, at the least a Democrat who towed the party line, he seems to have moved rightward in recent years though. Perhaps Fox News converted him? Actually, if anyone has information on his seeming rightward moves, it would be good for this article...

(I think I accidentally erased this guys signature-- please replace if possible (apologies).

You perceptions I think are accurate, but any writing in the article should reflect that politically 'Right' is not all one simple thing--

Williams is certainly a moderate conservative on a lot of issues and yet I have seen him pounded many times on the Beltway Boys show on FOX (he is now Right, overall of the NPR mainstream-- but he is Left, overall of the hardliners on FOX--).

Political language in the USA tends to lend itself to extremes of Left and Right-- it's as if the middle ground no longer exists.

Despite this, people like Williams probably represent the wider mainstream-- WW really has a mix of soft Republican and soft Democrat positions, not unlike a lot of people. And that is a far-cry from the far-Right.

128.138.230.140 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Williams is definitely a liberal but a guy who hides his liberalism when giving professional opinions as any true journalist should. He has said on O'Reilly's show that he has become "more conservative" and that the "far-left is the most intolerant" referring to how he is always personally attacked whenever he doesn't tow the line of the radical left. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

i think he went rightward, but it seems he has gone a little leftward since he started supporting Obama, or at least defending Obama's views on things like abortion, thats just my observation though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason why Williams's lack of support from the left is not mentioned on the page? Literally the most notable thing about Williams is that he is represented as a liberal but is widely disliked by the left as numerous editorials from a wide spectrum of left leaning writers clearly show. Infact The term "Fox news Liberal" is applied to him more often than anyone else. Like I said, it is the thing he is most known for24.207.131.20 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to Race-related Comments

Removing this section because I'm not sure what it adds to the article. It seems to be an excuse to include an Al Sharpton diatribe against Williams. A section devoted to Williams' race-related comments would be appropriate, then perhaps inclusion of these reactions might be worthwhile. Jkp1187 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is he an American citizen? This is never explained. 75.91.89.246 (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a naturalized citizen (that is, a legal immigrant who has become a citizen), but I don't know for sure and certainly don't know a citable source off the top of my head. Someone needs to look that up. 63.3.9.1 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't want to be part of an edit war, but the paragraph which User:Atheist1981 has inserted several times, should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:V. Floyd (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I put my source in. We need criticism of media pundits. the truth hurts, but i did give a reliable source, actual video from the horses mouth. so whats the problem? The people that keep editing the factual statements must be from fox news. These are factual statements. Keep wikipedia bias free, we need the good along with the bad

Whether or not one agrees with the assessment is immaterial; it comes from one analyst/blogger, and does not merit mention, as it would if it came from an objective and reliable source. After discussion and warnings, this is vandalism. JNW (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a distinct issue with an unreferenced/unsourced blog being the source for this sort of criticism. If he makes the criticism in a newspaper or magazine, that's one thing; that's published and noted. This criticism is not as such, in my estimation, and shouldn't be included. --Mhking (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism was on live TV, on CNN, Wikipedia should be run by the people not by people with agendas Atheist1981 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then cite the CNN coverage/transcript, not some blog. That's all I'm saying. --Mhking (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog

blog removed, even though I see nothing wrong with a blog when its a person's official blog and the blog reinforces a quote made by the blogger that justifies the wiki reference Atheist1981 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sex Scandal Figure?

One of the footers says he's a sex scandal figure. Is he? The article sure doesn't elaborate. Giamberardino (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I took it off yesterday, since it doesn't seem to follow from anything in the article. 67.70.131.32 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps that came from this [1].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to Williams' widely noted verbal sexual misconduct, as he admits in this Post article? Surely this deserves brief mention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102102009.html?sid=ST2010102101990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm27 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put them back in. Knowing Wikipedia, I'm sure someone will take them off shortly. 130.22.63.1 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sex Scandal Figure?

One of the footers says he's a sex scandal figure. Is he? The article sure doesn't elaborate. Giamberardino (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I took it off yesterday, since it doesn't seem to follow from anything in the article. 67.70.131.32 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps that came from this [2].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to Williams' widely noted verbal sexual misconduct, as he admits in this Post article? Surely this deserves brief mention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102102009.html?sid=ST2010102101990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm27 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put them back in. Knowing Wikipedia, I'm sure someone will take them off shortly. 130.22.63.1 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NPR Contract

I can't seem to find this information. When was the latest NPR contract signed, and how much time was left on it when it was terminated? How much did he lose by having his contract terminated? Thanks. nut-meg (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NPR recentism

Reminder: This is an encyclopedia article that is supposed to be a biography. The section on NPR is probably too long and could use some serious trimming due to recentism. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ten years from now, you think Williams will be remembered for what? His time as a White House correspondent? Surely his firing dwarfs anything else he has done so far in his life. It's not like the article is coming up against space limits. Who gets the top position in the PC hierarchy? Blacks or Muslims? It's a cultural moment. Kauffner (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating the problem. That's not how we write biographies, and Wikipedia isn't a pawn or tool for political partisans. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

New title for sub-section - drawn directly from the sources

An edit summary by User Viriditas reads as follows:

(cur | prev) 14:39, 25 October 2010 Viriditas (talk | contribs) (17,869 bytes) (→Admission of verbal sexual harassment: That's not what the sources say. You either go with the sources or you don't edit.) (undo)

I must have missed the memo that put User Viriditas in charge of all of Wikipedia - so I will assume good faith and over-zealous good intent behind such a summary.

However Viriditas is quite correct in saying "go with the sources". So here goes. The sources in question reveal the following:

A) The respected writer (award-winning VOA journalist Carolyn Weaver) wrote in her article on the matter that Williams was

"accused of verbally abusing female staff members over a period of at least four years." and

"Unlike most incidents of sexual harassment in newsrooms, the Williams case was widely reported, largely because of its intersection with the Thomas hearings and the conflict-of-interest question it raised."

The terminology about this being about "inappropriate verbal conduct" came from Williams' own apology on the topic which - quite understandably characterized the matter in as good a light as possible. A quite natural human characteristic. But not reflective of the allegations that the Washington Post investigated

The Howard Kurtz story in the Washington Post reveals this:

Washington Post Magazine reporter Juan Williams said yesterday that the newspaper has disciplined him for what he called "wrong" and "inappropriate" verbal conduct toward women staffers and he apologized to his colleagues.

But Kurtz went on to report that: (emphasis in italics added)

Williams's letter came several hours after about 50 female employees met with Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and said they objected to The Post's refusal to say how the paper had resolved allegations of verbal sexual harassment against Williams.

So there is the source for the new title of the sub-section: allegations of verbal sexual harassment User:Davidpatrick (talk) at 20:55, 25 October 2010 (accidentally not signed)

There has been an edit war over this title with many different versions. I think this suggested title is fair and a reflection of the trend in the recent changes to this section title. Veriss (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, and I suggest you take your concerns to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Juan_Williams The material is now properly trimmed, cropped, sourced, and added to the subsection on The Washington Post. This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform for partisan disputes and debates. Everyone needs to calm down and stop using this biographical article as a soapbox for so-called political controversies and media recentism. Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

will be taken to task. Hmmm...let's all take a deep breath and refresh ourselves with Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, WP:CIVIL Thanks, Veriss (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no bullying here. I'm merely informing you that editors who continue to use this biographical article to promote non-biographical material will be reported. That's all. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Coat racking in the lead

It appears that at least one editor is using this biographical article as a coat rack. The following was recently added to the lead section:

In October 2010 Williams became the subject of a controversy arising from his dismissal by NPR over statements he made on a commentary program on the Fox News Channel, leading to a national debate about journalists and news analysts offering personal observations, allegations of NPR having an ideological slant, and demands by some NPR critics for the US government to stop funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), NPR's parent corporation.

While I'm sure there exists a few editors who would like this BLP to be about criticizing the media and the government, that is not its purpose. This article is about American journalist Juan Williams, and it needs to stay on topic. Please do not add this again. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

He is the subject of those debates and those are the reasons people are currently looking his name up to begin with. I am very familiar with WP:COATRACK and do not feel that it was a coatrack issue. A good Lead is often a group effort, especially with a controversial subject. Please famliarize yourself with WP:LEAD which stipulates this

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

Please try to assume good faith when interacting with your fellow editors. Thank you, Veriss (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith, but the changes you defend are coat rack edits, and the lead section needs serious work, which I'm currently doing. Please don't use this article as a platform or soapbox for poltical disputes. Williams is known as a journalist and an author. Whether NPR has an ideological slant or if CPB should be funded does not belong in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Placing on record recent exchanges about the Juan Williams article

- - It will not be a surprise to anyone reading this page that the Juan Williams article has the distinct advantage of having work undertaken by an editor who is not shy about imposing his views on other editors and is not such a milquetoast as to bother to cloak his reprimands to editors he disagrees with in cordial or diplomatic language. Viriditas is not shy about telling other editors that they are wrong if they make any edits with which he disagrees. And unlike some of us who ponder as to the best way to edit an article - Viriditas is not hampered by any doubts. He knows his edits are the right ones. And he's proud to tell us all.

- - Exaggeration? You be the judge. Here are some of the recent comments by user Viriditas directed at other editors

- - • This is not a coat rack

- - • Oh, no you don't.

- - • You either go with the sources or you don't edit.

- - • If you didn't already know this was wrong before you added it, then now you do, and I've set you right. Don't do it again.

-

- - • The way you are going about it isn't the way we do it.

- - • You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple.

- - • It doesn't seem like you listen to a thing anyone else writes [sic]

-

- - I seem to recall in all my years editing that a collegial tone coupled with give and take is a better way to go. But perhaps I'm just old-fashioned...

- - For reasons best known to himself, Viriditas doesn't like receiving comments on his Talk Page and he immediately deletes and archives them conveniently away from sight. He chooses the forum where replies to his comments should be seen - apparently the Talk Page of the editor to whom he is currently dictating his wisdom. Accordingly he has deleted from sight on his Talk Page all my responses to his many recent chidings about the Juan Williams article. In the interests of openness I have placed all the recent exchanges here on the Talk Page for the Juan William article -which is the topic in the exchanges. The exchanges appear immediately below this note. 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

- -

Undue weight on Juan Williams

- Davidpatrick, you knew at 03:17 that there were undue concerns. And at 09:47 you learned there were two editors who shared this concern. Yet, at 10:16, you ignored these concerns and split the topic out of the section completely. The question remains: does it work? No, because it is part of the Washington Post 1976-2000 section. Hope you see the problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

-

In respect of times of day when people posted changes, I really do not focus on that kind of detail. All I was seeing was that text that belonged in a section by itself had been merged in the middle of the W. Post section - where it read strangely. Your compromise - which you describe as "house style" (though Wikipedia does not have only one style of presenting such facts) of placing it as a sub-section of the W, Post section works fine with me. And I think is a good compromise between the two positions. As for the section title - the fact that Williams admitted and apologized for the matters confirms that this was not just an "allegation". Davidpatrick (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

-

We rely on the sources that we have, or we find better ones. Your recent and continuing series of edits[3][4][5] are not based on the sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

- - The allegations became fact when Williams publicly apologized writing "some of my verbal conduct was wrong"

-

No, sorry, but we stick with the sources, not your interpretation of the sources. So far, we have the sources contradicting you on every edit. Please edit based on the sources and only the sources. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

- - Please take a moment to read WP:UNDUE. You are turning a biography on a journalist into a discussion about allegations about verbal abuse. Another editor appropriately merged it into The Washington Post section and you reverted them as well. Your continued editing on this subject may require the attention of a noticeboard. You may be interested in taking a break and asking people you trust for guidance or reviewing FA and GA articles to see how we cover accusations and allegations. The way you are going about it isn't the way we do it. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

- - As a very experienced Wikipedian I always start off assuming good faith - though your message to me has a rather needless edge to it. I shall start off assuming that that is just your manner and I shall not take offense. I am known to be a very conciliatory editor who works towards compromises - so your tone towards me is inappropriate.

- - To respond to what you wrote:

- - Another editor merged the text - that is all sourced and cited - into the middle of the Washington Post section without any sub-heading. As though it was a part of his career and work at the paper. Which it clearly wasn't. So - fully consistent with Wiki style I reverted it to where it was. Then another edit was made - placing it in the Washington Post section - but with a clear sub-heading. Being the conciliatory type who always works to achieve consensus - I hailed this compromise as a very good development and worked to improve the text in its new home - proposed by another editor. Because that's how I work as an editor. Conciliatory. Compromise.

- - When a change was made to the sub-heading by you and the rather abrupt summary was left "You either go with the sources or you don't edit" (unless you're a sock-puppet for Jimbo Wales - that is not the way to speak with fellow editors who are your equals not your subjects) - I followed your rather rude invocation (because I'm a conciliatory kind of guy) and WENT with the sources. And changed the sub-heading to suit YOUR desire. Including a direct quotation from the Washington Post. Topic over.

- - Rather than making suggestions about what other experienced Wikipedians should do with their time and whether or not they should (in your opinion) take a break - I suggest that you focus on your own editing. Nothing I have done is about turning the article into a discussion. It is about placing cited, sourced facts into the context of an article about someone's life. Which includes a much-reported at the time incident. Such incidents are documented with reasonable and not undue weight be the person of liberal or conservative orientation. And it is not appropriate when documented, sourced, cited examples of behavior that belittles people - especially women - is "buried". I think it is to Williams' credit that he acknowledged his behavior and apologized. It speaks to character. That is why his apology is clearly in the article. Neither conservatives who wish to besmirch Williams because he is a liberal or liberals who wish to defend him should be allowed to hi-jack the article and either over-play or under-play this legitimate issue which according to the sources took place over a minimum span of four years. Davidpatrick (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

-

No, I'm sorry, but you cannot use BLP's like this. You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

- - When you click "edit" on my talk page, there is an edit notice at the top. Please read it. Among other things, it says: "I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it here as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. If I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. We can use our watchlist to keep track of responses." This is to avoid having the same discussion on multiple pages and helps centralize discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

- - Your recent changes introduced scare quotes into a section heading rather than letting the paragraph stand by itself. "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion" and the MOS discourages the use of scare quotes. They certainly should not be used in section headings. You need to be more careful with writing about BLP's. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

- - - You wrote:

- - You're not getting it. It is customary to centralize discussion in one place, beginning with the first post. Did you not read my edit notice like I asked you?)

- - I think you meant to write "Did you not read my edit notice as I asked you to?)

- - Anyway - yes I did "get it". And if you read my reply carefully you will learn that I am moving the entire series of exchanges to where they belong - on the Talk Page for Juan Williams. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

-

Evidently, no, you did not get it, and you did not read my edit notice. Is there a reason you are still responding to this thread on my talk page, and is there a reason you did not discuss a change of venue per my edit notice? It doesn't seem like you listen to a thing anyone else writes. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

- - Wikipedia is not a place to promote agendas or bury cited, sourced information of notability. Nor does Wikipedia belong to one editor dictating to others

-

That's an incredibly ironic edit summary considering that you are the one who is doing these things. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NPR/FOX Labeling

For some reason, someone deleted notable factual information from the page. NPR has requested that Fox not identify Juan as an employee based on controversial statements he has made when he is on the O'rielly talk show as a pundit. It is very well sourced:http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html It made the mainstream media: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/media/16williams.html It was blogged about by both both liberals : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/npr-tells-fox-news-please_n_166467.html and conservatives: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/02/12/too-conservative-npr-veep-urges-juan-williams-drop-his-npr-affiliation-o If you feel it should be re-worded than do that, but don't delete notable, true, and sourced information.. Otherwise it is clear you have an agenda 24.207.226.182 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the information about the NPR/Fox labeling controversy--I moved it to the FNC paragraph of the Career section. Something like that didn't deserve its own section.--Drrll (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. The way you have it now the article gives no context as to why he is considered so controversial that NPR doesn't want him identified as part of their organization. Especially since that editors like yourself have edited out all of the criticism of williams. To just slip it in between under his regular career info hurts the article. 10:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.20 (talk)

If you can show that this received major news coverage, then maybe it could go into its own section. I've added the controversial quote from him that triggered the move into the article to give a better context. Drrll (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling his remarks "bigoted" is POV. I changed it to "the following". I considered "controversial" and would not object to that. 208.115.147.16 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We should also add That Juan Williams claims that he was fired for stating his oppinion. We should also note the double standard and that NPR islying in the name of pc, as Nina Tottenberg does the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams was a news analyst for NPR, while Nina Totenberg is a legal affairs correspondent. There is a difference in how these positions are allowed and expected to practice journalism, as there is a distinction between being a reporter of the news and a commentator about current events and public policy. Fox has blended the perspective of new analyst to include commentator whereas, NPR makes an attempt to clarify the distinctions. Edunoramus (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes--Juan Williams was a news analyst, while Nina Totenberg is a correspondent/reporter. Analysts are expected to give their analysis, while reporters are expected to simply report. Yet Totenberg regularly provides not only analysis, but sharp-edged commentary on Inside Washington. NPR held Williams to a strict standard, while allowing Totenberg enormous latitude. Drrll (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I say, find a reliable source making the Totenberg-double-standard point, so that it isn't original research, and then it would belong in the article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This article states that NPR relationship began in 1999. It does not state that the Fox relationship was already in place (see Fox bio page stating he started working with Fox in 1997). The effect of this omission suggests that NPR was surprised when he went to work for Fox when they actually knew of his relationship going in and were surprised when Fox began to identify him as someone affiliated with NPR. GageParker (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing information about Williams' personal life

The text currently reads:

Personal life

Williams has a son, Tony, who was Senate page and intern for Senator Strom Thurmond from 1996 to 1997, a speechwriter and legislative correspondent for Senator Norm Coleman from 2004 to 2006, and in 2006 ran for Council of the District of Columbia, losing to Tommy Wells. Williams also has another son, Raffi, who is currently studying journalism and playing lacrosse at Haverford college in PA.

I imagine that there was at least one woman - and possibly more - involved in the production of these two sons. He may be/have been married. If the article states what sport one of his sons plays at college, the article should at least identify the woman/women with have assisted Williams in becoming a father... Davidpatrick (talk)

He has a wife as of Oct.20th 2010, she is referenced in the NPR Article: NPR Ends Williams' Contract. The very last line reads "Reached late Wednesday night, Williams said he wasn't ready to comment and was conferring with his wife about the episode." Sorry to say I don't have time to track down more information. --CygnetFlying (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction regarding archiving

Somewhere along the line a number of recent threads (some less than a few days old) were deleted along with material that had been moved into the archive, most likely unintentionally. I have restored this more recent discussion. My edit summary had said I'd be rearchiving, but I didn't need to do so as the stuff from 2007-2008 was correctly saved, it was just stuff from October 2010 that had fallen into the abyss. 23skidoo (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you showing up to help out after being away since June, but the discussion you "restored" above did not take place on this page but on User talk:Davidpatrick. It was moved here without agreement by Davidpatrick, and doesn't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have to say, you've shown a bit of bad judgment restoring a thread from a year ago that claims Williams was the subject of a "sex scandal". We really don't need that kind of thing on a BLP talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed and removed. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you were so fast on the ball, I was unable to reply to you in time to prevent your reverting. Here is my explanation which you requested. 1) I am writing as an Administrator. Please do not confuse my temporary hiatus from Wikipedia for business reasons with a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia procedures.

2) I am restoring the archiving of recent discussion because it is simply not acceptable to archive recent discussions. Archiving old discussions from 2007-2008 is fine. But not discussions from October 2010. There is no space issue. And you cannot archive discussions just because you don't like the content. One of the things you objected to contains a link to the Washington Post with content therein that exactly matches what you are objecting to!

3) You have complained that the recent post which is another reason you gave for archiving today's discussion was not what you wanted to see on the Talk Page as you explain that it arose from some text posted on your Talk Page and that of another editor. However there is a notice on your own Talk Page that says "As long as the entire discussion is preserved intact, I am generally flexible and open to a change of venue from one user talk page to another, or from a user talk page to an article or project talk page if it is deemed appropriate." (My emphasis)

4) I have checked the Talk Pages and recent histories for both you and Davidpatrick and I notice that he placed several comments on your Talk Page that are no longer there nor are they in your recent Talk Page archives.

5) Davidpatrick has placed the entire set of exchanges between you (apart from the comments purged from your own Talk Page) on the Talk Page of the article. His comments apart from a brief preamble explaining why he has placed the exchange here is all about the Juan Williams article and therefore completely appropriate on this Talk Page.

6) Please do not delete text posted on this Talk Page or archive recent text. That is not allowed, unless it is clearly unrelated to the topic at hand. Thank you. 23skidoo (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to Wikipedia after a four month absence to restore old discussions from a year ago claiming that Juan Williams was involved in a "sex scandal" (he wasn't), and for restoring an off-topic discussion that was made on a user talk page and moved here without my permission. I should also thank you for restoring personal attacks and for disrupting the talk page. I am not at all clear how you could possibly justify restoring this material on this talk page. Looking above, I see that you have bizarrely attempted to claim that I "deemed it appropriate" for my words to be moved here from another talk page, when in fact, I have stated repeatedly, I have not. I also fail to understand why a discussion from a year ago falsely accusing a BLP like Mr. Williams of a "sex scandal" was restored here. The Washington Post link is already in the article and the thread serves no purpose whatsoever here, so your argument for including it here makes no sense. Could you please address these issues directly in your response? Until you do, I will remove the content per BLP and my expressed wishes not to have my own words moved here from another page per my edit page notice, and the fact that it is not up to User:Davidpatrick to move my comments here, but requires the agreement of both parties. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Time for contentfork

Forgive me if this has already done, but is it time to WP:CONTENTFORK the recent NPR firing? NickCT (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think so. It's only two paragraphs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Well, do you not think the story itself would meet WP:NOTABLE? NickCT (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be undue weight. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Weight given to sourced important matters that Williams himself acknowledged & apologized for

The matter of sexual harassment is important and should not be belittled. Nor of course should it be given undue weight. This is a BLP article. User Nuclear Warfare has deleted text that is completely supported by the sources - the primary source being the Washington Post itself - Williams' employer. With all due respect, I think this user (and others) should engage in discussion about the matter, which we can do in a civil manner without getting into an edit war. Williams had the courage to acknowledge and apologize for aspects of his behavior. (I for one think this speaks to his courage - but my personal view is not important.) Whether the behavior happened yesterday or two decades ago is not the pertinent point. We need to evaluate the veracity of the text - which is very easy to do and is supported by the sources. And then evaluate its importance and how prominent or tucked away the matter should be in this article. Is sexual harassment (whether verbal or physical) important? How are incidents like this handled on other articles of BLP? This is NOT an ideological matter. Personally, I think it is a matter of sensitivity about respect for women. Please let's have a civil dialogue about this and work together to achieve consensus. Davidpatrick (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean that the section needs to be puffed up as much as possible when a few sentences will cover it fairly. NW (Talk) 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to please explain why stating information from the Washington Post's own report of the matter is "puffing up" the topic? Is verbal sexual harassment not that important? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is verbal sexual harassment not that important?

A multi-faceted query and hardly susceptible to a one-size-fits-all response. Contextual considerations, eg. the precise nature of the alleged harrassment, frequency of occurences, breadth of occurences, record of conduct objections raised, prior responses to any raised objections and on and on and on must all be considered in rendering a judgement...but judgements, indeed, WERE made inre Juan Williams...and by those who are most expected to be both privy to and responsive to the saliency of the admitted misconduct.

What I don't see thus far in this discussion is an acknowledgement that, for apparently 9 more years, Mr. Williams remained in the employ of The Washington Post and was then, I assume, found to be of adequate character for subsequent employment by PBS...sooooo...returning to your question...

Is verbal sexual harassment not that important?

Apparently not important enough inre Juan Williams to preclude and additional 9 years with The Washington Post and subsequent employment by PBS. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Previously, the issue of verbal harassment consumed more space than any other thing in the article except for the NPR firing, and the firing has garnered far more coverage in the media than the verbal harassment. Drrll (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are incidents less important if they happened in the pre-internet era? If a lot of the extensive coverage in media at the time of a story happened before the internet era and not all of it is available to be instantly accessed online the way present-day stories are accessible online - does that render those incidents less important? Or do we determine importance by evaluation of the facts and the gravity of the topic as reported in the available sources? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did a Lexis-Nexis search on the two incidents from 'Major World Publications'--non-internet published sources--and there were 3 times as many references to the NPR firing over the period of 1 week vs. a couple of months for the verbal harassment. Also, there are fewer published sources now than in 1991. For a point of reference, the charge of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones consumes less space in his enormous WP article than what you had for the much smaller Juan Williams article. And that was a charge against a president, was a far more serious charge, and it went through multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. Drrll (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting after the request at the BLPN - The section as added by User:Davidpatrick looks unduly reported and the resulting undue weight to it in the article should be avoided. Excessive reporting on such content negatively portrays living people. WP:NPOV - Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and the requirement that BLPs be written conservatively, I left in the salient fact, and removed the problematic statements of opinion etc. When in doubt, just list the facts. Collect (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NW, Collect, Off2riorob, and Drrll. Given that this is a BLP, I've restored the somewhat more conservative version by NW. Cool Hand Luke 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I also support Collect's even more conservative version, but I think that NW's is a better starting point than the prior subheading. Cool Hand Luke 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect I disagree and judging by the actions of another editor, I am not alone in thinking that the very abbreviated version is not the right way to go. But I believe we should discuss this civilly on this talk page rather than engage in reversion wars. So please let's have that discussion and work towards civil agreement. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes , I support the well trimmed version, we are not here to attack living people, a simple comment is plenty for NPOV. Its not really attacking but that is the result of excessive weight of reporting such additions.Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only is no one (that I can see) advocating attacking living people (I appreciate you dialing that back) but I don't agree that that is the result of what you describe as "excessive weight of reporting" that I (and at least one other editor) feel is calm reporting of impeccably sourced facts about an important matter that is otherwise swept under the carpet. Let's please discuss this. First of all - let's please look at how a similar matter (not identical) is handled at Bill O'Reilly (commentator). And that is an article that is very closely monitored for BLP issues by multiple issues. Davidpatrick (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the one you has reverted this section more than once, not me, David.

I think a case handled privately at Williams' workplace with no lawsuit and no termination is much, much less notable than your new example (and an order of magnitude less so than Bill Clinton). And that's before considering that this article is only half as long as O'Reilly's. It's simply undue weight to cover a workplace decision in such detail when the sources on Williams do not support such weight. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What one finds in another article is not binding on consensus here at all. The controversy is mentioned properly here, and that is how BLPs should handle such stuff. Collect (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately no one has advocated that what one finds in "another" article should be BINDING on consensus here. So we don't have to address that particular point. Unless we all feel that we have supreme wisdom and cannot possibly learn from studying other examples, then it would seem reasonable to DISCUSS the merits or otherwise of what is done in other comparable articles. The BLP "policing" is very strict on the O'Reilly article for obvious reasons. And yet a solitary incident is given approximately 140 words with a section sub-heading. Are those who police that article for BLP violations all blind? Is Wikipedia lacking editors who might wish to minimize an incident affecting a person with such a strong following? Or is it just that editors with different perceptions of BLP interpret the policy differently and feel that it would be un-encyclopedic to try to condense such a serious matter into a couple of lines? I think it would be productive and helpful to have this discussion - the better to improve this article. Davidpatrick (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez. The admitted misconduct was handled administratively by the Washington Post and Williams continued his employment (with some distinction I assume) for another 9 years there. We don't need chapter and verse on what rose to nothing more than a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned. The single sentence offered is, IMHO, appropriate and adequate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly has worked on at Fox News for 6 years so far since his solitary incident, and that incident is not buried into one sentence. You say the matter was "nothing more than a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned". Thank you kindly for making my point for me. If that's all it was - and it HAD been settled "to the satisfaction of all concerned" then you would be absolutely correct. One sentence would be just fine. But that's the problem of hastily deleting things. If you had read the following text from the official report published in the Washington Post (one of the sources) you will see that it was MUCH MORE than "a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned"

A letter to the Post's Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. signed by 116 newsroom employees said: "We feel Juan's unrefuted false statements to the national media continue to cause anguish and professional harm to the women involved. They have also left many people inside and outside The Post with the impression that either the complaints were not serious or were not taken seriously." [6] [7]

Does that sound like "nothing more than a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned"?

No, you're right. It doesn't sound like that at all... Which is why we have this Talk Page to DISCUSS a balanced way to document this in a way consistent with BLP - yet not airbrushing history for any reason... Davidpatrick (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Look,... and then nothing at all happened. Nothing ... at all. He didn't lose his job or get charged with anything at all in fact he continued in extended employment with the company offering a new contract. Its not a matter of airbrushing but more a case of NPOV and BLP not to add excessive commentary about such minor issues so as that it affects the life of a living person in a undue and possibly detrimental manner. As I see it we are requested as per guidelines as regards living subjects to err on the side of caution. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You have written "and then nothing at all happened. Nothing ... at all. He didn't lose his job or get charged with anything at all in fact he continued in extended employment with the company offering a new contract."

Thank you. You have just described exactly what also happened with Bill O'Reilly. And notwithstanding the fact that HIS subsequent professional life has continued with the same employer - the article on HIM nonetheless reports the facts that were made public at the time. Their relevance in O'Reilly's life - and thus his Wikipedia article - are not whether the incident resulted in job loss. But that it was a matter of record - reported at the time it happened. Many people - especially women do not regard sexual harassment (be it physical or verbal) as a "minor issue". As the Washington Post story about 116 employees complaining to the Executive Editor (see above) made clear.

The editors of the Bill O'Reilly article - a very similar (though not identical) subject - have made an entirely different call on this point. They are just as bound by BLP as we are. Why not try to reduce the content about Bill O'Reilly's incident to a single sentence and see what reaction you get? You know what would happen. I would appreciate it if you and others would engage in constructive dialogue about why we should not follow the example of the O'Reilly article in documenting this important matter. Carefully of course. But not air-brushing an important matter into a solitary dismissive sentence. Thank you. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not describe the Bill O'Reilly matter. Allegations against Bill O'Reilly were not handled as an internal administrative matter—they were resolved in a settled lawsuit. It was also more widely reported. Hell, it has its own article.

This is an encyclopedia, which means we give matters weight that reliable published sources have given them—we are not in the business of deciding this weight for ourselves on the basis of how "serious" we imagine the situation is. Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems likely that it would have never made the news at all if he hadn't written that column. It's interesting for that reason, and important to note, but a play-by-play is UNDUE. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No disrespect - but the MANNER in which something egregious comes to light is not the determinative factor as to its import. If one of the people breaking into the DNC HQ at the Watergate hadn't made a foolish error, we might never have known the entire undertakings of the Nixon White House - but that is an incidental point. The fact that it was Williams' column defending Clarence Thomas that brought to light his own behavior - including disciplinary action and his apology - is an interesting sidebar - but not more important than what it led to revealing. A play-by-play would be overdoing it. Noting that it happened, that Williams made an apology and that 116 employees stated on record that his apology and statements did not address the gravity of the situation - is not "play-by-play". It's fair reportage. Conveying less than that is diminishing the import of the matter. It's un-encyclopedic. Just ask the editors of the Bill O'Reilly article. Please take the time to respond to these points. I think it would be constructive. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Davidpatrick, please take a look at WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources. For our purposes in 2010, the sources you are relying from the time of the event are primary. This presents a problem, as you are the one asserting importance, not the secondary sources. I've restored the consensus version at this time. Please don't continue adding this material into the article until there is support on the talk page. Exclusion is the default position in BLP articles, not inclusion. Instead of reverting against consensus, please start an article RFC to invite more editors to comment. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rick Santorum video

I am watching a video of Rick Santorum speaking in Janesville, WI. He mentions a conversation with Juan Williams where Juan says, 'Let me tell you what the White House just told me. We beleive Americans love entitlements. And once we get them hooked on this entitlement we will have tthem hooked.' Can someone verify that Williams actually said that? That the White House actually said that? Or was it taken out of context? Thanks. Mylittlezach (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Black Conservative

There is no mention of him being a Black conservative?

I would say he tries to be a moderate liberal; certainly he is not a conservative. --DeYoung9 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fox News Sunday - Aug. 24,2013

Juan, I totally agree with everything you said on this program. It's refreshing to hear such candor. The questions I come up with are: 1.How did we get into such a problem with the poor. 2. What are the possible solutions. 3. How can we get the race batters, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Faricon (sp), and the NAACP to be positive instead of negative?

Carl Wortley 416 E Del Rio DR Tempe, Az. 85282 anncawort@cox.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.67.250 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Juan Williams. 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/20080629044245/http://lafayette.edu:80/news.php/view/12236 to http://www.lafayette.edu/news.php/view/12236

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} 06:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ethnicity

He's Hispanic, not black. Panama is not an African country. Learn geography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.9.224 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

About a tenth of Panama's population has significant African ancestry due to the importation of slaves. Williams also self-identifies as black and many of his books relate to African American history and/or culture. Learn to verify your own assumptions before criticizing others. 98.166.113.124 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Juan Williams. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/about/press/000127.jwilliams.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/about/press/010817.jwilliams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110191805/http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3002&fID=345 to http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3002&fID=345

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)