Talk:Maureen Dowd

Whose Line

No mention of her appearance on Whose Line Is It Anyway?

Footnote 7 is Incorrect

That is a "political humor" article. It does not give any corroboration or evidence that President Bush actually calls Dowd "the Cobra" any more than it gives evidence that he calls Karl Rove "Turd Blossom." The fact that another site has an unsubstantiated claim (that appears simply to be humorous) does not justify including it in an encyclopedia.

Wrong. Footnote 7 is correct. Here is a citation of the ultimate - as opposed to a secondary - source. [1]

Ghost Writing for Dowd

Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?

Retrieved from "http://journalism.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Current_events"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614175414/http://www.utexas.edu/supportut/news_pub/yg_dowd-davislecture.html to http://www.utexas.edu/supportut/news_pub/yg_dowd-davislecture.html

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) 18:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522131149/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/182785-1/Maureen+Dowd.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/182785-1/Maureen+Dowd.aspx

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) 10:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

I've removed the "Criticism" section from the article. Such sections are magnets for any and all disparaging opinions, and so are unsuitable for BLPs in the first place. This one also had undue reliance on partisan bloggers as well as improper synthesis of various opinion pieces. Feel free to re-add pertinent criticisms with appropriate references to reliable, secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2, 2015 article

IMHO the paragraph about the May 2, 2015, article is too long, at 320 words. Isn't there a guideline suggesting something shorter? It feels like one would need a separate section for something that detailed. It also feels like the paragraph is more about the ER issue than about the journalist.--Gciriani (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thurman

• North, Anna (February 5, 2018). "Uma Thurman is telling her #MeToo story. Was Maureen Dowd the right messenger?". Vox. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
• Stevens, Heidi (February 5, 2018). "The problem with Maureen Dowd's Uma Thurman column, and why it matters". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 10, 2019.

There was secondary source coverage of her Uma Thurman piece, so worth incorporating in some form. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Drezner's comments

Hi @Snooganssnoogans: I noticed that you reverted my removal of Prof. Drezner's comments, within a minute of my edit. I really do think that the quote seems out of place. The comment is not specifically about Dowd's op-ed, but rather the inaccurate qualification of Trump as a dovish president, perpetuated by many writers and political analysts. Plus, the language seems to be quite informal and frankly I don't see why including a comment like "But dear God, it would be nice" or his particular anger for the opinion, contributes to the article in any shape. Citing other parts of Drezner's op-ed, like the comments about Syria and NK, seems much more suitable.

– Demoxica (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about which parts of Drezner's piece get cited, except that the text makes it perfectly clear that he is an expert on the topic and he rejects that Trump has been a dove. After edits by Tbobbed[2], Drezner is no longer cited in any form whatsoever, and the text misleadingly claims that "critics of Trump's foreign policy" dispute Dowd's characterization. These are experts on foreign policy, not "Trump critics". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There's at least a couple of problems with the inclusion of the Drezner material. Before I changed it, the heading of the section was about the (supposedly) misogynistic nature of Dowd's treatment of women in politics. A paragraph of extended criticism of the view that Hillary was more hawkish than Trump didn't really fit in with that theme. It was also a bit of a "coatrack": a way of getting in some criticism of Trump when Dowd is the subject of the article. In addition, it was also written three years ago (January 2018) only a year into Trump's term. Just how hawkish did Trump's presidency turn out to be? I'm not a big fan of his, but the fact of the matter is that there were far fewer U.S. combat deaths than in the previous four Presidential terms [3] Tbobbed (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Dowd's Education

She received a Master's in English Literature from Columbia in 2023. Kdotlamar39 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead Biden "Coup?"

In the introduction, it is claimed she lead the so-called "Coup" of Biden dropping out of the 2024 Presidential Primary. Setting aside whether or not "coup" is accurate here, what evidence is there that she had any significant role in Biden's decision, much less lead it? I suggest deleting the sentence.~~ 206.208.133.25 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It was added a few hours ago with this edit, with no secondary sourcing. I've removed it. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

She was one of the first nationally published writers to call for Biden to leave the ticket following the debate, then referred to Biden being convinced to leave the ticket as a coup. The sentence was accurate, and the proof was in the 2 references articles that were published nationally in a paper of record. 50.35.70.145 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)