Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column

Joe Klein's 21st November 2007 Time magazine column

This article does not meet WP:NOTE; it is little more than a collection of columns responding to the column that is the subject of the "article" Unschool (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "blogosphere" blowback, by the looks of it. There are a lot of things wrong with the article, but when it comes down to it, the column simply isn't notable. Make a mention of it on Joe Klein if absolutely necessary. Lankiveil (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time is a major magazine. All of its articles will receive close scrutiny and this one is no different. Article violates WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lankiveil--

I like the way you so blithely dismiss the fact that between 4 and 20 million people now -- thanks to Klein and his editors -- believe that Democrats are "terrorist-coddling national security losers." Shouldn't such prominently placed inaccuracies/misstatements like these be described as such? But never mind that, you must be very busy -- so busy that you can't even be bothered to identify the "lot of things [that are] wrong with the article...." I do recall asking for input on the article; I guess that I should have been more specific and asked for constructive criticism.

User:Unschool-- About the piece being "little more than a collection of columns...": If it wasn't structured like that, then you would be accusing me of engaging in original research.

So please allow me to repeat -- but rephrase -- my request: I would greatly appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to precisely show what needs improvement. Potshots from the peanut gallery are neither welcome nor desired.

--NBahn (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that every one of Time's readers agree with him (because in bold print the article says this is how many people read the magazine)? TJ Spyke 07:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will they know that the principle paragraph in Klein's column is not just false but flagrantly false? (Or, put another way, how many of them will see on the internet the sources that I cited?)<br. />

--NBahn (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place for saying if someone is lying or telling the truth. TJ Spyke 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. Since this is a US based topic (and the original column appeared in the main US-based Time Magazine), the article title should use US date format(i.e. it should be Joe Klein's November 21, 2007 Time magazine column) and the internal dates should also use US dating. None of this will matter though if the article gets deleted. TJ Spyke 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So wikipedia does not sort fact from fiction? I must have missed that particular memo. I don't suppose that you would be kind enough to provide a source for that now, would you?<br. />

--NBahn (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nbahn, to the best of my knowledge, you and I have never met up on any issue in the past. Accordingly, I find it somewhat presumptuous of you to tell me how I would react to a situation that I never had to confront. Even I don't know for sure how I would act in the situation you describe.

Having said that, what constructive criticism can I offer? Frankly, I have some serious issues with the layout. Unless an article is actually a "list", and titled as such, then it should be compiled in a prose format. An article written appropriately is something that I can read to someone else, and they will be able to follow the article's flow. But this article has no flow, because it does not have one sentence which follows another. It's just not stylistically correct.

But that really is a moot point, and one that I shouldn't belabor, because, most importantly, I think that the article fails to meet the standards of notability. Even if you wrote this in the most flowing prose, I'd still've probably nominated it for deletion. Klein is a columnist. His job is to provoke thought and even controversy within the political dialogue in America. And other columnists often respond to and rebut their fellow columnists' articles. I started regularly reading political columns over thirty years ago, and this just seems perfectly ordinary to me, Nbahn. I just don't see any notability.

I admire the huge amount of work you put into this. I know that it hurts to have others denigrate your efforts. But don't mistake that for denigrating you. Anyone willing to put that much work into an attempt at an article will surely have good things to bring to this encyclopedia. With more time and experience, you'll someday probably look back at this discussion and better understand what is being said here. Good luck. Unschool (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Nbahn, I also realize that I may sound a bit patronizing. I don't mean to be. It's just that I realize that I'm still relatively inexperienced as a Wikipedian, with only a little over 5000 edits, compared to many of these people that have tens of thousands of edits. I'm still learning. And you—you have less than 100 main space edits. You still have a lot to pick up; I hope that that fact makes you eager to learn, not angry and resentful. Unschool (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unschool--<br. />

So if I understand you correctly -- and I'm far from certain that I do -- then what you're saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for a noted columnist at one of the country's most infuential news magazines to promote flagrant falsehoods &/or lie through his teeth. I thought that yellow journalism was supposed to have died out generations ago. The truth is supposed to be identified as the truth, and a lie is supposed to be identified as a lie. Has political discourse in this country so deteriorated that journalists are expected to lie based upon their respective publication's political leanings? That is as vile as it is corrupt.

--NBahn (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that at all. However I must say that this encyclopedia is not the place to hash out such a partisan issue. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is to maintain a Neutral Point of View. And you don't really want a "neutral" article, do you? You're upset about this. Hard to write neutrally in such a state. Unschool (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joe Klein. While most of the article is a rambling brain dump of the issue at hand, there doesn't seem to be an actual article anywhere within all of the information provided. A very limited subsection of the contents here should be merged to the author article and addressed there in a more coherent fashion. Alansohn (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I boil all of it down to a sentence or two? Because that's all that the folks there will allow because of disproportionate weight issues.

--NBahn (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]