Talk:Juan Williams

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[2][3][4] 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)

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)