Talk:George Will

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

--216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)I want to know the source of the assertion that George F. Will stole Jimmy Carter's debate notebooks.

President Carter stated this in an interview on NPR's show Fresh air. The interview can be searched for and downloaded at; [1]. I don't have real player installed so I can't give you the exact interview (there are several with Carter). Also I will try find a reference link for the article page.
Duk 18:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I miss heard this, President Carter did not say that Will was the actual thief, but he was at least an accessory. He knowingly used the stolen material.
Duk 15:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added the more basic point that Will was helping Reagan prepare for the debate, then went on TV as a supposedly objective journalist to praise Reagan's performance. It would be good to add something about the knowing use of stolen material, but only if we can present undisputed facts and/or suitably attributed allegations. JamesMLane 08:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Carter/FreshAir reference notes that George Will was the middle man who received the stolen material from a White house employee and brought it to the Reagan campaign, in addition to coaching Regan for the debate (0:28:30 into the interview). I had and added the reference earlier but someone deleted it. President Carter interview, Fresh Air, Thursday - October 21, 2004 Duk 13:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "liberal media watchdog" changed

That Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting is a "liberal media watchdog" is a biased opinion and not a fact, it was stated as a fact. Their site does not uphold the previous claim and neither does the Wikipedia entry for the group. "some conservative critics of FAIR contend it is a liberal organization with a strictly anti-conservative bias." As with any article always use a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view. Write as if the information is a non-judgmental news article.

Kaylus 12:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have changed this back to a "liberal media watchdog". NPOV should not be used as a shield against exposing an organizations political affiliations. If, as you said, an article should be written with a NPOV, then either the words "liberal" needs to be associated with the source FAIR or the item taken from FAIR should be removed as the source is widely considered to hold liberal leanings and is not considered neutral. Or maybe we could write "A media watchdog group whom many moderates and conservatives consider liberal, Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting...". Of course, that would be ridiculous.--MrFluff 06:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I’ve deleted the “Controversy” section entirely for two reasons. First, an encyclopedia article about an author should present what defines the man (or woman) and his/her ideas. The “controversies” in question might belong in a biography, but certainly are not among the key elements that should appear in an article as brief as this one. Second, much of the criticism leveled in the controversy section appears on its face biased. For instance, it appeared to criticize Mr. Will for being an unabashed admirer of Ronald Regan. Mr. Will, after all, writes opinion pieces, not news articles. The function of formulating and expressing opinions about public figures and their policies is the essence of his job – and contrary to current custom, critical opinions are no more objective, and no more professional, than expressions of admiration. In another instance, Mr. Will was criticized for being a partisan speech writer turned commentator. Certainly there is a time honored tradition of political partisans from both camps, from Peggy Noonan to – George Stephanopoulos, making the transition from political insider to commentator. Mr. Will wears his conservative sympathies openly in his writing and his commentaries, and does not hold himself out to be an “objective observer.” Later, Mr. Will was criticized for his actions in an incident involving Jimmy Carter. Yet Mr. Carter seems to have withdrawn his accusations. Finally, Mr. Will is criticized for not always fully revealing his personal relationship to a story. These points may be well taken, but they hardly seem to rise to the level of gravity that define the career in queston. They were not events that launched, characterized or ended a career – such as Dan Rather’s debacle with the Col. Killian / Air National Guard story, which effectively ended his career. In short, the article is a crisper, more accurate, professional portrayal of Mr. Will’s career without the “Controversy” section. MrLosGatos 08:11, 25 December 2005

[edit] Will's Politics

I'm too new here to be comfortable editing, but shouldn't the intro here at least identify Will as "conservative"? Also, some of the most interesting aspects of his writing over the last five or so years are 1) his growing disenchantment with the GOP's abandonment of small-government conservative principles (e.g. his attacks on No Child Left Behind), 2) his open ideological hostility to neoconservatism from a Reagan-era conservative (or perhaps paleo-conservative) perspective, 3) his related ambivalence to the Iraq war (that Counterpouch link is really dated by events), and 4) a contempt for anti-intellectual social-conservatism (e.g. Creationists) that is as deep as any Ivy League prof. Really, his frustration with the Bush abandonment of GOP principles is like a mirror to progressive frustration in the 90s with Clinton's abandonment of liberal principles. 171.159.64.10 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Bert

This is a tough question to answer. To start, read WP:NPOV and then WP:CITE --Duk 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if he's ever used that term to describe himself, but it's widely accepted as conventional wisdom on all sides that Will is a conservative. I think it's a point that's uncontroversial enough (and supported by the other information in the article, like his reverence for Reagan, his writing for the National Review, and his working on a Republican senator's staff) to warrant boldly adding it to the lead -- and I just did. Andrew Levine 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I removed a link to a piece of criticism. The off-site work was simply a scattershot polemic. Better to keep notations of criticism on-site with references. --216.64.89.122 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not Wikipedia practice. We frequently link to "off-site" criticisms, especially of controversial figures. We don't need to link to every unfavorable piece, and this particular article isn't necessarily among the best that could be found, but we should keep the link unless and until it's replaced by something better. JamesMLane t c 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] degree?

Last I checked, you don't get a degree in "politics." Someone confirm whether or not that's political science?

[edit] why is it conservatives have critical items but liberals don't?

hummmmmm.....--69.37.39.147 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • hummmmmmm....because Wikipedia is biased and part of the liberal media. What nonsense - do you think there are no articles on liberals that have criticism? Get real. 69.37.39.147 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion. Irrelevant and meant to provoke internet fight. 66.207.82.237 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I think there is definite evidence of bias in this article. The controversy section is significantly larger than the biography.

Yeah, add up the Controversy secion, the Criticism of the Bush administration section, and the last four (worthless) paragraphs of the Career in journalism section, and it's close to 90% of the text. -- Mattbrundage 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a liberal and I would agree that there is that bias. I think what is there is good, the Controversy section is now well sourced, but it would be nice to have more reporting of what G. Will stood for, too. e.g. What did he do at the National Review? By the way, though, I don't think the "criticism of the Bush Admin" is in the same category as the "controversy" in terms of "bias". There's an interesting discussion elsewhere in this 'discussion' page about how Will is an interesting sort of conservative. (Come to think of it, it makes me realize that the neo-conservative paleo-conservative polar-opposition is a little dicey.) The modern Right is an alliance of business interests and fundamental christianity, but there is an older, blue blood, more moderate breed of Republicans of which WG is a part I think. Will is (yes?) opposed to the neo-cons. His Bush bashing is a interesting aspect to the man, and it's not bias to bring it up. In fact, I came here today because of an article he wrote basically damning the Republicans' behaviour over the Foley controversy. He basically says that the Democrats deserve to win, given the mess the Republicans have made of it. http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/97426.asp Pigkeeper 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There is now no controversy section - there is no criticism of Will at all, only a section of Will's criticisms of the Bush administration, which is hardly criticism of Will. - Matthew238 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is another "just because he's conservative" controversy section. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation on criticism

It's important to include criticism of someone whose job it is to criticize. I added a reference to Eric Alterman's book "Sound and Fury" so there's some acknowledgement of outside opinion, rather than necessarily an explicit criticism of Will in the entry itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Panorama (talk • contribs).

Eric Alterman is hardly an unbiased source. If you really want to do this, don't you think you should use someone who has even a pretense of neutrality. Caper13 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Isn't his name actually George F. Will? I mean pretty much universally. Aaron Bowen 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Georgewillmeetthepress1975.jpg

Image:Georgewillmeetthepress1975.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)