Talk:Maureen Dowd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Can we have a photograph

It would be nice to add a face to this article. QUINTIX 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Videmus_Omnia. Good choice. An unattributed source 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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]

[edit] Removal of example of irreverence

I re-included "for example, referring to Donald Rumsfeld as 'Rummy'." because I felt it was important for the reader to get a quick sense of Dowd's writing style. It doesn't seem POV to me, and there can certainly be no disagreement with the underlying sentiment that she is in fact a rather flip writer (not that this is a good or a bad thing). Meelar (talk) 02:12, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Another example could be her almost constant reference to the president as "W." breaking from the Times standard of using Mr. Bush.--malber 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
But "W" and "Rummy" are used by a wider swath of the population. Some of Ms. Dowd's other given monikers tend to be used pejoratively. --JD79 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] her marital status?

yes, i'm curious about his seemingly obvious fact.

She is single and has mentioned this in her column a few times. I do think the article is somewhat POV in general. She's not as liberal as the article makes it sound. I won't edit unless I come up with specific examples.

She includes these nicknames because she is making fun of Bush's use of nicknames, including the name "Rummy"! I don't know if Bush has used the nickname Vice for Cheney.--140.247.114.34 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Dowd's marital status (she has never been married, now at age 55) seems to be of debatable factual importance to her biography as a public figure known for her opinion columns and former career as The New York Times' White House correspondent during the George H.W. Bush Administration. By "debatable," I mean a case can be made either way as to the relevance of her status as a "SWF". On the one hand, Dowd herself makes great comedic use of her dating woes in some of her columns and in her book, "Are Men Necessary?" Hence, the case can be made that Dowd has made her marital status an important part of her public persona. OTOH, it has nothing really to do with what she writes in her New York Times column, except in an oblique sort of way, in that every commentator's world view is shaped at least somewhat by their own personal perspective on life.

She has been romantically "linked" in the press to a number of celebrities, including Michael Douglas, when he was playing the title role in the 1995 movie "The American President," and with the film's writer, who went on to create the television series "The West Wing," Aaron Sorkin. And fellow Times columnist John Tierney[2] and Dowd have both admitted to a past romance, with some rather unusual details finding their way into the public domain. So "go figure," as the saying goes. Although Dowd admits to getting "lots of dates" (her words), she is famously secretive about her romantic exploits, which prompted Tierney to tell her he thought she needed to "see a shrink" (quote attributed to Dowd herself) for treating a relatively common and innocent office romance between two single adults as if it was "an affair."[3]

[edit] 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"

[edit] POV check

I've added the POV check to help balance out the article which is currently far from neutral. --Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems distinctly neutral to me. Positive: She won a pulitzer. Negative: Accusations (not assertions) of misrepresentation of quotes. Coining of 'dowdify' is a fact. Her allegedly irreverent tone is presented as a negative or a positive, depending on your outlook. I don't think there's anyway to NPOV the given information. However, if you can add some more information which you think will make for a more balanced article, then go ahead. RMoloney 10:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with RMoloney, the version posted right now seems to have achieved NPOV. I admittedly did not go back and look at all the changes that have happened since the version that was POV flagged. Can anyone cite a good reason why the POV tag should stay?--Isotope23 18:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

W most of the Wikipedia articles on current politically active people, either the first sentence, or at the very least the first paragraph, identifies their political affiliations. This one does not and Ms Dowd most definitely has a strong leaning and a very loud voice.


Who has identified Dowd as a "liberal"? What is a "liberal" anyways? Has she identified herself as one? Dowd has written "Bushworld," an unflattering portrait of the president; but that does not immediately mean that she is a supporter of whatever Bush is against. When Dowd was lambasting Pres. Clinton on a weekly basis, did that make her a conservative?

You're not going to be able to slip in the "liberal" label without some justification. --Rookkey 00:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rookkey. Her lack of official political affiliation, her criticisms of Clinton, etc. mean that there is no NPOV way of summarising her politics in one phrase. Someone who is familiar with her writings (I'm not) may like to summarise her stance on some issues (Iraq, abortion, etc.) so a reader can get an idea of her politics. RMoloney 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Check Maureen Dowd's column for January 27, 2005. She identifies herself as a member of the "liberal media elite". She does it for humor, but my interpretation is she's pretty clear in her own mind where her politics lie. YMMD

"I'm herewith resigning as a member of the liberal media elite. I'm joining up with the conservative media elite. They get paid better." --Maureen Dowd, column from January 27, 2005 with obvious sarcasm
I think the liberal tag should stay.--malber 15:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree w Malber - others in Wikipedia are identified w political labels. Consistency(?).

This is absolutely ridiculous. A political trend to label those that criticize the current administration as "liberals" is no reason to include it in an encyclopedia article. When she identified herself as the "liberal media elite", she was making fun of just that. Political labels, when they do appear on wikipedia follow the format:

"A commentator with a conservative point of view, ..." (Limbaugh) "... with a predominantly liberal point of view." (Franken)

Neither of these appears in the first sentence, and anybody familiar with her work knows that this cannot be said about Dowd. Throwing in "liberal columnist" in the first sentence describing her is absurd. --Andreyf 08:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

71.193.3.242: You have edited this article 7 times now, labeling Dowd as "radical" and "liberal". Each has been reverted by different people. From your history, it is obvious that you are making political statements all over. Please keep your opinions your own, as this kind of input is not welcome and only hurts wikipedia. Please stop. --Andrey 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you win. But IMHO the lack of consistency is equally damaging.

I think we could do without the sarcastic comment under her photo from the recent article "What's a woman to do?". In fact, the photo should probably be removed as well. But I'll leave this to someone closer to the prose.

It could have been much worse.--malber 14:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

194.215.75.17 Ann Coulter has skinnier legs than Dowd..

I'm just trying to adapt to the anglo american american dilemma discussion [4].

Links to reviews of "Are Men Necessary" were removed for several reaons. First, the links that were included were all skewed in the same direction. Second, the book has been reviewed by thousands of critics, some favorable and some not. By including links to only a few of the reviewers, those reviewers are given more weight than others. Thus, it could be construed that Wiki is endorsing the opinions of some critics but not others.

I reversed this since I do believe that all sides are represented here. Whether the book is good or excellent, the methodology is what is being analysed. Of course, Dowd never claimed to have done a serious research so it's ok to say that her "methods" are unscientific. I invite other to make a decision. Mhym 03:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


The book "Are Men Necessary?" is a personal commentary. The deleted links only pointed to the opinions of critics, not established facts, concerning the subject of this article and her work. The link to the publisher did offer a factual synopsis of the book thus I have restored it.

The work is an opinion essay. It does not cite any sources. Thus, other critical examination is highly appropriate. --malber 04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT!?

The bar photo of Dowd contains this description: "Maureen Dowd performs copious research before writing each column." Huh? What does this have to do with the photo?! What evidence is there that her research is copious? She has been caught making severe mistakes several times in her writing, and, as noted in this peice, she is notorious for using ellipses to make a quote give a different message than the original speaker/writer intended. So, this is my case for deleting this description: A. It has NOTHING to do with the photo and 2. It is NOT backed up with any other experts or fellow journalists asserting the fact, just the statement its self.

WAIT A SECOND! LOL! Is the person who said that the description was sarcastic, is this the same one? If so, LOL! That IS funny!
That people like *unsigned* above edit Wikipedia is rather depressing. 128.103.14.120 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] she is "close" to William Safire

what is the point of the sentence saying she is "allegedly close" to William Safire? it might as well just come out and say they are having an affair. better yet, i don't think speculating on who is having sex with who should be part of encyclopedia entries unless there is some basis for it.

  • it mearly shows that they have a close relationship, i.e. good friends. she has mentioned this relationship several times in her articles.Kiwidude 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
in that case could we just say they are good friends? i don't know how anyone else reads it, but i took the phrase "allegedly close" as implying an affair. since she has said that she is good friends with him, there is definitely no need for the word "allegedly". i won't make any changes unless people agree with me. RonMexico 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If she has stated this in her column, these artilces should be cited as references for this remark. --malber 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do a search in the NYT and you'll find itKiwidude 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps since you know that she mentioned it in her column, you could be so kind as to find it and include the reference in the article. --malber 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very well. Kiwidude 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The part of this section that deals with the criticism of Are Men Necessary? should be tightened up. I feel that the reactions of other journalists and pundits are extrememly relevant. We have plenty of referrences, but this section should say more than "See review article..." or "See so-and-so's take here...." This is asking the reader to go somewhere else for the content when these responses can be paraphrased here and referenced with inline citations or footnotes. --malber 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of references was moved to the reference section.


I posted three links to criticisms of Maureen's work: "Are men necessary." Two of the links were critical of the book. One of them was in defense of the book. They were deleted with the only explanation, "non-notable criticism." That does not seem a valid reason to delete the comments. I am replacing the content deleted, and invite discussion of the subject.

For future ease of reference, here is the content in question: Dowd's book entitled Are Men Necessary? was regarded by some as anti-male, and self-obsessed. See e.g. http://fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml ; http://www.john-ross.net/maureen.htm In response to the second article, Salon columnist Rebecca Traister published an article defending Dowd's book. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2005/11/28/expiration_date/index.htm Nathaniel

[edit] Liberal tag

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Maureen Dowd (and Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this? WBcoleman 09:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This has already been addressed on this discussion page. Just because Maureen Dowd loathes George W. Bush doesn't make her a "liberal". She despises Bill Clinton and relentlessly attacked him in print for years...does that automatically make her a "conservative"? And Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, and Limbaugh are undeniably and proudly conservative, and therefore should be described in that way.Hal Raglan 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

hear hear!Kiwidude 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"both conservative and liberal sources" implies that all book reviewers fall into one of these two convenient categories. take out the "both"

Her writing is undeniably polemic. The sources makes reference to particular publications which are known or implied to have a political slant either left or right (e.g. Village Voice vs. The Wall Street Journal). The phrase is there to state that criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum were generally negative and wasn't necessarily bias from a political perspective. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Australia

Maureen Dowd is currently in Australia, promoting her book. She is quoted in both the Melbourne and Sydney broadsheets as saying she's looking for an Aussie bloke. Remarks that, at the age of 20, she fell in love with an Aussie expat while in Dublin. Thought this is an interesting take on her personality. (--previous unsigned comment by 202.44.183.77 (talk · contribs))

I wouldn't take it too seriously. For the most part, Americans are enamored of Australian culture (see "Myths and contradictions" section), and it sounds like she's just being friendly. —Viriditas | Talk 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dowdify - msg to raglan

I'm the guy who corrected it from the original "dowdification" to "dowdify" (which gives hundreds more hits on a web search). You claim conservative bloggers use the term. I don't read blogs and I've heard it/read it many times (first learned it in Newsweek). Suggest the "conservative bloggers" line you seem to favor so much be NPOV'd.

Thanks for writing, anonymous. If, as you claim, you've heard/read the word "many times", and you don't read blogs, I would imagine it should be extremely easy for me to locate numerous usages of the word in reliable, non-blog, non-partisan sources on the internet. I just did a Google search of "dowdify Newsweek" and, after ten pages, found nothing that links directly to any article that ever appeared in that magazine with that particular term. (I'm not saying such an article does not exist, just that I couldn't find it in my admittedly cursory search.) A search of just "dowdify" leads to numerous pages of links to rightwing bloggers and editorialists, with sites such as bushsupporter.org and www.gopbloggers.org. I could find nothing to suggest that this word has become common parlance outside the conservative punditocracy. The way you want the sentence to read implies that it has become accepted as a "real" commonly used word, which it clearly has not. However, since my search revealed that its not just conservative bloggers but also conservative editorialists who use the term, I will make a modest change in the article reflecting this. At any rate, if the reference to "dowdify" remains in the article, its important to note what (small) percentage of the population utilizes the term. I don't understand why you seem to believe there's a POV problem with that. Hal Raglan 03:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

HOKAY. You're being reasonable, I'll return the favor. Let it stand.24.10.102.46 05:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Msg to raglan. I did a quick and better search of my own. I have to agree, most of the hits were conservative blogs, but I also got some that could have been ANYTHING (the word is used on a couple of blogs that discusss things like: the New York Yankees, and blogging definitions). By taking off the limit and going to the back of the list I got a couple of "maybe" liberal and one definitely liberal sites. http://experts.about.com/e/m/ma/Maureen_Dowd.htm I don't want to get into heavy research, so I'll just point out two things and leave the actual decision to you. 1) Maureen Dowd identified herself as a liberal a few years (months?) ago. 2) At least one (neutral?) dictionary specifically identifies "dowdify/dowdification" as being used by writers/blogger/etc. of BOTH persuaions.

Your call.

Thanks for doing continuing research on this. If it takes the two of us multiple searches thru Google to find any use of the word beyond the world of conservative bloggers/pundits, I think that proves my point that it really isn't a particularly well-accepted term. I still believe the sentence should simply stay the way it is. Hal Raglan 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another msg to Raglan: Just did another google search on "dowdify". You might want to do it yourself and reevaluate your decision on whether to include it. Got a LOT more hits than last time and several were definitely liberal, and maybe liberal MSM. Have fun. And thanks67.174.53.196 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on your recommendation, I just did a quick Google check of "dowdify". The first two hits were to blogs (www.brookesnews.com [conservative] and truthintaylor.blogspot.com [unknown]). The third hit was to the wikipedia entry on Ms. Dowd, and wiktionary also includes the word. The rest of the first twenty results were all conservative blogs. I stand by my edit. My point still is the same: "Dowdify" has not been accepted into the language as a commonly used word, despite unending attempts by conservatives to make it so. Google bases the listing of their results on popularity; if this term was regularly used outside of blogs/websites, it would be reflected immediately in a Google search--I wouldn't have to search thru page after page. But if you can in fact find examples from a notable mainstream source that indicates "dowdify" is used with any frequency outside of conservative blogs/websites/editorials, then edit the article and link to the source accordingly. Just make sure its a reliable source (i.e., not "Urban Dictionary").--Hal Raglan 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph removed from "Career"

I removed the following paragraph from the "Career" section:

When George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, Dowd wrote about how her well-to-do siblings were all committed pro-life social conservatives who actively supported Bush (see www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289510/posts). She said her siblings are "beyond" merely being "red" (Republican conservative), and are "crimson".

I don't feel it is particularly relevant to her career. It might be suitable to a "trivia" section that many other articles about pundits have, but I don't see it as a remarkable quote. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo OK to use?

I took out the remains of the deleted first photo. I hope that was OK to do. I think it is obvious that the article needs a new photo. As for the second photo, the info on the photo says that it is copyrighted. I don't think that it should be used on WP at all. Steve Dufour 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and took the "artistic" picture off and added her official NYT photo. Steve Dufour 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly subjective comments on her personality

"She portrays powerful women like her as victims of the male-dominant culture. For mostt part, she is dishonest when she writes about men and women relationships and her story is always one-sided. She is a loner and she longs for male friendship very badly. She hides her weakness for men by portraying men as bullies and family is something that she can live without. And then she blurts out that she will make a good wife. Thus, one can sense the frustrations of a feminist in not finding a mate of her choice"

This is highly subjective, and such POV comments should not be listed on Wikipedia.

[edit] WORST possible picture?=

OK, that picture of her is possibly the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. No wonder people attack the "liberal media,"--- they're horrified with its grotesqueness!

Presumably, this is an example of "conservative" "thinking". It comments rather pithily on itself, I do believe.
That said, it's also correct in one point, at least: that is a truly horrible picture. If I weren't trying so hard to practice WP:AGF, why, I might even suspect it was a deliberate ploy of some sort. In any case, isn't there some better picture out there we could fair use? Ugh. Eaglizard (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the original uploader blew the photo up from its original size (which should never be done). The photo in question has her sitting beneath a bright light reflecting off of her forehead. While it's not that obvious in the original photo, the enlargement process made the lighting stand out. —Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Leave it be. It reflects her writing style. Actually, if anyone is actually interested in a decent picture, my wife met her a few months ago when she was covering the Philly debate. Drop a line on my page if interested. --Art8641 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Art8641

[edit] I've removed the gossip

(From the author's talk page)

Please cite passages like the one you tacked onto Maureen Dowd, or else it shall seem as though either you know something that we don't, or you have spun a yarn. But in any case -- please, don't spread gossip on Wikipedia. --VKokielov (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The story is true [5], but may not be of encyclopedic importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.140.163 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced criticism removed

Source and add back in. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dowd has also come under fire for a rather casual use of language to make a point. An example came in her December 9, 2007 column when Ms. Dowd observed that she had seen graffiti mocking the Mormon Temple in Washington, DC. Ms. Dowd used the phrase "When I was a kid, we used to drive on the Beltway past the big Mormon temple outside Washington." The term "kid" gave some of her critics cause for distress as Ms. Dowd would have been at least 21 years old when the spires were mounted, and the phrase "Surrender Dorothy" was inscribed on a freeway support structure.

In a NY Times op ed piece on December 23 2007, Dowd reported Bill Clinton's aides attempted to stop an interview with Charlie Rose on December 14, 2007 because Clinton was becoming agitated. She neglected to report Rose stated the interview ran over the alloted time, and Clinton's aides were concerened about his subsequent appointment rather than the content.

[edit] Additional Information

The essay referred to above was part of a conversation among several writers (Peggy Noonan and myself included). As for the graffiti, I have seen the "Surrender Dorothy!" graffiti myself (I lived in the DC area from 1986 to 2005). It was spray painted on the overpass, with the temple in the background. I also remember an article in the Washington Post, a number of years back, in which that overpass and those words were discussed, saying that the words have been appearing for years, only to be removed and replaced. As for the word "kid", she's an editorial writer, more artist than reporter or lawyer -- and, at my age (46), 21 sounds like a "kid" to me.

66.235.8.243 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Jeffrey F. Sturk

[edit] "commonly"

In my perception, "commonly" means "as practiced by many people", whereas "usually" means "as a matter of habit." That is the original sense of "commonly", in accord with its root, "common." The phrase "commonly referred to" means "called by many people", not "called many times". --VKokielov (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Wiki stuff

I am not a wiki savy user, and I edited the crtiscism part with a reference. I would like to include the letter in the article. I said "In 2005, Dowd was harshly addressed by answersingenesis.com for her article on creation/evolution debate and President Bush. She wrote an article that attacked the answersingenesis creation museum. Mr. Ken Ham, the founder and president of answersingenesis wrote this letter to the New York Times:

"Dear editor,

“It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” This phrase from Macbeth aptly describes what is probably the most bizarre newspaper commentary on the creation/evolution controversy I have ever read.

To see that the Times would even accept such a disjointed and absurd commentary as Maureen Dowd’s (February 3) is equally bizarre. In fact, a local reporter (who is not a creationist) read Dowd’s commentary and said to me: “That’s not the sort of article I would send to a prospective employer when applying for a journalism job!”

Dowd, who wrote so knowingly about our museum without speaking to anyone here (apparently she just went to www.CreationMuseum.org for her research), composed a mocking commentary without discussing any real scientific issues. She then transitioned from our museum to President Bush and the debate about social security!

So how does one slam the president? Well, of course, you start with the Creation Museum!

From Shakespeare to the Scriptures (“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” – Romans 1:22), there’s much good writing to help expose bad writing.

– Ken Ham

President, Answers in Genesis, builders of the Creation Museum; 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd., Petersburg, KY 41080; (859) 727-2222"

However, his article was ignored by the New York Times, and a letter was not sent back to Mr. Ham.[16] "

I would like this all to be included, but I don't know how to do it, if someone could "clean it up" for me, I would be most appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.78.252 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New photo

Courtesy of Art8641, we now have a new photo at Image:Maureen dowd.jpg. Kelly hi! 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cropped version is here: Image:Maureen dowd pic cropped v2.jpg. If you like it better than present pic in article please let me know. Dr.K. (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)