Talk:Richard Stengel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Basketball Portal Richard Stengel is part of WikiProject College Basketball, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Is there something being hidden that we should know about and discuss?

There seems to be a revert war going on. What's up? I think this is notable and should be discussed on the main page. Otherwise, we'll just foster unnecessary speculation. 71.39.78.68 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


The liberals are in an uproar over his handling of columnist Joe Klein's piece (hatchet job, really) on the F.I.S.A. legislation currently before congress. [1]
--Nbahn (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right. And what we are finding out is that Wikipedia has higher standards of accuracy than Rick Stengal or Time Magazine. 66.188.6.131 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is notable - you need independent secondary sources that say so.--Doc^g 09:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe you should delete the mention that there is a controversy about Stengel, as long as it is properly sourced (which it was). The writing might be finetuned, but the facts remain. JMLofficier (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the link to Atrios / Atrios' comments provided a balance, and would still favor including some mention of it, I am satisfied with the new rewrite. JMLofficier (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Atrios' comments violate WP:BLP - though obviously it's a sarcastic comment in a blog, outside of that context it doesn't belong here since it's not relevant to reporting the controversy. Readers unfamiliar with that context may take the allegation as factual, that's why there's WP:BLP. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above comments by JMLofficier and Mike Doughney. BusterD (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the article doesn't make it plain why this is in Richard Stengel rather than the article for Time Magazine or articles on the legislation. Why is it here? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Stengel is Joe Klein's boss. Correction of Klein's work would ultimately fall to him, that's what the title "managing editor" means. The controversy centers on the nature of that correction which would be Stengel's responsibility, and I've added a few words to explain that. Hopefully E&P or some other publication will clarify this relationship in a form that can be cited here. Mike Doughney (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In some ways the controversy is what makes Stengel notable, he's just an employee of Time otherwise. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is primarily Stengel's defense of Klein, in which he claims that Klein "addressed" his "reporting error," and also his facile insistence that the error stems from different interpretations of the bill by Republicans and Democrats, that makes him and Time culpable in this mess. I can't speak for Time, but at a newspaper, managing editors are responsible for running the newsroom. They are the bosses on personnel matters and are instrumental in determining the publication's response to controversies like this one, in which the publication is charged with making substantial errors. It is utterly appropriate to document the controversy here, and there should be more detail. Gkwobe (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)gkwobe

[edit] Lead sentence

Hey guys, while folks are fighting about the stuff above, I have tries to copy write the lead sentence. Is this person an American citizen? Is he notable for being an editor? Thanks, --Tom 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
--Nbahn 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested citations provided

Someone requested citations for the statement that Priscilla Painton is involved in the controversy. I thought that it was a little ridiculous, but I have taken two citations from the Painton article and added them to the end of the sentence in question. Hopefully this will satisfy whomever wanted the citation in the first place.
--Nbahn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)