The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bob Woodward article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
As has been done previously, I would like to disclose first that my name is Evelyn Duffy and I am one of Bob Woodward's research assistants.
I have deleted or corrected several flatly incorrect biographical details, including information about Bob Woodward's parents and the correct spelling of Wheaton, IL. I also removed references (as well as a now-inaccurate link) to Bob Woodward serving as assistant managing editor at the Washington Post. I have changed them to reflect his current title, associate editor.
Additionally, I would like to note that the fourth bullet point under the heading 'Criticisms of content' is vague and insufficiently sourced. ‘Critics complain’ and ‘some believe’ are generic phrases that do not allow for follow-up. Rather than simply delete the bullet point, I thought I should bring this to the editors’ attention and inquire about the best way to address the issue. Maggie3027 ( talk) 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposed re-write to this article, as initially discussed above. For all those interested in participating in the re-write of this article, you can find our sandbox here. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Neither Woodward nor Bernstein did any investigation of the biggest public scandals of their lifetime, which were the Clinton Foundation and the faux investigation of Hillary and the concurrent abuse of power to wiretap Trump. Likely this was because the Washington Post and Woodward-Bernstein favored Democrats and thus only really investigated corrupt Republicans. This is the biggest criticism of the duo and the most salient historically, but it is simply not even mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not an editor or anything, but I thought I would comment on this article. I am concerned that it does not follow the neutral tone rule. This passage is an example: "Woodward's work for the Post and his books, which penetrate deeply into various Washington, D.C. institutions and seven presidencies, are often greeted with initial skepticism, criticism, and even denials. But time and time again, after the record, memoirs and various government investigations are completed, his work has proved to be accurate." It reads like the back flap of a dust jacket. I don't mean that as an insult or sarcasm--I mean it quite literally.
Also, I noted that some of the content is repeated. For example, the quote about "measurable cerebral activity" being absent is used twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.149.221 ( talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? 3 criticism sections? Having one is usually frowned upon, but here we have three.-- 158.59.193.38 ( talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"He has two daughters. One lives in San Francisco and is gay."
I have deleted the second sentence above--I fail to see the relevance or fairness of describing (very vaguely) details about just the one daughter. Either describe where both daughters live and what their activities are (if they are indeed relevant to the father's story) and relate why each one's sexual orientation is of pertinence to the bio.-- 65.210.45.81 ( talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to preface this by saying that I'm sure that none of the following is malicious, but rather is a misunderstanding on someone's part -- possibly mine -- of what is appropropriate in the Wikipedia community. Quite by accident, I noticed that extensive portions of this page repeat verbatim the text on Bob Woodward's official biography page. That official biography page at the bottom states "All Content Copyright By Bob Woodward". This suggests to me that one or more of the following is true about this article:
Or maybe I'm being overly sensitive here. What does the community think? GeekyDad2004 ( talk) 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to be led here when I typed in "Bob Woodward"; I was thinking of Robert Burns Woodward. I think "Bob Woodward" ought to lead to the disambiguation page, instead of straight here. How about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy1339 ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This section is ridiculously oversized, far out of proportion to its importance to covering Woodward's career. Blatant WP:RECENTISM. 69.73.47.181 ( talk) 06:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This section also describes the narrative under a ridiculously biased framing. It to be written needs a more neutral POV, being critical not only of the WH, but Woodward as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C458:4410:D69A:20FF:FE5F:8E2D ( talk) 12:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
And it's still oversized. It's larger than the section on Watergate! 75.76.213.161 ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Janet_Cooke "Although some within the Post doubted the story's veracity, the paper defended it and assistant managing editor Bob Woodward submitted the story for the Pulitzer Prize. Cooke was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing on April 13, 1981."
It appears that the journalistic establishment is effectively telling us Woodward did it, the hiring of Janet Cooke, and the approval of her fake story, after all how else could Ben Bradlee get the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism? After all, the Janet Cooke story was the single biggest scandal in the history of journalism awards, to my knowledge.
In the very least the fact that Woodward was involved in the Janet Cooke fake story scandal should appear on his page. It's certainly a black eye on his career. The omission is surprising, to me.
SevenTowers ( talk) 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
printed Woodwards and Bernsteins book in June 1974. Should we mention that in the article ? -- Neun-x ( talk) 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence :
Later in the section, numerous othe books are mentioned.
Imo, a strictly chronological order of books would be more informative. The fact that book XY only was 'No. 2' or less 'national bestselling' doesn't say anything.
I'm gonna change it ( WP:BOLD) , pls argue here if you can make good case(s) against it. -- Neun-x ( talk) 21:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
David Sirota and Andrew Perez wrote the following in an article published today at
https://sirota.substack.com/p/bob-woodward-aided-trumps-crime-against
"Bob Woodward Aided Trump's Crime Against Humanity To boost book sales, the celebrity journalist concealed a tape of Donald Trump that contained information about the pandemic that may have prevented thousands of deaths."
This has been ignored by the mainstream media, for example, the PBS Newshour. So they are complicit as well.
This should be included in the article. --- Dagme ( talk) 02:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Could we please have a photograph of Woodward near the date of the Watergate scandal? The ones we have now show him forty years older! J S Ayer ( talk) 02:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Why no mention of either of his latest two books? It looks like there were bits written on each of them, but they were removed. 2001:569:FAC1:2900:4C6F:6ABB:786A:7AA0 ( talk) 04:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bob Woodward article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
As has been done previously, I would like to disclose first that my name is Evelyn Duffy and I am one of Bob Woodward's research assistants.
I have deleted or corrected several flatly incorrect biographical details, including information about Bob Woodward's parents and the correct spelling of Wheaton, IL. I also removed references (as well as a now-inaccurate link) to Bob Woodward serving as assistant managing editor at the Washington Post. I have changed them to reflect his current title, associate editor.
Additionally, I would like to note that the fourth bullet point under the heading 'Criticisms of content' is vague and insufficiently sourced. ‘Critics complain’ and ‘some believe’ are generic phrases that do not allow for follow-up. Rather than simply delete the bullet point, I thought I should bring this to the editors’ attention and inquire about the best way to address the issue. Maggie3027 ( talk) 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposed re-write to this article, as initially discussed above. For all those interested in participating in the re-write of this article, you can find our sandbox here. ( Morethan3words ( talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Neither Woodward nor Bernstein did any investigation of the biggest public scandals of their lifetime, which were the Clinton Foundation and the faux investigation of Hillary and the concurrent abuse of power to wiretap Trump. Likely this was because the Washington Post and Woodward-Bernstein favored Democrats and thus only really investigated corrupt Republicans. This is the biggest criticism of the duo and the most salient historically, but it is simply not even mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 ( talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not an editor or anything, but I thought I would comment on this article. I am concerned that it does not follow the neutral tone rule. This passage is an example: "Woodward's work for the Post and his books, which penetrate deeply into various Washington, D.C. institutions and seven presidencies, are often greeted with initial skepticism, criticism, and even denials. But time and time again, after the record, memoirs and various government investigations are completed, his work has proved to be accurate." It reads like the back flap of a dust jacket. I don't mean that as an insult or sarcasm--I mean it quite literally.
Also, I noted that some of the content is repeated. For example, the quote about "measurable cerebral activity" being absent is used twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.149.221 ( talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? 3 criticism sections? Having one is usually frowned upon, but here we have three.-- 158.59.193.38 ( talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"He has two daughters. One lives in San Francisco and is gay."
I have deleted the second sentence above--I fail to see the relevance or fairness of describing (very vaguely) details about just the one daughter. Either describe where both daughters live and what their activities are (if they are indeed relevant to the father's story) and relate why each one's sexual orientation is of pertinence to the bio.-- 65.210.45.81 ( talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to preface this by saying that I'm sure that none of the following is malicious, but rather is a misunderstanding on someone's part -- possibly mine -- of what is appropropriate in the Wikipedia community. Quite by accident, I noticed that extensive portions of this page repeat verbatim the text on Bob Woodward's official biography page. That official biography page at the bottom states "All Content Copyright By Bob Woodward". This suggests to me that one or more of the following is true about this article:
Or maybe I'm being overly sensitive here. What does the community think? GeekyDad2004 ( talk) 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to be led here when I typed in "Bob Woodward"; I was thinking of Robert Burns Woodward. I think "Bob Woodward" ought to lead to the disambiguation page, instead of straight here. How about you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy1339 ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This section is ridiculously oversized, far out of proportion to its importance to covering Woodward's career. Blatant WP:RECENTISM. 69.73.47.181 ( talk) 06:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This section also describes the narrative under a ridiculously biased framing. It to be written needs a more neutral POV, being critical not only of the WH, but Woodward as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C458:4410:D69A:20FF:FE5F:8E2D ( talk) 12:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
And it's still oversized. It's larger than the section on Watergate! 75.76.213.161 ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Janet_Cooke "Although some within the Post doubted the story's veracity, the paper defended it and assistant managing editor Bob Woodward submitted the story for the Pulitzer Prize. Cooke was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing on April 13, 1981."
It appears that the journalistic establishment is effectively telling us Woodward did it, the hiring of Janet Cooke, and the approval of her fake story, after all how else could Ben Bradlee get the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism? After all, the Janet Cooke story was the single biggest scandal in the history of journalism awards, to my knowledge.
In the very least the fact that Woodward was involved in the Janet Cooke fake story scandal should appear on his page. It's certainly a black eye on his career. The omission is surprising, to me.
SevenTowers ( talk) 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
printed Woodwards and Bernsteins book in June 1974. Should we mention that in the article ? -- Neun-x ( talk) 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bob Woodward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence :
Later in the section, numerous othe books are mentioned.
Imo, a strictly chronological order of books would be more informative. The fact that book XY only was 'No. 2' or less 'national bestselling' doesn't say anything.
I'm gonna change it ( WP:BOLD) , pls argue here if you can make good case(s) against it. -- Neun-x ( talk) 21:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
David Sirota and Andrew Perez wrote the following in an article published today at
https://sirota.substack.com/p/bob-woodward-aided-trumps-crime-against
"Bob Woodward Aided Trump's Crime Against Humanity To boost book sales, the celebrity journalist concealed a tape of Donald Trump that contained information about the pandemic that may have prevented thousands of deaths."
This has been ignored by the mainstream media, for example, the PBS Newshour. So they are complicit as well.
This should be included in the article. --- Dagme ( talk) 02:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Could we please have a photograph of Woodward near the date of the Watergate scandal? The ones we have now show him forty years older! J S Ayer ( talk) 02:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Why no mention of either of his latest two books? It looks like there were bits written on each of them, but they were removed. 2001:569:FAC1:2900:4C6F:6ABB:786A:7AA0 ( talk) 04:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)