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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I reverted an edit that struck this phrase, which I believe was based on a simple misunderstanding. The above the fold article did not mention an important -- imo most important -- meaning of this phrase. For highly respected papers, like, the Washington Post, placement of an article above the fold reflects a decision on the part of the editors that this would be one of the day's most important stories. Their judgement has certainly been proven true. The story was very widely quoted.
The old version of the "above the fold" article only offered the interpretation that editors placed articles above the fold as a cynical sales ploy. The edit summary of the editor who removed the phrase reflected this cynical, IMO, minor meaning of the phrase.
I modified the "above the fold" article to include this important meaning. -- Geo Swan 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, stop talking about yourself in the third person. You ARE "The Author". And so far you've proven yourself to be a fairly intolerant and hypocritical editor. It's irrelevant. Unless you offer some supporting context...I.E. - "the decision to put it above the fold was somewhat vindicated by the continuing controversy and coverage", then it goes. Otherwise it's practically a non-sequitur.
Kade 18:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You aren't familiar with the term "foot soldier"? Take a look at google's response when you search the news for "foot soldier". My rough count is that close to half of the links to foot soldier use the term to mean something other than "regular infantry". You have never heard of the phrase "mafia foot soldier"? Are you saying you really didn't understand that I used the phrase to distinguish the 30 al qaeda suspects in CIA custody who are believed to members of the top ranks of the al qaeda leadership from those other suspected al qaeda members, in CIA custody, who were not believed to be members of the al qaeda leadership? If you really didn't understand, then maybe other readers won't understand. So, that passage should be rewritten. No better phrasing occurs to me. I'll think about it. Maybe you can think about it too.
Meanwhile I am going to restore the phrase "foot soldier", because your replacement phrase is more confusing because it is simply incorrect. Al qaeda didn't have any regular infantry. I am only going to change the phrase once. I am not going to be dragged into a pointless revision war. Please don't merely replace your alternate wording, without making a good faith to explain yourself on the talk page, as you did with your second revision of "above the fold". -- Geo Swan 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Is Ms Priest's husband's occupation really that relevant that it should be included in an article about her? Ms Priest is a notable person, because of her record of notable articles, books, and her television appearances. But her husband isn't. Even if he is doing significant, important work, his work hasn't met the wikipedia's criteria for notability, in its own right. It is not like he is a CIA agent who has been outed by rogues. I suggest, as a courtesy, we comply with the request to excise the information about Ms Priest's husband's occupation -- unless someone can come up with a good explanation why it is important. -- Geo Swan 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I revised the use of the loaded words "claim" and "allege" in order to gain a more NPOV. I noted that the descriptions of the content of Priest's articles had these words, but the descriptions of contradictory articles did not. This is not NPOV. Zaslav 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
External bio links #1 and #2 seem to be several years old. External link # 3 on Mary McCarthy is no longer supported by the Washington Post (although it should be available via the Post's archive search function for a fee). References list item # 4 is a dead link. ( Catawba 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
The lede says born 1957, but there is a category for births in 1959. Which is it?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dana Priest. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dana Priest. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I reverted an edit that struck this phrase, which I believe was based on a simple misunderstanding. The above the fold article did not mention an important -- imo most important -- meaning of this phrase. For highly respected papers, like, the Washington Post, placement of an article above the fold reflects a decision on the part of the editors that this would be one of the day's most important stories. Their judgement has certainly been proven true. The story was very widely quoted.
The old version of the "above the fold" article only offered the interpretation that editors placed articles above the fold as a cynical sales ploy. The edit summary of the editor who removed the phrase reflected this cynical, IMO, minor meaning of the phrase.
I modified the "above the fold" article to include this important meaning. -- Geo Swan 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, stop talking about yourself in the third person. You ARE "The Author". And so far you've proven yourself to be a fairly intolerant and hypocritical editor. It's irrelevant. Unless you offer some supporting context...I.E. - "the decision to put it above the fold was somewhat vindicated by the continuing controversy and coverage", then it goes. Otherwise it's practically a non-sequitur.
Kade 18:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You aren't familiar with the term "foot soldier"? Take a look at google's response when you search the news for "foot soldier". My rough count is that close to half of the links to foot soldier use the term to mean something other than "regular infantry". You have never heard of the phrase "mafia foot soldier"? Are you saying you really didn't understand that I used the phrase to distinguish the 30 al qaeda suspects in CIA custody who are believed to members of the top ranks of the al qaeda leadership from those other suspected al qaeda members, in CIA custody, who were not believed to be members of the al qaeda leadership? If you really didn't understand, then maybe other readers won't understand. So, that passage should be rewritten. No better phrasing occurs to me. I'll think about it. Maybe you can think about it too.
Meanwhile I am going to restore the phrase "foot soldier", because your replacement phrase is more confusing because it is simply incorrect. Al qaeda didn't have any regular infantry. I am only going to change the phrase once. I am not going to be dragged into a pointless revision war. Please don't merely replace your alternate wording, without making a good faith to explain yourself on the talk page, as you did with your second revision of "above the fold". -- Geo Swan 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Is Ms Priest's husband's occupation really that relevant that it should be included in an article about her? Ms Priest is a notable person, because of her record of notable articles, books, and her television appearances. But her husband isn't. Even if he is doing significant, important work, his work hasn't met the wikipedia's criteria for notability, in its own right. It is not like he is a CIA agent who has been outed by rogues. I suggest, as a courtesy, we comply with the request to excise the information about Ms Priest's husband's occupation -- unless someone can come up with a good explanation why it is important. -- Geo Swan 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I revised the use of the loaded words "claim" and "allege" in order to gain a more NPOV. I noted that the descriptions of the content of Priest's articles had these words, but the descriptions of contradictory articles did not. This is not NPOV. Zaslav 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
External bio links #1 and #2 seem to be several years old. External link # 3 on Mary McCarthy is no longer supported by the Washington Post (although it should be available via the Post's archive search function for a fee). References list item # 4 is a dead link. ( Catawba 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
The lede says born 1957, but there is a category for births in 1959. Which is it?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dana Priest. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dana Priest. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)