This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Katherine Maher 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 11 March 2016. |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | Village Pump(WMF) Discussion Request for
more attention by WMF has been raised on village pump |
Hiya, it's Katherine, subject of the article. Just wanted to note I am no longer on the State Department FAPB, effective Jan 23rd: I resigned in order to accept the NPR CEO designee role. Not sure that will be reported out somewhere, so may not have an appropriate source to cite, but thought I'd flag it. Maherkr ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Her support of Democrats is well-documented, as is her support of the 2020 riots. SoulAtHazard ( talk) 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This article feels quite promotional and written like her CV?
For example at age 25 (i.e. 2007) she joins UNICEF where She worked to promote the use of technology to improve people's lives. She traveled extensively to work on issues related to maternal health, HIV/AIDS prevention, and youth participation in technology
. That is a very embellished job description for a 25-year old UNICEF employee? 22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Aszx5000 (
talk)
22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
“Quotations from Chairman Maher”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/quotations-from-chairman-maher
“NPR’s new CEO exemplifies the ideological capture of America’s institutions.”
‘As CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, Maher made censorship a critical part of her policy, under the guise of fighting “disinformation.” In a speech to the Atlantic Council, an organization with extensive ties to U.S. intelligence services, she explained that she “took a very active approach to disinformation,” coordinated censorship “through conversations with government,” and suppressed dissenting opinions related to the pandemic and the 2020 election.’ 89.240.195.132 ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Maher has a bit of media coverage atm, [13] from The Federalist. The WP-article may get some attention because of it. Afaict, "It was under Maher’s tenure that Wikipedia tried to eliminate The Federalist’s online entry." is incorrect. For the interested, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com, it's long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
For the joy of all, Andrew Orlowski is on the case: [14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As per [15] and others, Bill Maher ran a deep piece on Katherine Maher (no relation) yesterday where he pointed out that under Maher's tenure at NPR "...of the 87 people working in editorial positions there, 87 are Democrats. Even if you're a Democrat, you can't think this is good." Moreover, "Maher then knocked his "namesake" NPR CEO for her woke social media posts."
Additionally, "She's a ‘Portlandia’ character," Maher quipped. "She says things like ‘I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive. But it’s founded on treating people's ancestors as private property.' I mean, c'mon man. A long time ago. She says 'I suffer with cis-White mobility privilege.' I mean it's kind of White woman who says she's Beyoncé's spirit animal."
Some of this should be featured in this still very manicured article. It hurts WP's neutrality to have this not be covered. There seems to be strong inaction from some very active in adjacent topics admins here. It seems her tenure at Wikimedia insulates her from any criticism. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:AECF:C89:3304:EF6 ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but this by The Hill may be a usable source, I haven't watched it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Yet again, very relevant news regarding this very well-kept and majoritly primary sourced article that are not being included here. This article and its extended protection while refusing to edit it seems to be a very high level of gatekeeping to protect Katherine Maher due to her very partisan policies.
Here [18] and here [19] we see Larry Sanger, WP co-founder, stating "NPR should let her go right away". Further explaining that "It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore because they’re not being hypocritical. They’re actually saying it out loud: “We don’t really believe in this freedom stuff anyway.”
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
As has been discussed before on this talk page, Mrs. Maher admitted herself in interviews and a TED talk that she coordinated with the US Govt. to censor WP. This ostensibly to combat misinformation. This is a very serious topic that should be included. Here is a very good source on this: RCP [20] There are plenty more but are not considered RS by WP.
A suggested addition would be "Katherine Maher admitted to previously coordinating with the US government to censor misinformation on Wikipedia during her tenure as the CEO of Wikimedia. She mentioned the complexities and challenges of managing public information and combating falsehoods, emphasizing collaboration with different government bodies to maintain accuracy and trust."
I think the above is neutral and factual. RCP is a good source and has reported on what she admitted.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:210:D52:67A9:4DF0 ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for calling out your name. No harm intended. I cant edit the article myself and dont want to get into a edit war. More edits might come through before somebody decides on this.
The aforementionsd editor deleted a sourced mention of Katherine Maher's statements that Donald Trump was a "deranged racist sociopath". This deletion was based on the source being the NYP. I'd like to offer some alternative sources so that the article can retain her strong vitriol.
Possible sources of the statement: RCP [21], NR [22], Deadline [23], NYSun [24], WashingtonExaminer [25], DailyMail [26], TheGazette [27], and Heritage [28]
Surely one of the above must be good enough to include her statements from her official Twitter handle. That should be enough third-party media coverage, no?
Thanks.
Note: I am not accusing Fred Zepelin of cleaning or caring for this article or even protecting Katherine Maher. But given WPs neutral point-of-view stance [29], it seemed fair that deleting sentences due to their sources should be accompanied by at least trying to find other acceptable sources first.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4EDA:7E1:56F0:93C7 ( talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the sum diff since April 15. Observing the addition of multiple primary sources with no secondary sources to provide any WP:WEIGHT. I'm referring to the two Atlantic Council citations. If there are reliable sources which fell for the Breitbart/Rufo/Fox misleading characterization of that video, those need to be included to establish WP:WEIGHT, and otherwise they should be removed. Also, are NY Sun and The Center Square really considered RS? That would be surprising, but I may be wrong. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Only a couple of sentences about her views expressed in the Atlantic Council speech have been added to the article. I think that this is enough to keep this information in the article.- We need WP:WEIGHT established. To select quotes from a larger primary source without a basis in reliable source coverage is WP:OR and WP:POV.
I'm not sure what you mean by "misleading characterization"- See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#What's_going_on.
It is ok that City Journal is WP:PARTISAN- Partisan sources can be reliable. In this case, this very article would be evidence against it being considered reliable. Regardless, the problem with borderline reliable partisan sources is that they just don't carry much WP:WEIGHT. If we had some better sources to justify inclusion of an aspect of the subject to begin with, it would be easier to justify pull from partisan and/or opinion content to add to that. There was a discussion of City Journal last year at RSN which looks like it was never formally closed. Looks like I mainly talked about the conundrum of what to do with content that isn't reliable for statements of fact there, too.
Can you try to put as much effort into helping discover sources as you are trying to disqualify them?- This strikes me as backwards. We find reliable sources and summarize them in the article. If you're starting from a position of "I found a claim in unreliable sources -- we should find a way to include it" that's how we get POV articles. Given the quality of the claims, it would be shocking to see a source we typically consider to be reliable to pick it up. (to be clear, this whole comment is about the "first amendment" and "truth" clips, not about Berliner and not about her various tweets about biden/harris/trump). I think I've said about as much as I want to say about this, as I'm starting to feel a little repetitive, so I will leave it to others now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
. Anyone who knows the bare minimum about how Wikipedia works understands Wikimedia Foundation management play no role in how articles are written
KM's statements like "[WMF] having very active role ... during covid19"- This is your own determination to see a scandal where one doesn't exist. There is nothing in that statement that implies "we" is the WMF. In fact, throughout that interview she uses "we" to speak on behalf of Wikipedia. Putting a finer point on it, the "we" is really a whole lot of volunteers who actually write the articles the articles the WMF fundraises for. If you want a "scandal", it's that the world attributes the successes of this project to the WMF because it's our fundraising arm, its leaders are much more publicly visible, and they use first person plural pronouns as such (to be clear, I think Maher is a good ambassador for Wikipedia and does a good job of explaining the importance of this project to the world -- but I can see where it would be confusing for someone who sees Twitter trolls and Breitbart as providing credible frames for the clips they link to).
I will leave it to others now- f'reals this time, sorry. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who knows the bare minimum about how Wikipedia works.... I want editors to understand that wikipedia is indeed a bureaucracy (in some ways) . I don't consider WMF influence over editors
Given her tenure at Wikipedia, the article could benefit from more clarity on what she actually did while Director/CEO. that would also help to temper some of the more controversial edits coming as a result of the twitter controversy.
Can someone help find proper sources ? I made an attempt see SPS content but it was WP:SPS :
cc
Endwise
Tonymetz
💬
23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not close friends with Katherine but we've met a few times so I'm doing an edit request rather than editing directly. I'm unhappy with the current "Early life" section because it implies her mother is dead. Also, her father's obituary (which was the only source for the info about her parents) mentions four firms where he worked (Astra, Goldman Sachs, UBS, and Castleton Commodities) so instead of saying "was a Goldman Sachs executive" I find it more fitting to say he worked in finance. I'd like to replace the second sentence of the "Early life and education" section with the following:
"Her father, Gordon Roberts Maher, worked in finance in New York City and witnessed the September 11 attacks. He died in 2020. [30] Her mother, Ceci Maher, is a former non-profit executive who was elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 2022. [31] Katherine has two younger brothers. [32]" Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 05:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is anything critical about this person being censored in this article. She made a lot of controversial statements. The article should reflect this, instead of being a PR piece full of primary sources. I am starting to think that the accusations of Wikipedia being biased are true. -- Afus199620 ( talk) 12:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a good reason why using Fox News in these situations is not allowed.Which is? 50.221.225.231 ( talk) 17:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I made the most recent revert. There was past consensus here on this talk page that it was WP:UNDUE to include Sanger's remarks, and my revert was mostly procedural. That said, I agree with the past consensus. The remarks do not seem to have been picked up by the mainstream press, with the partial exception of Fox News (and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS appears to apply). The magazine arm of a conservative think tank is in particular not a great source for a contentious statement about a living person; while it is not listed at WP:RSP, concerns have been expresssed in past discussion at WP:RSN [33]. If you want to include news written from a center-right perspective, the Wall Street Journal has covered the story here [34]. (It is more similar to the NYTimes coverage [35] than it is to City Journal, however.) Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources: [40] and [41], also an NPR Correspondent posted KMs official statement here [42].
At the very least this article should factually mention that "Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Virginia Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, and Ohio Rep. Bob Lotta invited Maher to testify before Congress late last month, expressing concern over allegations of progressive liberal bias at NPR." It can also add that "NPR noted Maher was already scheduled to attend a meeting on Wednesday May 8, the same day Maher was invited to testify before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee."
The facts, as referenced by good sources, are that KM has been summoned by Congress due to "...concerns about the direction in which NPR may be headed under past and present leadership...concerned that your personal views and opinions on matters of public interest heavily influence your decision making at NPR and may cloud objective reporting of the news at NPR". [43]
Here is the full letter as sent by the US Congress. [44]
Let's see if this article's gatekeepers will ignore it until their preferred sources mention it. Of note, the NYT covered it here [45]. Here's PBS live as of now [46].
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4DA1:5E74:99BD:3FB1 ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Conservatives trashed NPR's new CEO for being 'woke.' But the truth is far more complex., USA Today Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Katherine Maher 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 11 March 2016. |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | Village Pump(WMF) Discussion Request for
more attention by WMF has been raised on village pump |
Hiya, it's Katherine, subject of the article. Just wanted to note I am no longer on the State Department FAPB, effective Jan 23rd: I resigned in order to accept the NPR CEO designee role. Not sure that will be reported out somewhere, so may not have an appropriate source to cite, but thought I'd flag it. Maherkr ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Her support of Democrats is well-documented, as is her support of the 2020 riots. SoulAtHazard ( talk) 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This article feels quite promotional and written like her CV?
For example at age 25 (i.e. 2007) she joins UNICEF where She worked to promote the use of technology to improve people's lives. She traveled extensively to work on issues related to maternal health, HIV/AIDS prevention, and youth participation in technology
. That is a very embellished job description for a 25-year old UNICEF employee? 22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Aszx5000 (
talk)
22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
“Quotations from Chairman Maher”
https://www.city-journal.org/article/quotations-from-chairman-maher
“NPR’s new CEO exemplifies the ideological capture of America’s institutions.”
‘As CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, Maher made censorship a critical part of her policy, under the guise of fighting “disinformation.” In a speech to the Atlantic Council, an organization with extensive ties to U.S. intelligence services, she explained that she “took a very active approach to disinformation,” coordinated censorship “through conversations with government,” and suppressed dissenting opinions related to the pandemic and the 2020 election.’ 89.240.195.132 ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Maher has a bit of media coverage atm, [13] from The Federalist. The WP-article may get some attention because of it. Afaict, "It was under Maher’s tenure that Wikipedia tried to eliminate The Federalist’s online entry." is incorrect. For the interested, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com, it's long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
For the joy of all, Andrew Orlowski is on the case: [14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As per [15] and others, Bill Maher ran a deep piece on Katherine Maher (no relation) yesterday where he pointed out that under Maher's tenure at NPR "...of the 87 people working in editorial positions there, 87 are Democrats. Even if you're a Democrat, you can't think this is good." Moreover, "Maher then knocked his "namesake" NPR CEO for her woke social media posts."
Additionally, "She's a ‘Portlandia’ character," Maher quipped. "She says things like ‘I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive. But it’s founded on treating people's ancestors as private property.' I mean, c'mon man. A long time ago. She says 'I suffer with cis-White mobility privilege.' I mean it's kind of White woman who says she's Beyoncé's spirit animal."
Some of this should be featured in this still very manicured article. It hurts WP's neutrality to have this not be covered. There seems to be strong inaction from some very active in adjacent topics admins here. It seems her tenure at Wikimedia insulates her from any criticism. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:AECF:C89:3304:EF6 ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but this by The Hill may be a usable source, I haven't watched it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Yet again, very relevant news regarding this very well-kept and majoritly primary sourced article that are not being included here. This article and its extended protection while refusing to edit it seems to be a very high level of gatekeeping to protect Katherine Maher due to her very partisan policies.
Here [18] and here [19] we see Larry Sanger, WP co-founder, stating "NPR should let her go right away". Further explaining that "It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore because they’re not being hypocritical. They’re actually saying it out loud: “We don’t really believe in this freedom stuff anyway.”
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
As has been discussed before on this talk page, Mrs. Maher admitted herself in interviews and a TED talk that she coordinated with the US Govt. to censor WP. This ostensibly to combat misinformation. This is a very serious topic that should be included. Here is a very good source on this: RCP [20] There are plenty more but are not considered RS by WP.
A suggested addition would be "Katherine Maher admitted to previously coordinating with the US government to censor misinformation on Wikipedia during her tenure as the CEO of Wikimedia. She mentioned the complexities and challenges of managing public information and combating falsehoods, emphasizing collaboration with different government bodies to maintain accuracy and trust."
I think the above is neutral and factual. RCP is a good source and has reported on what she admitted.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:210:D52:67A9:4DF0 ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for calling out your name. No harm intended. I cant edit the article myself and dont want to get into a edit war. More edits might come through before somebody decides on this.
The aforementionsd editor deleted a sourced mention of Katherine Maher's statements that Donald Trump was a "deranged racist sociopath". This deletion was based on the source being the NYP. I'd like to offer some alternative sources so that the article can retain her strong vitriol.
Possible sources of the statement: RCP [21], NR [22], Deadline [23], NYSun [24], WashingtonExaminer [25], DailyMail [26], TheGazette [27], and Heritage [28]
Surely one of the above must be good enough to include her statements from her official Twitter handle. That should be enough third-party media coverage, no?
Thanks.
Note: I am not accusing Fred Zepelin of cleaning or caring for this article or even protecting Katherine Maher. But given WPs neutral point-of-view stance [29], it seemed fair that deleting sentences due to their sources should be accompanied by at least trying to find other acceptable sources first.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4EDA:7E1:56F0:93C7 ( talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the sum diff since April 15. Observing the addition of multiple primary sources with no secondary sources to provide any WP:WEIGHT. I'm referring to the two Atlantic Council citations. If there are reliable sources which fell for the Breitbart/Rufo/Fox misleading characterization of that video, those need to be included to establish WP:WEIGHT, and otherwise they should be removed. Also, are NY Sun and The Center Square really considered RS? That would be surprising, but I may be wrong. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Only a couple of sentences about her views expressed in the Atlantic Council speech have been added to the article. I think that this is enough to keep this information in the article.- We need WP:WEIGHT established. To select quotes from a larger primary source without a basis in reliable source coverage is WP:OR and WP:POV.
I'm not sure what you mean by "misleading characterization"- See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#What's_going_on.
It is ok that City Journal is WP:PARTISAN- Partisan sources can be reliable. In this case, this very article would be evidence against it being considered reliable. Regardless, the problem with borderline reliable partisan sources is that they just don't carry much WP:WEIGHT. If we had some better sources to justify inclusion of an aspect of the subject to begin with, it would be easier to justify pull from partisan and/or opinion content to add to that. There was a discussion of City Journal last year at RSN which looks like it was never formally closed. Looks like I mainly talked about the conundrum of what to do with content that isn't reliable for statements of fact there, too.
Can you try to put as much effort into helping discover sources as you are trying to disqualify them?- This strikes me as backwards. We find reliable sources and summarize them in the article. If you're starting from a position of "I found a claim in unreliable sources -- we should find a way to include it" that's how we get POV articles. Given the quality of the claims, it would be shocking to see a source we typically consider to be reliable to pick it up. (to be clear, this whole comment is about the "first amendment" and "truth" clips, not about Berliner and not about her various tweets about biden/harris/trump). I think I've said about as much as I want to say about this, as I'm starting to feel a little repetitive, so I will leave it to others now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
. Anyone who knows the bare minimum about how Wikipedia works understands Wikimedia Foundation management play no role in how articles are written
KM's statements like "[WMF] having very active role ... during covid19"- This is your own determination to see a scandal where one doesn't exist. There is nothing in that statement that implies "we" is the WMF. In fact, throughout that interview she uses "we" to speak on behalf of Wikipedia. Putting a finer point on it, the "we" is really a whole lot of volunteers who actually write the articles the articles the WMF fundraises for. If you want a "scandal", it's that the world attributes the successes of this project to the WMF because it's our fundraising arm, its leaders are much more publicly visible, and they use first person plural pronouns as such (to be clear, I think Maher is a good ambassador for Wikipedia and does a good job of explaining the importance of this project to the world -- but I can see where it would be confusing for someone who sees Twitter trolls and Breitbart as providing credible frames for the clips they link to).
I will leave it to others now- f'reals this time, sorry. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who knows the bare minimum about how Wikipedia works.... I want editors to understand that wikipedia is indeed a bureaucracy (in some ways) . I don't consider WMF influence over editors
Given her tenure at Wikipedia, the article could benefit from more clarity on what she actually did while Director/CEO. that would also help to temper some of the more controversial edits coming as a result of the twitter controversy.
Can someone help find proper sources ? I made an attempt see SPS content but it was WP:SPS :
cc
Endwise
Tonymetz
💬
23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not close friends with Katherine but we've met a few times so I'm doing an edit request rather than editing directly. I'm unhappy with the current "Early life" section because it implies her mother is dead. Also, her father's obituary (which was the only source for the info about her parents) mentions four firms where he worked (Astra, Goldman Sachs, UBS, and Castleton Commodities) so instead of saying "was a Goldman Sachs executive" I find it more fitting to say he worked in finance. I'd like to replace the second sentence of the "Early life and education" section with the following:
"Her father, Gordon Roberts Maher, worked in finance in New York City and witnessed the September 11 attacks. He died in 2020. [30] Her mother, Ceci Maher, is a former non-profit executive who was elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 2022. [31] Katherine has two younger brothers. [32]" Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 05:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is anything critical about this person being censored in this article. She made a lot of controversial statements. The article should reflect this, instead of being a PR piece full of primary sources. I am starting to think that the accusations of Wikipedia being biased are true. -- Afus199620 ( talk) 12:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a good reason why using Fox News in these situations is not allowed.Which is? 50.221.225.231 ( talk) 17:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I made the most recent revert. There was past consensus here on this talk page that it was WP:UNDUE to include Sanger's remarks, and my revert was mostly procedural. That said, I agree with the past consensus. The remarks do not seem to have been picked up by the mainstream press, with the partial exception of Fox News (and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS appears to apply). The magazine arm of a conservative think tank is in particular not a great source for a contentious statement about a living person; while it is not listed at WP:RSP, concerns have been expresssed in past discussion at WP:RSN [33]. If you want to include news written from a center-right perspective, the Wall Street Journal has covered the story here [34]. (It is more similar to the NYTimes coverage [35] than it is to City Journal, however.) Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources: [40] and [41], also an NPR Correspondent posted KMs official statement here [42].
At the very least this article should factually mention that "Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Virginia Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, and Ohio Rep. Bob Lotta invited Maher to testify before Congress late last month, expressing concern over allegations of progressive liberal bias at NPR." It can also add that "NPR noted Maher was already scheduled to attend a meeting on Wednesday May 8, the same day Maher was invited to testify before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee."
The facts, as referenced by good sources, are that KM has been summoned by Congress due to "...concerns about the direction in which NPR may be headed under past and present leadership...concerned that your personal views and opinions on matters of public interest heavily influence your decision making at NPR and may cloud objective reporting of the news at NPR". [43]
Here is the full letter as sent by the US Congress. [44]
Let's see if this article's gatekeepers will ignore it until their preferred sources mention it. Of note, the NYT covered it here [45]. Here's PBS live as of now [46].
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4DA1:5E74:99BD:3FB1 ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Conservatives trashed NPR's new CEO for being 'woke.' But the truth is far more complex., USA Today Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)