I've removed the POV box, as the overly flattering portions of the article described below appear to have been edited out. As for her ethnicity, Burleigh has written about her Assyrian heritage and Iraqi relatives on numerous occasions; I've added in this bit of information without labeling Burleigh as an Assyrian herself. Ab85 ( talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
why isnt anything about her assyrian heritage being mentioned in this text? has it been deleted? 220.237.4.36 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the edit history and someone claiming to be Nina Burleigh has made multiple edits using two different IP addresses. If this really is her, then there is an obvious conflict of interest. Even if it's not her, someone who doesn't know the first thing about WP:NPOV is writing biased sentences like: "Burleigh has continued to expose and respond to conservative hypocrisy in sharply written, nuanced, often humorous political blogs and essays." I changed that sentence already and tried to remove POV material from the article, including an incredibly long list of **all positive** book reviews.-- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Freeland1 is currently editing the article with poor regard to WP:MOS. I'm trying to reach a consensus on this page first. Freeland1, please comment here first before making edits. Since you appear to be new, I'm trying to help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Freeland1 has now violated WP:3RR policy. The word liberal (see:[ [1]]) is not derogatory or slanderous. It is a political term that is used worldwide. Her views represent the liberal viewpoint, therefore, the term is not POV and deserves to stay in the article.-- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears Nina Burleigh may be editing the article herself. (red flag #1) - Someone with a user account named Ninabur has edited this article. The only edits made by this user was to this article. (red flag #2) - Alice500 said, "Kindly stop labeling my ethnicity. I have two parents and two sets of genes. Thank you, Nina Burleigh." in an edit summary. All of the edits made by this user have only been to this article. This user made POV edits such as: [2] (red flag #3) - Freeland1's only edits have been to this article. POV edits include only posting positive reviews of books...and I mean a whoooole lot of reviews. [3] Too many for a wikipedia article. So, if this really is Nina editing the article, does she realize Wikipedia policies regarding this? WP:AB, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Conflict of interest is something that all journalists know is wrong. I'm going to investigate further. I suspect a sock puppet ( WP:SOCK) because of the type of edits and the fact all three accounts have only edited this one article. If it is her editing, won't that make for some interesting gossip in the blogosphere? -- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the need to remove the unsourced "Nina Burleigh is a liberal", but that she is a feminist is well-sourced (admittedly not at the time it was removed from the article):
Based on these articles we should either state that Burleigh is a feminist or that she is a self-described feminist, and the American feminists category should be reinstated. Drrll ( talk) 02:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem including any of the stuff from the Mirabella interview since that was pretty widely talked about. But random pullquotes from Burleigh's political writing isn't appropriate. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Besides the two news articles cited, there are additional news stories that describe Burleigh as a feminist (for example, articles in The Scotsman) as well as numerous opinion pieces that mention it. As of now, Gamliel is the only editor who does not see this material worthy of inclusion. Drrll ( talk) 17:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just now finally got around to reading the "discussion" on the article about me. I think the people involved in creating this page have a political agenda in defining me. They have repeatedly tried to throw in right-wing, button-pushing words like "liberal" and "feminist" and to define me as "Assyrian" or "Iraqi" (i.e., not really American, or possibly traitorous).
I find their obsessive monitoring of the page suspicious. This has been going on for ten years, and I have never had the time, nor inclination to become a wikipedia editor myself. I am asking those who do this work to please create and maintain an objective counterbalance going forward.
Observations:
The section titled "controversy" is written in a biased way. It should say Howard Kurtz "reported" what I said, not Nina burleigh "elaborated" - that is a loaded, non-objective word. They have NO IDEA how I spoke to Kurtz, or in what tone, or in what context, they only know what he reported.
Furthermore, they are paraphrasing my original article, in Mirabella, called "King of Hearts" which is available on my website, when they should be quoting from it directly, and citing my own words. The original article is nuanced and ambiguous, and they have simplified it for their own purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninaburleigh ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I am nearly certain that the user LaurenHesse is associated with Nina Burleigh for reasons I can discuss here and for a reason I can't discuss here because of WP:OUTING. I plan to undo her edits, but if she or Burleigh wish to discuss the merits of those edits or other changes here, we can do that. Drrll ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is a mess. I'm going to be re-writing this page over the next month, just giving a heads up to anyone who was planning on adding anything to the page. Please add it to the talk page so I will be able to include it in the final re-write. Give me till the end of September 2012. If I'm not done by then, then free game. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
"It was riveting to know that the President had appreciated my legs, scarred as they were. If he had asked me to continue the game of hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened. At the time, that seemed quite possible. It took several hours and a few drinks in the steaming and now somehow romantic Arkansas night to shake the intoxicated state in which I had been quite willing to let myself be ravished by the President, should he have but asked. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.97.206 ( talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just re-wrote this page. I did not know Nina Burleigh before I started work on this page, but had to approach her to get the new pictures uploaded. Enjoy! Sgerbic ( talk) 20:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There are indeed a lot of primary sources for this page. She is a Writer after-all. I think that these secondary links should more than enough allow for the removal of the tag.
http://www.themanoftwistsandturns.com/2010/03/06/the-graceful-future-of-journalism-nina-burleighs-writing-life/ (Matt Reves)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/-39-baby-palins-39-do-not-like-being-called-39-baby-palins-39--20110831 (National Journal and Atlantic Wire)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446027022248721.html (Wall Street Journal)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/31476253.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+6%2C+1998&author=Howard+Kurtz&desc=A+Reporter+With+Lust+in+Her+Hearts (The Washington Post)
http://chicagoweekly.net/2008/10/08/unholy-business-chicago-bred-writer-nina-burleigh-discusses-her-latest-book-religion-and-the-ugly-side-of-journalism/ (Chicago Weekly)
Plus the other places that I've used to support her lectures and Delta Kappa Gamma Society.
What say other editors? Can the tag for primary sources be removed? Sgerbic ( talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been following this since I re-wrote the page. Has something occurred that requires protection of this page? I did receive a request from someone who wanted to edit the page and didn't know why they were contacting me or what the problem was. I don't see a discussion on the log or here on talk. Can someone please point me in the direction of this discussion. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I imagine this was related to something involving WP:OTRS at the time. However I see no reason to keep it protected it at this point. Brandon ( talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is a brochure provided by Nina Burleigh. There are many writers of far greater stature than Burleigh who do not have Wikipedia articles. The article must be deleted. 109.145.118.47 ( talk) 16:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Any particular reason to sanitize it here with the description "[oral sex]" as opposed to using the actual words she said ("a blow job")? I'm tempted to edit in the verbatim phrase but will hold off a bit. Thanks. wiki-ny-2007 ( talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This bit of text was twice added to the Controversy section, which I have moved to here:
Nina Burleigh wrote an article in Newsweeks criticizing how the female members of Trump's family wear high heels. Which is in contrast how feminism states that women should be able to wear what they want and not have to be harassed.[see history for refs]
For starters, it misspelled the name of the original publication and did not include a link to it. Aside from that, the first sentence is true enough, but gives no indication why this is a noteworthy event. The second sentence appears to be original research or synthesis and does very little to explicate why Burleigh might have written the article in the first place or why other commentators have jumped on it, including a fairly substantial response in the Washington Times.
My view is that this particular dustup is too fresh on the public stage for us to judge whether it is noteworthy. The WT piece does refer to the notorious Burleigh comment mentioned earlier in this section. If the purpose of this addition was somehow to attack Burleigh for hypocrisy, it doesn't belong here and you would need to write something quite a bit better to land that punch.
@ NinaPenstein and JasmineO0o: So if the two very new editors who are in favor of this addition care to explain why it should be added, this is the place to discuss it. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In August 2017, Burleigh published a piece in Newsweek that criticized Trump women for wearing high heels, linking it to objectification of women and expressing concern for the health effects of this particular fashion.[Newsweek cite] Critics expressed surprise that Burleigh would go to such lengths about "shoe choices" and referred to her Clinton quote as evidence that her political alignment affects her approval of a president's sexual politics.[Washington Times cite]
Nina Burleigh devoted a whole article in Newsweek to propgate the false information that the female members of Trump's family were "taught to where high heels to prevent them from holing positions of power. The fact is that Donald Trump never restricted the ability of neither Ivanka not Melania Trump. Newsweek has been declared a bias left-leaning "news" source by multiple Fact Checking outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasmineO0o ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the POV box, as the overly flattering portions of the article described below appear to have been edited out. As for her ethnicity, Burleigh has written about her Assyrian heritage and Iraqi relatives on numerous occasions; I've added in this bit of information without labeling Burleigh as an Assyrian herself. Ab85 ( talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
why isnt anything about her assyrian heritage being mentioned in this text? has it been deleted? 220.237.4.36 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the edit history and someone claiming to be Nina Burleigh has made multiple edits using two different IP addresses. If this really is her, then there is an obvious conflict of interest. Even if it's not her, someone who doesn't know the first thing about WP:NPOV is writing biased sentences like: "Burleigh has continued to expose and respond to conservative hypocrisy in sharply written, nuanced, often humorous political blogs and essays." I changed that sentence already and tried to remove POV material from the article, including an incredibly long list of **all positive** book reviews.-- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Freeland1 is currently editing the article with poor regard to WP:MOS. I'm trying to reach a consensus on this page first. Freeland1, please comment here first before making edits. Since you appear to be new, I'm trying to help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Freeland1 has now violated WP:3RR policy. The word liberal (see:[ [1]]) is not derogatory or slanderous. It is a political term that is used worldwide. Her views represent the liberal viewpoint, therefore, the term is not POV and deserves to stay in the article.-- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears Nina Burleigh may be editing the article herself. (red flag #1) - Someone with a user account named Ninabur has edited this article. The only edits made by this user was to this article. (red flag #2) - Alice500 said, "Kindly stop labeling my ethnicity. I have two parents and two sets of genes. Thank you, Nina Burleigh." in an edit summary. All of the edits made by this user have only been to this article. This user made POV edits such as: [2] (red flag #3) - Freeland1's only edits have been to this article. POV edits include only posting positive reviews of books...and I mean a whoooole lot of reviews. [3] Too many for a wikipedia article. So, if this really is Nina editing the article, does she realize Wikipedia policies regarding this? WP:AB, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Conflict of interest is something that all journalists know is wrong. I'm going to investigate further. I suspect a sock puppet ( WP:SOCK) because of the type of edits and the fact all three accounts have only edited this one article. If it is her editing, won't that make for some interesting gossip in the blogosphere? -- AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the need to remove the unsourced "Nina Burleigh is a liberal", but that she is a feminist is well-sourced (admittedly not at the time it was removed from the article):
Based on these articles we should either state that Burleigh is a feminist or that she is a self-described feminist, and the American feminists category should be reinstated. Drrll ( talk) 02:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem including any of the stuff from the Mirabella interview since that was pretty widely talked about. But random pullquotes from Burleigh's political writing isn't appropriate. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Besides the two news articles cited, there are additional news stories that describe Burleigh as a feminist (for example, articles in The Scotsman) as well as numerous opinion pieces that mention it. As of now, Gamliel is the only editor who does not see this material worthy of inclusion. Drrll ( talk) 17:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just now finally got around to reading the "discussion" on the article about me. I think the people involved in creating this page have a political agenda in defining me. They have repeatedly tried to throw in right-wing, button-pushing words like "liberal" and "feminist" and to define me as "Assyrian" or "Iraqi" (i.e., not really American, or possibly traitorous).
I find their obsessive monitoring of the page suspicious. This has been going on for ten years, and I have never had the time, nor inclination to become a wikipedia editor myself. I am asking those who do this work to please create and maintain an objective counterbalance going forward.
Observations:
The section titled "controversy" is written in a biased way. It should say Howard Kurtz "reported" what I said, not Nina burleigh "elaborated" - that is a loaded, non-objective word. They have NO IDEA how I spoke to Kurtz, or in what tone, or in what context, they only know what he reported.
Furthermore, they are paraphrasing my original article, in Mirabella, called "King of Hearts" which is available on my website, when they should be quoting from it directly, and citing my own words. The original article is nuanced and ambiguous, and they have simplified it for their own purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninaburleigh ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I am nearly certain that the user LaurenHesse is associated with Nina Burleigh for reasons I can discuss here and for a reason I can't discuss here because of WP:OUTING. I plan to undo her edits, but if she or Burleigh wish to discuss the merits of those edits or other changes here, we can do that. Drrll ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is a mess. I'm going to be re-writing this page over the next month, just giving a heads up to anyone who was planning on adding anything to the page. Please add it to the talk page so I will be able to include it in the final re-write. Give me till the end of September 2012. If I'm not done by then, then free game. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
"It was riveting to know that the President had appreciated my legs, scarred as they were. If he had asked me to continue the game of hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened. At the time, that seemed quite possible. It took several hours and a few drinks in the steaming and now somehow romantic Arkansas night to shake the intoxicated state in which I had been quite willing to let myself be ravished by the President, should he have but asked. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.97.206 ( talk) 02:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just re-wrote this page. I did not know Nina Burleigh before I started work on this page, but had to approach her to get the new pictures uploaded. Enjoy! Sgerbic ( talk) 20:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There are indeed a lot of primary sources for this page. She is a Writer after-all. I think that these secondary links should more than enough allow for the removal of the tag.
http://www.themanoftwistsandturns.com/2010/03/06/the-graceful-future-of-journalism-nina-burleighs-writing-life/ (Matt Reves)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/-39-baby-palins-39-do-not-like-being-called-39-baby-palins-39--20110831 (National Journal and Atlantic Wire)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446027022248721.html (Wall Street Journal)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/31476253.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+6%2C+1998&author=Howard+Kurtz&desc=A+Reporter+With+Lust+in+Her+Hearts (The Washington Post)
http://chicagoweekly.net/2008/10/08/unholy-business-chicago-bred-writer-nina-burleigh-discusses-her-latest-book-religion-and-the-ugly-side-of-journalism/ (Chicago Weekly)
Plus the other places that I've used to support her lectures and Delta Kappa Gamma Society.
What say other editors? Can the tag for primary sources be removed? Sgerbic ( talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been following this since I re-wrote the page. Has something occurred that requires protection of this page? I did receive a request from someone who wanted to edit the page and didn't know why they were contacting me or what the problem was. I don't see a discussion on the log or here on talk. Can someone please point me in the direction of this discussion. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I imagine this was related to something involving WP:OTRS at the time. However I see no reason to keep it protected it at this point. Brandon ( talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is a brochure provided by Nina Burleigh. There are many writers of far greater stature than Burleigh who do not have Wikipedia articles. The article must be deleted. 109.145.118.47 ( talk) 16:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Any particular reason to sanitize it here with the description "[oral sex]" as opposed to using the actual words she said ("a blow job")? I'm tempted to edit in the verbatim phrase but will hold off a bit. Thanks. wiki-ny-2007 ( talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This bit of text was twice added to the Controversy section, which I have moved to here:
Nina Burleigh wrote an article in Newsweeks criticizing how the female members of Trump's family wear high heels. Which is in contrast how feminism states that women should be able to wear what they want and not have to be harassed.[see history for refs]
For starters, it misspelled the name of the original publication and did not include a link to it. Aside from that, the first sentence is true enough, but gives no indication why this is a noteworthy event. The second sentence appears to be original research or synthesis and does very little to explicate why Burleigh might have written the article in the first place or why other commentators have jumped on it, including a fairly substantial response in the Washington Times.
My view is that this particular dustup is too fresh on the public stage for us to judge whether it is noteworthy. The WT piece does refer to the notorious Burleigh comment mentioned earlier in this section. If the purpose of this addition was somehow to attack Burleigh for hypocrisy, it doesn't belong here and you would need to write something quite a bit better to land that punch.
@ NinaPenstein and JasmineO0o: So if the two very new editors who are in favor of this addition care to explain why it should be added, this is the place to discuss it. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In August 2017, Burleigh published a piece in Newsweek that criticized Trump women for wearing high heels, linking it to objectification of women and expressing concern for the health effects of this particular fashion.[Newsweek cite] Critics expressed surprise that Burleigh would go to such lengths about "shoe choices" and referred to her Clinton quote as evidence that her political alignment affects her approval of a president's sexual politics.[Washington Times cite]
Nina Burleigh devoted a whole article in Newsweek to propgate the false information that the female members of Trump's family were "taught to where high heels to prevent them from holing positions of power. The fact is that Donald Trump never restricted the ability of neither Ivanka not Melania Trump. Newsweek has been declared a bias left-leaning "news" source by multiple Fact Checking outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasmineO0o ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)