The following Wikipedia contributor 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. Bn ( talk · contribs)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The remarks from the reviews of Family of Secrets reflect more positively on the book then was actually the case. Seems the reviews were somewhat cherry picked to take the best remarks and leave out the criticism (of which there was a good bit). -- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Cherry picked is the wrong word as it is not that severe but I do believe there is a NPOV issue here and would appreciate some other editor's opinion. Thanks -- UhOhFeeling ( talk) 06:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I am the subject of this page and I think it apparent that the people posting here are on a crusade to damage me. I call for full exposure of their identities so we may verify whether there is an agenda at work. My book has been read by hundreds of thousands of people, it is in libraries across the country, and there has absolutely been no more negative reaction to it than to books by major celebrities whose books are treated on Wikipedia with kid gloves. Where are the standards here? Who, if anyone, polices what goes on in these dark spaces of the internet? 172.56.160.210 ( talk) 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I would like to respectfully disagree; the article clearly states that the book was criticized by reviewers in several major, established media sources, including The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Had the author neglected to mention these, I would agree that the article is distorted, but I don't see how the piece could be viewed as biased since it openly acknowledges the criticism.Lisamosc 04:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamosc ( talk • contribs)

It would be helpful if those concerned about NPOV could identify negative reviews or published criticisms that have not been cited in the article. I found one http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/071110b.html but this seems to be a case of praising with faint damnation, as the criticism is that so many other unsavory matters are lightly skimmed or left out. (Put more positively, this could be a proposal that the book be one volume of Encyclopedia Bushiana. Or conversely, as old Ben Johnson said of Milton's Paradise Lost, "One would not wish the moon any fuller.")
Bn ( talk) 02:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I believe I have addressed the outstanding NPOV issues. In copy editing I rephrased passages that had a promotional feel. I left just one official link to each of his two websites, and those are in the infobox, not in the body of the article. I moved all other external links to references, except for four additional links to familyofsecrets.com which are in the Media section for mp3 files of recorded interviews. If I see no objection over the next few days I will remove 2010 POV-section tag and the 2011 Advert tag.
Bn ( talk) 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Seeing no objection, I am now removing the 2010 POV-section tag and the 2011 Advert tag.
Bn ( talk) 13:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC) For ease of access to the record, the date of the former was October 2010 and that of the latter May 2011. (And I learned that you can't just comment them out. :-) Bn ( talk) 13:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I propose that WhoWhatWhy, which lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources, merge to Russ Baker. Please discuss. - Location ( talk) 02:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Perhaps a coincidence, but Coretheapple and I actually already agreed on this last November, but neither of us took the initiative you're taking now. Thanks! -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 03:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link. It does make a lot of sense to also have Family of Secrets be a part of this one. - Location ( talk) 05:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Does anyone object? Coretheapple ( talk) 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russ Baker. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130401093348/http://www.tompaine.com/articles/election_2004_stolen_or_lost.php to http://www.tompaine.com/articles/election_2004_stolen_or_lost.php

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

In my interactions with two editors on the three related pages mentioned above ( WhoWhatWhy, Family of Secrets, & Russ Baker) they have repeatedly assumed bad faith on my part. Each has separately asked if I have a conflict of interest. (I do not.) Their misperception of my motives may have begun when, in response to a notability challenge and RFD, I began inserting text with citations of what I took to be RS references, assuming this was what was called for. These were immediately reverted as puffery. Since then, my every edit has been perceived in that light. As an alternative to incipient edit warring, for which I have neither time nor inclination, this is an appeal for help from other editors for a more constructive approach. The articles have withstood the notability challenge. Let's improve them.

Recent edits illustrate their presumption of bad faith. A couple of examples will illustrate.

In a RS, I found a quotation of Judith Regan speaking to the RS reporter at an event celebrating publication of the book. Regan was obviously referring to Baker, who was speaking at the event, and who (the RS quotes her as saying) she was interviewing about the book the following day on her radio show. The quotation ended with this sentence describing him:

"It’s very hard to find people who do real investigative reporting anymore, and it’s these lone guys who don’t have any ax to grind, they’re not serving any corporate agenda, they’re not serving anything but their own reporting."(A footnote cites the RS.)

This was removed from the quotation, with the edit comment "Far too long and puffy, removing per NPOV; the first sentence makes the point fine)". (A later comment describes this sentence as "ridiculously puffy".)

"Puffy" I understand as an appeal to WP:LARD. A straightforward read of this essay (it is not a guideline or policy) tells me that the editor presumes that my motivation for including this sentence was to exaggerate the notability of the subject so as to avoid deletion of the article.

The first sentence that was found unobjectionable because it "makes the point [just] fine" is:

'Asked about the challenges the book faced in mainstream media, Judith Regan, the editor, producer, book publisher and television and radio talk show host, said that "the forces of the corporate-owned media are so powerful that a voice like this is hard to be heard because all they do is marginalize you and demonize you and defame you.'

This first sentence makes a different point. It's in response to the reporter's question "how, if you’re sitting on some volatile piece of information that no one else has really documented before, do you convince people not to dismiss you as a lunatic?" This refers to the information in the book and difficulties getting it neutrally reviewed. She elaborated this point further, based (as she says) on personal experience. (For the experience that she probably was referring to, see Judith_Regan#Career, third to last paragraph).

A more constructive approach might be to move the quote that refers more to the author as an investigative reporter out of the section about the book to another part of the article about the author. Given the combative attitude of these two editors, I feel disempowered to attempt this.

One of the editors then reduced the description of Ms. Regan to "Judith Regan, the former publisher". This was her then status in 2009, as stated in the RS. The deleted description of her actual current status was taken from the article Judith Regan. This shoot-from-the-hip editing is not constructive.

Subsequently, even this "just fine" sentence was removed by the other member of this tag team of editors, with a comment describing it as a "self-serving quote from publicist". I reverted the rm, with the comment "A journalist (not publicist) is quoted by another journalist in a RS. Cannot be claimed to be self-serving. JDL?" It was removed again with the comment "text mischaracterizes the source. Regan was making a general comment, not on the book, which she hadn't read)". Be it noted, the RS says Baker was going on her radio show the next day. It is not credible to propose that Regan, as an experienced interviewer, did not receive & read an advance copy. The context is an event about the book. The objection strains credulity. One may also ask how it is self-serving. It doesn't serve me. It may serve Baker, but he's not writing the article. Perhaps this is a veiled charge of COI.

Another example.

On 11 March, I inserted this from a Boston.com article about Russ Baker: Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather has said “He’s an indefatigable reporter who has made a specialty of digging deep into stories when most other people have left the story. And he’s very good at raising the right questions.” One of the editors deleted this with the comment "blatant cherry-picking".

The other replaced it with the following: In a January 2015 profile, Boston magazine said that over the past decade, "Baker has abandoned the mainstream media and become a key player on the fringe, walking that murky line between conventional investigative journalist and wild-eyed conspiracy theorist." The edit comment: "more representative quote".

On 24 July, I looked at the article again, and inserted the following in an inappropriate location, as a blockquote in the lead. My edit comment was "Putting quotation back in context".

In a January 2015 profile, Boston magazine said Over the past decade, however, Baker has abandoned the mainstream media and become a key player on the fringe, walking that murky line between conventional investigative journalist and wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. … It would be a lot easier to dismiss Baker as a nut and move on if it weren’t for his three decades of award-winning investigative-reporting experience. … Baker is a journalist, and to hear a lot of people tell it, he’s a damn good one. “He’s an indefatigable reporter who has made a specialty of digging deep into stories when most other people have left the story,” former CBS News anchor Dan Rather tells me later. “And he’s very good at raising the right questions.”

This was moved (as it needed to be). The context was also deleted, reducing it to the original negative quotation:

In a January 2015 profile, Boston magazine said that over the past decade, "Baker has abandoned the mainstream media and become a key player on the fringe, walking that murky line between conventional investigative journalist and wild-eyed conspiracy theorist."

The edit comment was "inappropriate to have blockquote in lead section, ditto other text, which is self-serving puffery". Again, I must ask how it is self-serving, unless the claim is that Baker or his employee is writing it.

With the edit comment that the rm was cherry-picking a negative statement out of a generally positive article, I restored a part of the context as follows: In a January 2015 profile, Boston magazine said that over the past decade "Baker has abandoned the mainstream media and become a key player on the fringe, walking that murky line between conventional investigative journalist and wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. … It would be a lot easier to dismiss Baker as a nut and move on if it weren’t for his three decades of award-winning investigative-reporting experience."

This entire quotation was removed, both the negative statement and its context, with the unintelligible one-word edit comment "let".

I have looked at the article on occasion (e.g. November, January, March, and July), when I have time and inclination. The immediacy with which these two editors respond to revert any changes I make suggest that they have made something of a project of it. They have asked me if I have a conflict of interest. [1]

Help is needed from editors who can demonstrate NPOV. For the present, I will not edit these three articles further, confining my activities to this talk page. This experience is discouraging me from editing Wikipedia at all. Bn ( talk) 23:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

We don't have to put every quote that mentions Russ ever in here. What are the basics? His early reporting career, then his Family of Secrets book, then his website whowhatwhy.com. I don't think there is much else. Popish Plot ( talk) 20:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Removed POV and Notability tags, which were introduced without response to discussion here. CJR is RS; adding appropriate citations. Bn ( talk) 21:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Cited sources are not closely associated with Baker, and additional citations have been provided, so I am removing the remaining tags. Bn ( talk) 03:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You removed the tags without the associated problems being rectified and they will be reinstated. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I've reinserted the notabiltiy and npov tags. The article is not written from a neutral point of view and the subject of the article is marginal at best. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

This refers to the deletion at 17:13, 6 July 2016‎.

Since this article is not about Politico, WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply. Even if it did apply, what WP:ABOUTSELF says is that self-published and questionable sources in fact may be used (with specified exceptions that have not been invoked here).

Politico.com is not WP:QS, which "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest".

I agree that additional sourcing for the three awards would be good. SPJ and Common Cause give many awards (e.g. http://www.spj.org/awards.asp). I have not yet found a Mencken award for journalism. However, the desirability of more RS is not grounds for deleting the text.

Consequently, I have reverted the deletion, adding {{cn}} on each award. Bn ( talk) 00:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, I see that the Mencken and Common Cause awards mentioned in Politico and elsewhere are not in the article. Tag the SPJ award mention with {{Additional citation needed}} if necessary, but deletion is unjustified. Bn ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The "Politico" source in question is here. It is not a Politico article, but in fact is a profile of Baker and is identical to what has appeared on Baker's personal website, russbaker.com. Accordingly it shouldn't be used for self-serving facts such as awards for which there appears to be zero corroborating independent evidence. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, indeed. But it was vetted by the editors at Politico before publication. They are professional editors (as I have been though not in journalism). They would not change anything unless they found it to be wrong. And if they did, it would destroy Baker's reputation among his peers and mentors. Detractors would have long since ferreted it out and exposed it. On the one hand, this technically qualifies as RS; on the other hand, your cavil lacks real-world credibility. But as I said, I am working on independent corroboration as I get time free from real responsibilities. Bn ( talk) 12:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The question isn't so much whether Baker received these awards as much as it's about their noteworthiness. If an award was noteworthy then you'd expect there to be something about it online beyond something written by Baker himself, no? I'm especially concerned about the SPJ award because not even the Baker-written sources say what it was. (Besides, I see no evidence that the editors at Politico "vetted" this source.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

This is the second instance in this current discussion where you have invoked policies inappropriately. WP:Notability applies only to the worthiness of a topic to merit a free-standing article, it does not apply to content within an accepted article. The corresponding guidance for content is wp:undue, which clearly does not apply here. Please take the time to become more familiar with WP policies and guidelines. It is easy (and, alas, all too commonplace) for editors to read superficially and overgeneralize. Bn ( talk) 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I didn't invoke our notability guideline; I referred to "noteworthiness," not "notability." As I've explained before, I'm referring not to whether an article should be free-standing, per WP:N, nor to whether the content is presented neutrally, per WP:NPV (or WP:UNDUE); but rather to whether this particular content is encyclopedic and belongs in a biography about Baker regardless of whether it's true, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm also uncertain as to whether the content is verifiable, per WP:V. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree. It appears to be, yet again, another self-published source, clearly and obviously written by the subject. It appears not in Politico proper but in "Arena," a discussion forum. http://www.politico.com/arena/faq.html Coretheapple ( talk) 16:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

What is the objection to Politico's Arena? That FAQ says: "The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a senior editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors. All of their responses are published in full without substantive editing." On the Staff page, "POLITICO launched Arena in 2008 with the hopes of creating a vibrant forum where Washington’s sharpest minds could debate and dissect the issues of the day." Having "selected" Baker as a participant, one of "Washington’s sharpest minds", and he agreeing, they would have asked him for a bio. Yes, written by the subject; no, not self-published. And to propose that Politico staff and editors would not have been concerned with its accuracy is obtuse. Bn ( talk) 12:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Since his bio is obviously self-written, as was pointed out previously, again you are into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Coretheapple ( talk) 12:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I haven't plowed through all the edits recently, but the article still relies excessively on sources related to the subject matter, even more so than when this was first tagged. So I have re-tagged. That and other tags were removed without discussion a few days ago. To resolve this problem, there needs to be balancing of sources, either an increase in sources and related text that are unrelated to the subject or a decrease in text sourced to the subject. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You perhaps have read too quickly.

For "without discussion", see the end of the preceding section above.

The very large majority of citations are to sources independent of Russ Baker. The citations to whowhatwhy.org and to russbaker.com, a minority, are accounted for as follows:

The website whowhatwhy.org is cited only in three ways: (1) to supplement the article in CJR, an indisputably independent RS, (2) to provide the obvious RS when an article published on whowhatwhy.org is mentioned by title, and (3) to provide archived links to radio and television broadcasts, where the original source has not been found. I will gladly remove those last, if you will accept that the fact that Russ Baker has appeared on radio and television broadcasts is uncontroversial and therefore does not require citation of RS. Note that doing so would serve your purpose of reducing explicit references (which you have perceived as self-serving) to a generalization.

The website russbaker.com is included to supplement citation info for print publication in Village Voice in 1991, George Magazine in 1997, and The Nation in 2003 and 2004. I could remove those supplemental archive links, requiring readers to go to a research library to find the original printed source. IMO that would be a disservice, and contrary to the spirit and intent of wp:v because it makes verification more difficult.

One citation of an archival copy on russbaker.com is not supplemental to a print publication (or other independent RS), because tompaine.com is no longer extant. An online publication can only have an online RS (though I suppose it might help if RS can be found elsewhere mentioning it).

WP:v says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." So I must ask you why you are challenging the fact that Russ Baker has appeared on radio and television broadcasts and the fact that Baker investigated allegations of impropriety at the Ohio polls in 2004 and published his conclusion "that the allegations misrepresented the facts" at tompaine.com?

Since archived sources are generally disallowed (under the usual umbrella of 'sensible' discretion), you could demand deletion of the paragraph about the tompaine.com article and the paragraph about speaking engagements. Or you could accept them without RS (but with the archival citation for tompaine.com). So: please make your case that these two paragraphs are controversial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn ( talk • contribs)

Of the 23 footnotes, all but 5 are sourced either to Baker, his website, or his self-written bio in Politico's Arena section. The Gabler article, reflecting the lack of independent sources, is utilized ten times. This limited sources indicates a general lack of sourcing on the subject of this article and a tendency to source most statements either to himself or to one other source. Since there is such limited sourcing it tends to skew the article into a kind of resume-like text. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

There are several aspects of these responses, and they are not entirely coherent. One aspect that we can dismiss is the proposal that what Baker has written must be noted by independent sources in order to be worthy of inclusion. This is an invocation of notability in disguise. (DrFleischman's "noteworthiness" is a distinction without a difference.) I'm sure you're aware that a notability test is inappropriate for content within an article, and that the corresponding guideline that applies is wp:Undue.

Stylistically, what you are objecting to, as far as I can make out, is that the listing of articles chronologically resembles a list of "work assignments" in the manner of a resume. This gives you the mistaken impression that everything that Baker ever wrote has been larded into the article, regardless of importance. I will be glad to help clean that up. I would appreciate your constructive participation. A more summary style would dispel that impression.

Related to the first point, it seems oddly necessary to point out that aside from quotations, only material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations ( wp:v nutshell). There are two consequences that follow from this. One is that there is nothing wrong with the summary style of the Bernstein article. Citations of specific articles are not required unless a statement of fact is challenged or likely to be challenged. The other consequence motivates the question that I asked. Please answer it. If in fact you are not challenging those two matters of fact that I identified, then four of the references that offend you can go away. Other citations could be eliminated where they document matters of fact that are not controversial and are no longer challenged by you. (Historically, the proliferation of examples of Baker's work, and the systematic documentation of it, was a response to earlier challenges by you and DrFleischman to the notability of the article.) Of the remaining references, ten are to articles and would disappear in a summary as in the Bernstein article. The reference in fn. 3 to the "I'm the other guy" article in the NYT could go away, since the distinction from the elder Russel Baker is covered at the top of the article. Mention of awards could go in a Awards section, as e.g. for the article about Tim Rutter.

Can you make a constructive contribution?

BTW, here is documentation of the award from the Society of Professional Journalists: http://www.deadlineclub.org/archives/37 (The Deadline Club is the name of the NYC chapter of the SPJ. Given the centrality of NYC to the news industry, and the diverse affiliations, geographical as well as organizational, of journalists located there, this is effectively a national award.) The judges' comments are pertinent to the above discussion. Bn ( talk) 02:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The problem, which has been explained to you several times, is that the article is an indiscriminate recitation of the article subject's work product, excessively detailed, not written in summary style, sourced to articles written by the subject, making this article promotional and resume-like in nature. I thought at first that I wasn't clear. But in reviewing the conversation I see that it has been explained repeatedly. You're deep, deep deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Coretheapple ( talk) 12:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Please don't shoot from the hip. You will have noticed by now my earlier response, below, are not responding to what I have written above, in which I acknowledged this assessment, proposed a solution, and asked for your constructive participation in fixing it. The above responds to your specific request for RS. For you to judge from that that I am not listening to you is very odd. Bn ( talk) 13:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

To repeat, I proposed a rewrite in summary style which would not require the articles that are summarized all to be specifically cited (which was done only to prove to you two that they exist).

Your tenacity in attacking articles relating to Russ Baker and his work, while not noticing the like "problems" in the Bernstein page until you cite it as an example, is remarkable. DrFleischman's response to my edits on 6 July was almost instantaneous, suggesting that this is a whack-a-mole hobby.

It is unavoidable that an article about an investigative reporter will talk about and cite things that he has written himself. But it is not common for reportage to be called out and talked about by others, and in any case independent RS about the reportage is relevant only in an article that is about a single piece of reportage, e.g. Russ Baker's "Fear of flying" article or Carl Bernstein's reportage on Ariel Sharon's "deceit" in 1982. Only there would RS be critical for notability. Such articles obviously are not done. So you accept that the article is in the public domain (by definition) and move on with a summary account of what the reporter has accomplished.

Are you going to participate, or are you going to continue the fusillade? Bn ( talk) 13:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Not "odd" at all. this edit adding still further excessive detail proves that. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

All that I added was the RS for the award and the quote from the judges when making the award--an independent assessment of that piece of reportage, as you have requested. What exactly is your objection to that?

The text beginning "On whowhatwhy.org, he and his staff have published..." was already present in my editing window. I did not paste it in or type it. Perhaps one of you were deleting it, and the wiki mismanaged a concurrent edit?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn ( talk • contribs)

The award citation is excessive detail. This is an encyclopedia article, not a tribute site or personal web page, and this is an award granted by the local chapter of a professional society, not the Pulitzers or a Nobel Prize. UNDUE, and you're still bogged down in IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The request for RS documentation of degrees at 17:03, 6 July 2016 is truly excessive nitpicking. Note that none of the entries at List of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism people are footnoted to RS. Readers of the article will not be served. I will find the RS references and post them here to satisfy User:DrFleischman, and am removing the {{cn}} tags. Bn ( talk) 11:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I don't mean to nitpick. What I don't like is how that sentence is cited to Baker's Politico profile, yet that source only verifies a portion of the sentence, causing it to be misleading. Remember that our policy on biographies of living people requires us to be extra vigilant about unverified content. I'd be more comfortable if the sentence was split into two so that there was no suggestion that Baker's degrees were supported by the current source. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Oh, well that's easy. The sentence that is footnoted is "He has also served as a member of the adjunct faculty of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism." The mention of degrees is in the preceding sentence. Bn ( talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply

UCLA Yearbook for 1979, p. 173.

• The bio in question was apparently lifted from his website and self-written. Note the similar wording ("pamphleteer"). Such material is allowable if not unduly self-serving per SELFPUB. We don't usually ask for degrees to be documented. Awards, I am not sure. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The degrees issue has been resolved. My take on awards is that they should generally be supported by independent sources. There are too many articles that are padded with obscure, inconsequential awards--usually added by editors with a promotional agenda, though not always--that mislead readers into thinking the subjects are more notable than they actually are. Independent sources are important not only for verifiability but also for neutrality and encyclopedic-ness. (This goes not just for this article but for many others as well. For example, I fought the same battle at Dana Loesch, who is at the other end of the political spectrum.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that awards should probably require independent substantiation but I'm not clear what the general practice is, or if there is a general practice. My problem with this article generally is a lack of substantive sourcing, and the sourcing primarily to articles written by the subject. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

A description of a reporter's work necessarily cites his or her published reportage. Those citations refer to the publication itself, and the author is not talking about himself. Sources that are about Baker are RS. Bn ( talk) 16:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Then may I suggest then that there is excessive detail on this reporter's work. Unless cited by third parties it is not sufficiently notable for mention in this article. The view that "he wrote it so it needs to be mentioned here" is what has turned this article into an extended resume. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with Coretheapple. Ultimately the article is reading too much like a resume. It's one thing to have a list of news outlets Baker has been published, with a citation for each one. It's quite another to have a sentence or three on each story. That's excessive detail and gives the appearance of self-promotion. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

To put the detail in this article in perspective, compare to Carl Bernstein. This is a world-famous journalist, and it is written in summary style and actually provides less detail on his career than this one does. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

And it still could be better sourced in parts related to his stories. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I will be happy to summarize in the manner of the Bernstein page, e.g.

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Bernstein went to Iraq to cover the events for Time magazine. In a special report several weeks before the Gulf War began, Bernstein revealed the discontent and hatred felt against Saddam Hussein by many in Iraq. He was subsequently expelled from the country and flown out to Egypt.

etc., that is without citations referencing the specific article or articles that are summarized. Please let me know now if you have an objection to that resolution. Bn ( talk) 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that summarization/compaction is needed, but I don't think that the flaws in the Bernstein page (such as the lack of sourcing in that paragraph) should be aped here. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

BN, I think that perhaps I have not communicated my concern, which is that the article is a list of work assignments in rote fashion without any independent sourcing indicating that those articles are in any way distinctive in and of themselves. We need third parties telling us about the subject's work, summarized properly. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

We've been here before. As I see it we have consensus on the issues raised in this discussion. I think Bn would rather fight that consensus than listen. If he wants to challenge the consensus then he can pursue dispute resolution. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I've tagged. I would suggest that the "career" section be reduced to proper length and tone, as that is where the excessive detail principally lies. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Look, why don't you two give it a rest and give me a chance to do what I've offered to do, now several times (with no substantive response from you). Just back off and give me some air. Unlike you, I do have a life apart from Wikipedia. Bn ( talk) 14:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I have a counter-suggestion, which is that you cease the WP:STONEWALL behavior that you've been exhibiting for nigh on six years in this article and on the talk page. The excessive detail and the promotional aspects of the article need to be addressed. It's not rocket science. It does not require lengthy dissertations. The problem is obvious to everyone but you. You are the only editor who doesn't "get" it, and your approach has been to add detail not to remove. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Can anyone find any independent confirmation that Baker was on the adjunct faculty at the Columbia Journalism School, as stated by the cited source written by Baker? I'm concerned because I could find nothing, and I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in the in-depth profile that was recently published by the Columbia Journalism Review. And if we can't find independent confirmation, does this impugn the reliability of the cited source? I'm on the fence. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

No, not finding anything apart from the subject. I don't think it reflects on the reliability of the source as it may simply indicate that it isn't in any other source. I assume he was on the Columbia website at one point. Archive.org may have that. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The earliest I could find on archive.org was 2007. That's after he was adjunct there. But note how long that list is. Is this really consequential enough to even be in this article? Coretheapple ( talk) 17:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I do think it's significant from a biographical perspective. Of course it would never merit inclusion at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I notice that the both the Politico and archived bios refer to Society of Professional Journalist awards. [2] [3] This implies somewhat more than reality, which is that the subject received awards from local chapters. Your desire for independent confirmation is well-taken. I also agree with the addition of a connected contributor template given the microscopic knowledge displayed by that editor. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Actually "Dr", I taught there over a number of years. Why dont you call the school and have them look it up? Don't be so lazy. As to why Columbia Journalism Review did not mention that I was a listed Contributing Editor on their magazine, that is because of dishonesty in their current practices, which have been criticized in print. Someone wrote a profile of me and the editors there felt it was too favorable so they looked for little niggling things to add to spice it up and make it appear more "balanced" and also NEVER mentioned that I myself had been a member of the CJR team. I brought this up with the then-publisher Victor Navasky, who agreed, but the editor of the magazine apparently felt this would have essentially negated the article somewhat and refused to add/correct that point. This is indicative of the very poor standards existing everywhere -- including, very much, on Wikipedia. The entirety of the "media establishment" deserves scrutiny for these reasons. 172.56.160.210 ( talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Bn, I think something is a little mixed up with the SPJ/Deadline club awards. Our article said Baker got an SPJ award for a story about Dan Burton published in 1998, but the sources you added say he got a Deadline Club award for a story about Bush's National Guard experience published in 2004. Something's not right. Perhaps you can clear this up? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hectic deletions scrambled things. I restored the reference when I came by and saw the cn tag. Portrait of a Political Pit Bull won an award from the Northern California Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists. It was awarded by that chapter because Northern California was the hub of all online journalism at that time, just as the Deadline Club, being in NYC, is the prestige point for all US journalism. There may be a reference to it on Salon.com pages archived from the last CY quarter of 1999. A query with the current President of NorCal SPJ has so far not returned results. Bn ( talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

What is your basis for saying that the Deadline Club is the "prestige point for all US journalism"? It is a local chapter of a national association that gives national awards, and the previous wording, relying upon the subject, exaggerated by omission. I.e., not stating that it was a chapter award and incorrectly implied that it was a national award. That substantiates the concern Dr. F has raised concerning using the self-written bio as a source. I agree with Dr. F that your microscopic knowledge of the subject indicates per WP:DUCK a close connection with the subject and would suggest that you abide by WP:COI and not directly edit this and the Family of Secrets article. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

A year ago I said that I would prefer others to edit these articles and stepped away. Finding the Columbia Journalism Review RS, and seeing no change, I added new RS cites and sourced material. I submit that my substantive edits this month are unexceptionable, apart from removing the tags after supplying RS, which Dr. F contested almost instantly. What you complain of is not current.

I will be glad to be free of the tar-baby. I still wish other and less contentious editors to be involved. Dr. F, be careful, a quick scan of your edits shows your interest in what are called conservative political causes.

The article in the Columbia Journalism Review and the article in Boston Magazine both demonstrate balance. You have cherry-picked negative statements from both, so that this article is now unbalanced in the other direction. For example, the quote from Moyers is not "puffery". It is a statement by a respected journalist that happens to contrast with the general negative tenor that you have now established. A prior deletion had left only the portion of the quote that could equally apply to a reference librarian. ( Tim Rutten, q.v., is small potatoes by comparison with Bill Moyers.) At the end of that section, it is interesting that sourcing a video on Baker's website is OK for you when it serves that purpose. In the same paragraph, the correct link to Coast-to-coast would be the page with his presentation, not the page listing many "past shows" with Baker's down at the end of the page, impugning him by association. But at either link this is a primary source, not RS stating that Baker has appeared there. Bn ( talk) 13:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I've added in the Moyers quote. It is hand-wavey and doesn't say much about anything, whereas Rutten discusses in detail his only book, but I have no problem with adding. The problem with the "Coast to Coast" reference that you're making a federal case about is an error in the "ref name" field, which I fixed. It was correctly sourced, as you would have noticed if you had taken ten seconds to check or noticed the big red error message. Given the promotional content of your edits, such as this puffery that you created and which has also required a great deal of work to clean up, I would not impugn the motives of Dr F or any other editor who has to take time from their lives to fix your messes. Going back over your "work" in this and the Family of Secrets article I saw sources misused, obvious facts hidden, other facts and sources mischaracterized, and generally an effort to promote the subject. It's pretty shameful. I am pleased that you have desisted in recent days and I hope there is no recurrence. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, in the 2013 sandbox I used the book itself as a source, on the analogy of the plot description in an article about a novel or film. I have learned since that this is objectionable for nonfiction, and of course it is the primary source. References to it could be augmented by references to the copious sources cited in the book ("p. 402, citing xyz"). The error flag was not confusing; I see that I did read that page superficially, and retract that objection, but isn't it the primary source for the statement that Baker spoke there? I believe that fact is mentioned in RS. But it does enable readers to click through and hear what Baker actually says, as distinct from what others say about what he says. The Moyers quote talks explicitly about Baker's methods and character, quite the opposite of hand-waving, and with his depth of experience he is a credible source to make the comparison with the conduct of other journalists. Bn ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The important thing is that the years of relentless POV pushing come to an end, however you justify it. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Does anyone know what Baker wrote for the Washington Post? I couldn't find it anywhere. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I would favor omitting any "fact" not sourced, especially given the unreliability of subject's self-written bio re the Society of Professional Journalist awards that were actually bestowed by the chapters. Coretheapple ( talk) 12:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Here's one example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2004/04/25/olympian-athens-stuck-between-alpha-and-omega/c11a01fb-e2bc-4274-9931-30a470a22777/

I am busy with my real work, but will look in when I can. Bn ( talk) 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

If he has just written one article for the Post then I am not sure that we have to mention it. Right now we have in the lead the publications for which he has written multiple articles. We don't have to mention each and every publication to which he has contributed. This is not his resume or personal website. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I think it's worthy of mention due to the prominence of the Washington Post. Just not in the lead section. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 15:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2004/04/25/olympian-athens-stuck-between-alpha-and-omega/c11a01fb-e2bc-4274-9931-30a470a22777/ 172.56.160.210 ( talk) 21:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I recently read this for the first time and it read like something that emerges from a fraught NPOV debate between camps of people with divergent biases over the subject. I'm editing this anonymously because it seems likely that there are political grudges involved and I don't want to be followed around the internet by folks who spend their time engaging in them. I think this article would be improved a lot if it were edited exclusively by a new set of editors, including none that have patterns of political NPOV mud-wresting in either direction.

Some parts of the previous draft were egregiously slanted against the subject (perhaps over-correcting for some long-buried earlier drafts?), including a book review paragraph that quoted extensively from one single 'scathing' review, while leaving out much more balanced remarks, including from the very references cited. If you read them all, the reviews are clearly "mixed" - maybe 5 out of 10 on average, or lower if you weight the popular broadsheets higher. But the guy's whole standpoint is critiquing their worldview, so it really isn't NPOV just to quote exclusively from the set of sources he's apparently spent his career opposing.

I haven't gone through any of the other sections but I hope somebody else does. 96.224.245.189 ( talk) 03:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Looking again now after several years, I can affirm that you are correct. For starters, more quotations (and more complete quotations) from the CJR bio would help. Two editors with a policing attitude once barred me from editing this because I had met Baker when he gave a talk, and he told me about the then forthcoming article in Boston Magazine, which I then mentioned on the Talk page. This was labeled a conflict of interest. Editing that followed trended toward character assassination. Not quite so blatant now, but still far from NPOV. It should be obvious to anyone checking sources, that derogatory cherry-picking prevails. I will not engage in editing here, my limited time and energy are committed elsewhere, and who knows I may still be barred from the content. Bn ( talk) 16:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

What are your specific objections and what is it in the CJR piece that you think should be included? The last three sentences of the section regarding Family of Secrets could be replaced with a sentence that says the book received poor reviews, and the section regarding journalistic approach appears to be generally balanced as to positive comments and negative comments. - Location ( talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I dont know if I am allowed to say anything, but the two "bad reviews" you cite were: The Washington Post, about which I revealed embarrassing things in my book. The paper, in an awkward position, assigned the review not to a serious person or expert in these topics who could fairly assess them, but to a freelancer who is a kind of satirist -- and the paper broke a cardinal rule of ethics in not noting that I described the Post's own failings. The other was the LA Times, and Tim Rutten, who "offered" to review it, did not reveal his friendliness with a figure whose wrongdoing I exposed in the book. Rutten subsequently was fired over a separate ethics matter. I could go on. The point is this is all insider dealing and smears. I also dont trust the people who are so busy here trying to minimize a book that has almost 1000 overwhelmingly positive reviews on Amazon, most five stars, and "positive reviews" from Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Gore Vidal, etc. 69.203.117.207 ( talk) 03:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I found that the section on Journalistic approach was cherry-picking too much. The quotes from the Boston Magazine article sounded a lot more negative to me than the article they were taken from.

For what it's worth, I wrote about this in The Signpost, Wikipedia's community newspaper: see the second story on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-20/In_the_media. Andreas JN 466 15:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I see no issues with the "Journalistic approach" and "Family of Secrets" sections. They appear to me, someone new to this article, as fairly written based on the overall landscape of available reliable sources. They do not include much, if any, UNDUE content and fairly characterize the sources that they do include. The WaPo review, the LA Times review, and the CJR piece, are all fair game and absolutely RSes for this content. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• I agree that keeping this article NPOV is a struggle. It has been a struggle for some time because of edits like this. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Russ Baker has argued on his website (and presumably as the IP in the previous section) that Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked sources to negatively describe his journalistic approach and his book Family of Secrets. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Russ Baker to address these complaints. - Location ( talk) 16:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes this is the subject of this page. My first question is: what motivates a small number of individuals over many years to fuss over extremely small matters like whether I wrote one or more articles for the Washington Post. I see no evidence that these people apply the same standards everywhere -- nor do I understand quite why they are so very interested in nitpicking over non substantive matters rather than acknowledging that I am a longtime well respected journalist with huge body of important work, a large following, a bestselling book, and loads of experience and credentials. The bias and malignant intent of the people on here is extremely apparent. I'd like them to identify themselves by name and explain about their political beliefs, work and motivations in focusing on this crusade to demean and diminish me. That seems only fair. 172.56.160.210 ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

"Malignant intent"? "Crusade"? That mindset is not helpful in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. But if you intend to make a negative impression and to be regarded as someone who sees conspirators and enemies everywhere, as well as to start a quarrel and distract from actual article improvement, you are doing it right.

If you want to improve the article, you need to point out what exactly is wrong and where we can find sources that get it right, not complain about those big meanies who disagree with you. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 172.56.160.210 if you are indeed Mr. Baker, then you should declare a conflict of interest for this page when starting (or participating in) discussions here, as it would be wrong to portray yourself as an unbiased observer, and also against policy for you to edit this page in a way which conflicts with that COI. You should always post on this talk page and get consensus first. Wikipedia also asks you to play fairly, as you appear to be asking it. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Yes "malignant intent" is the kind of abuse COI editors often throw around when they don't get their way. Honestly, Mr. Baker has edited this page and given his two cents over and over again, and his latest effort is just another hammering away, which I assume he will do forever. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

For future reference:

Neyfakh, Leon (January 6, 2009). "Baker Blitzes Bush Fam for Bloomsbury, Has Big Bash!". Observer. New York. Retrieved March 11, 2023.

This article is similar to the Boston Magazine article in that there are various quotes suggesting that mainstream outlets tend to be fearful of working with Baker because they are profit driven and don't want to rock the boat... versus possessing standards that exception claims require exceptional evidence. - Location ( talk) 19:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

For future reference:

Baker, Russ (September 14, 2004). "Why Bush Left Texas". The Nation. Retrieved March 11, 2023.

This is the article for which Baker won the 2005 Deadline Club Award. The Deadline Club appears to be part of the Society of Professional Journalists' New York City chapter. Here is their article that states he received the award for Web News Exclusive:

Deadline Club. "2005 Deadline Club Awards". deadlineclub.org. New York: Deadline Club. Archived from the original on April 20, 2005. Retrieved March 11, 2023. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; April 20, 2006 suggested ( help)

The judges comments state: "Russ Baker’s 'Why Bush Left Texas' questioned a sitting President’s version of details he had successfully brushed aside for years: whether he actually fulfilled his National Guard commitment. Baker’s broadly-sourced article brought some clarity to a muddy issue and drove debate on a critical topic at a critical time: amid the heat of a Presidential campaign. The story’s essay style fits well on the internet." - Location ( talk) 20:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. The conclusion of the Nation piece is "The overwhelming evidence suggests, however, that the Alabama campaign was a convenient excuse for Bush to rapidly exit stage left from a Guard unit that found him and his behavior a growing problem." This lands us directly in WP:FRINGE territory: in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. As with articles on, for instance, the Trump election fraud theories, we need to be careful generally in this article to avoid promoting Baker's fringe views of events. No matter how much he may yell here and off-Wiki about nefarious forces and mainstream media and so on, Wikipedia rules apply here. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The only reason I posted Baker's article from The Nation is because the award for it is prominently referenced in The Signpost and various other places online, yet the actual article does not appear here. If there are other reliable sources discussing the notability of that piece, then we might be able to mentioned what they have to say about it but I agree that we should not rehash here the material in George W. Bush military service controversy.. - Location ( talk) 01:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I really don't think it is desirable or necessary for us to act here on the basis of a Signpost article that repeated the arguments Baker himself advanced through edits to the article and talk page argumentation, via IPs and SPAs, going back thirteen years. (See [4] ) For instance, the Signpost article listed ad nauseum the publisher-solicited promotional blurbs the book received. Every single book on Amazon gets promotional blurbs. They are never, ever, referenced in articles on authors or books. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If Wikipedia convention is that promotional blurbs are never referenced (independent of other reliable secondary sources mentioning them), then I am OK with removing them. - Location ( talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTPROMO makes that clear: "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." So Baker is free to take them off his book jacket and put them on his website, and I guess Signpost has the same privilege, we can't use them in an article. Blurbs are advertising copy, and cannot be used to balance out negative reviews no matter how much Baker screams about it. I don't mean to be harsh but he has been at this for a decade. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Since we're talking another look at this article's sourcing, I think that we should reconsider the practice, which I believe was introduced originally by one of the SPAs, of using as sources articles written by Baker. "He wrote about X, he wrote about Y," etc. unless those articles are specifically referenced by an independent third-party source. Otherwise we are just throwing in stuff we find on the Internet, and I believe that generally references to articles (as opposed to books) are omitted in articles on writers unless clearly notable in their own right. I think picking out articles like that otherwise falls afoul of WP:OR Coretheapple ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I am OK with that, too, but it seems to be so commonplace that I've never really understood whether it is acceptable practice or not. I'm not exactly sure where to place, but I do think the article that won the Deadline Club aware could be noted in a footnote or a section at the bottom noting his works. - Location ( talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

His receipt of the Deadline Club award seems like something fairly innocuous for a biographical article, as long as it is not written as an endorsement of the fringe theory incorporated in that article. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Actually I see that the Deadline Club award is already in the article though worded in the usual promotional manner ('exclusive"). I will remove the articles written by him as I mentioned. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Note the sentence I added at the end of the first paragraph. I think that or something like it is required by WP:FRINGE (i.e. the need to put fringe claims in context). Coretheapple ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply