Talk:Tina Brown/Archives/2014

Comments

Wot no mention of her assertion: bloggers are stasi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith777 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 April 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Problems

This article reads as if it was written by Brown herself. Were a reader to judge solely by this article, he could reasonably conclude that Tina Brown is the greatest editor in the history of the magazine industry. She improves readership and recruits remarkable talent wherever she goes -- and she only leaves/resigns because she must move on to greater things (chairmanships! book contracts!). Apparently, Talk magazine would have been a remarkable success if it weren't for that darn 9/11. Damn you, terrorists!

Seriously, I don't deny Brown's successes, but this article has huge omissions. Not everything Brown touches has turned to gold. Most glaringly, the article barely acknowledges the marked contention that marked her stint at the New Yorker -- supposedly the only critics are the dead weight that she "let go" from the magazine. It would also be difficult to find credible contemporary accounts that characterized Talk as an unmitigated success, even pre-9/11. I tried to address POV issues in the other sections, but the "Editing career" section will take more concerted work. I've placed the POV warning on it for now.

The article also seems to give an odd amount of weight to Brown's dating life. I haven't touched this for the most part because I don't know enough about her to say how much weight her romances hold in the makeup of her public persona. TPIRman 05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some references to her critics and controversy in the New Yorker section, making it somewhat more balanced.

Nbarth 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How comes she to be a "Lady" when not a holder of a noble title nor married to a holder of a noble title? The man to whom she is married is a knight and not a noble. Is she not not then a "Dame"? I understand that there are a few atypical Orders of Nobility wherein the wife of a knight is styled "Lady" and not "Dame", but if her husband is a member of one of these Orders can the Wikipedia article about him please be edited to include the proper initials after his name so that readers can ascertain to which Order he belongs (if any)? See query from me this date and time at the Wikipedia article on "Lady", which has problems.64.131.188.104Christopher L. Simpson —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with TPIRman, the first commentator, that this original article was far too biased in favour of Tina Brown. I added in some information about 'The Diana Chronicles' with some information regarding unfavourable critical reviews AND THIS WAS DELETED BY SOMEONE? WHY? Ivankinsman 10:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added in some additional information regarding Talk magazine and The Diana Chronicles and sourced references to TB's work as a newspaper columnist. It will be interesting to see if this stays in this article or if it too will be deleted. Ivankinsman 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, with this and all biographies of living persons, Wikipedia has to be extra special careful about the criticism because of libel. I know this was already changed by another user, but I think using the word "payoff" is walking that line. Additionally, NPOV doesn't just mean having one quote by a supporter and one by a detractor, it means staying neutral the whole way through, so just adding nasty comments from the Telegraph doesn't do much to fix the article. I don't think the artilce needs a NPOV flag, but just that users need to be careful.

Additionally, I'd like to ultimately take out and all the long quotes, not add more, especially with regard to her book. I would perfer to replace them with full paragraphs. In particular, would you block moving one of the sour quotes from "The return of the media queen" to the subpage? Or if I changed the word "enemies", since this isn't a war? Additionally, do we need two separate quotes from the same poor Telegraph review on the Diana Chronicles article? They're the first and last quotes there. Understand that I'm not trying to undermine your edits or promote another user's view of Tina Brown, just to follow some reasonable style.--Samsknee 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it, I see that the information under the Diana Chronicles section was copy/pasted from the referenced article. I believe any Wikipedian can tell you that such activity is not allowed. In bold letters below the edit box it says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." I will try to adjust it for your somewhat biased viewpoint to reflect the Observer article, but don't act surprised when such copyright infringement content is deleted in the future.

Secondly, I am seriously concerned with the use of unnamed subjects here. "One Brown watcher" and "A senior editor at the Times" and "a leading British broadsheet" do not lead to verifiblility.--Samsknee (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, ref. this second point. If a leading newspaper editor is prepared to run with this information, then I thought it would be appropriate here. After all, newspapers, just like Wikipedia, have to ensure verification of their sources/accuracy of their information. Would like your viewpoint ... Ivankinsman (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Five years later, this article still has major NPOV problems. It still reads like a hagiography. The stress is extremely heavy on Brown's successes & extremely light on her problems. Brown is a highly controversial figure in the media world; the idea that she's some hugely successful figure with only a few sour-grapes detractors is nonsense. This entry still reads as though the only people who have opposed her work were writers she fired from The New Yorker. It also still reads as though Talk only failed because of 9/11. And there's almost nothing on her failures at Newsweek. She's essentially run the magazine into the ground, & even in her first several months at the helm she's run into major controversy that didn't visit the magazine in the past, from the Obama opinion cover to the Muslim Rage cover. I hate to be paranoid, but this reads like it was all edited by someone on Brown's staff.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Plagarism section

Is the plagarism charge made against Brown? Has she responded to it? Is she in any way connected to it? No. You reasoning is faulty; it's the equivalent to saying that anything about the New York Times should appear in the Henry Jarvis Raymond article. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But Raymond is no longer actively running the New York Times. Brown is still actively running the publication she founded Singeritem (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that not mentioning allegations of plagiarism at the Daily Beast amounts to a lack of neutrality. The reference would not be to Brown's entire career but to controversy at her current post. Tina Brown did not, of course, plagiarize anything herself, but she is editor in chief and the very visible presence of The Daily Beast. The allegations of plagiarism are notable because they have occurred at least twice, because it has led to something of a feud with Salon, and because it may tell us something about the culture of these online magazines and the pressures they face. PietroLegno (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1382127/Tina-Brown-I-have-no-plans-to-retire-and-knit.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The violation was already partly cleaned up, I completed the process Yoenit (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I don't know the slightest thing about this lady, so I can't correct it, but the introduction goes :

"Born a British citizen, she took United States citizenship in 2005 after emigrating in 1984 to edit Vanity Fair. Only 25, she had by then been editor-in-chief of Tatler magazine, and rose to prominence in the American media industry as the editor of the magazines Vanity Fair from 1984 to 1992 and of The New Yorker from 1992 to 1998. "

When was she only 25? There's no reference in the paragraph to anything she did in 1978/9. I guess this refers to her career with Tatler - but it's not clear. Apologies if it's just my mangled brain misreading. Rxcxxy (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When did she stop writing for Times?

   I tagged {{When?}} in Tina Brown/Archives#Relationship for her departure from Times to Telegraph (or, per Bachrach, from both to Tele only), as Dempster's article can't be found via its title. Judy Bachrach's Tina and Harry Come to America: Tina Brown, Harry Evans, and the Uses of Power have her leaving (BTW, well after starting the relationship, it would seem) at p. 70, but mentions no relevant years.
--Jerzy•t 07:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Her roots

Brown is part Iraqi. “It’s on my mother’s side,” she said. “She was dark and I never knew why.” in Finding your roots.[1]--Anen87 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Add it to the article with the source, then she can be categorised as such. Without any reference for it in the article, she should not be so categorised.--ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it here cause she does not have a section for "Personal life", it's something she learned later in her life so I didn't put it under "Early life". But if you insist so much I'll make it myself. Either way the category should stay.--Anen87 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to be confrontational. Now that it is in the article and sourced, it's fine. But you can't go adding categories to articles, especially BLPs, without the category being supported by text and a reliable source in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Her mother was born in Holland, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wit97wit97 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)