Jump to content

Talk:Peter Zuckerman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myspace Page

[edit]

Can we take a photo from here and use it? www.myspace.com/peterzuckerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor1234321234321 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What criticism?

[edit]

The reference on the statement that he received criticism for a story is simply a link to that story. If he has been the subject of criticism notable enough to be mentioned, the critics should be identified and sourced.

Also, criticized for what? Spelling? Communist sympathies? Poor dress sense?

Dybryd 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also...this is off-topic, but I just followed the "Exposé" link, and good lord! When did PBS get so tacky? It looks like Hard Copy or something! Dybryd 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

[edit]

Hm...error, or sniffy high-handedness? Dybryd 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the deletion of the above post? I'm sure it was an edit conflict. Aboutmovies uses a script to assess articles. He knows better than to blank talk page comments without an edit summary. Assume good faith! You're in good hands when WikiProject Oregon is involved. :) Katr67 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry to get sniffy myself then :) Dybryd 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the deleted item, the script has a bug that sometimes removes things, but previously I only thought it removed my previous edits. Aboutmovies 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decent articles about conflict

[edit]

For those editing needing decent sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Benjiboi 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an overview of the scandal itself[6] Benjiboi 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the paper he writes for

[edit]

[7] Benjiboi 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Journalism Awards

[edit]

Any reason this was taken out? Did the citation not back it up? If he won this it goes a long way towards establishing his notability. Katr67 22:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Scripps Foundation list of past winners, the Post Register won the First Amendment Award (one of the many National Journalism Awards) in 2005, presumably for the work Zuckerman, Dean Miller, and their colleagues did on the scouting story.Dybryd 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that a lot of material has been removed from the Post Register article by the single-edit account [Stronghold83], with information about the award being part of what was taken out.
I further notice that Strongman83 misspelled "despite" as "dispite" - an error that was also made by 66Jumpstreet in editing this article. Dybryd 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source on the paper winning the award. It's specified that it's for the Scout's Honor story, but no writer is singled out. From the Scripps Foundation press release:

Dybryd 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly should be included, a "prize-winning" or something along that lines in the lede and then a follow up further down the article with details about the award and money involved. Also that quote is good as it's not us interpreting but someone else. Benjiboi 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism on the Series

[edit]

66Jumpstreet cited his deleted edit to a story called "Scout's Honor a Disservice" in the Post Register. Was this in fact a story published by the newspaper, or was it one of the full-page ads purchased in response to the scouting story by Frank VanderSloot, owner of Melaleuca? If the latter, how should it be referred to? It seems misleading to simply list it as having been published in the newspaper. [User:Dybryd|Dybryd]] 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The title certainly isn't the kind of title that is given to news articles. I wondered if it were an editorial. Does anyone have access to the source? Could we see a scan of the article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Requested Source 66Jumpstreet 06:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. A purchased advertisement in the paper should not be attributed to the paper but to its author. The reference as given is inaccurate. Dybryd 06:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post a scan of the article somewhere? I'd really like to read it- and verify what it says- but I can't find a copy of it, and the Post Register's web site is subscription-only. Specifically, it's clear from the title that whatever it is, it isn't a news article. Is it an advertisement, as Dybryd? Is it a letter to the editor (that's my theory)? Just from the title, it doesn't seem likely that it is a news story, but it's hard to evaluate it when we can't read it, and if you have a copy, it would be the work of five minutes to scan it and put the image on your userspace. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can sign up for the Post Register for a single month on their website. The article is written by a Mary Haley of the Post Register's advisory board. Here is a sample of the article:
Scouts Honor Was A Disservice
Post Register
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mary Haley Readers Advisory Board"
"The Readers Advisory Board is made up of a cross-section of people from eastern Idaho who advise on this page, respond to editorials and offer a balanced voice."
"Friday's edition of the Scouts Honor series was the worst piece of journalism I've seen in a long time. It's a shame to finish an important series in such a way."
"What was reporter Peter Zuckerman thinking when he asked the question: "Did Stowell molest you?" and then give dates and a picture? If I'd been molested, don't you think I would remember when it happened? People do lie about this type of thing to collect money. And now, if someone comes forward, all the defense has to do is hold up Friday's paper and ask him if they read it. It might be enough to shed doubt on the truth of their statements."
"Mistakes riddle this case and this article. This isn't just a Boy Scout problem, although there are definite mistakes the Scouts should address. With the title of the series, "Scouts' Honor," one would think the Boy Scouts are the only ones responsible here..."SuperSandman 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other article appears to be a letter to the editor. Here it is:
Opening old wounds
Come on, Post Register, you know better than that! You are dragging up old history that everyone knows about and with which already has been ::::::sufficient dealt with. I'm pretty sure all the people involved in the matter would just as soon go on with their lives rather than having you open up old wounds and pouring salt in them.
Just remember, Post Register staff, who your subscribers are and who puts money in your pockets. I wish I had a subscription to the Post Register so I could cancel it.
If the Post Register really cared about the safety of children, it would print timely full-page articles regarding the many other child molestation cases in the area.
No, this seems to be a grudge that reporter Peter Zuckerman has against the Boy Scouts and the LDS church. To me, it has all the appearance of "racial profiling."
If the Post Register was targeting a predominantly Black, Mexican-American or American-Indian group on the same issue, the ACLU would be threatening a lawsuit. It would be interesting for Zuckerman to express why he dislikes the Boy Scouts and the LDS church so much and to give us some information regarding his background.
I thought that the Post Register and Mr. Zuckerman as professionals were aware that court cases regarding juveniles are generally secret or sealed to protect the juveniles. Maybe they just don't really care about minors. Apparently not, since Zuckerman printed a minor's name in a recent car theft case. Anyway, digging up an 8-year-old closed case is really pointless and only serves to ruin people's lives and causes unproductive hysteria and animosity.
I urge subscribers and those who advertise in the Post Register to cancel their accounts.
JANET W...
Searching their site, there are several letters like this obviously from angry readers, but I also found others that support the newspaper.
A search in google of Scouts Honor and Post Register also turned up some blog sites that shows there is great passion in the area about this article, but blogs being blogs - we won't got there.SuperSandman 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's fair to say he got "praise and criticism" for the series -- anything that's high-profile will get praise and criticism if you look hard enough, and every single high-profile piece of journalism has received "criticism and praise." If you look at the letters to the editor, the vast majority were positive (though who knows if the newspaper was filtering them), and a later column by Mary Haley says the series was fantastic except for the last part. Anyway, I'm taking out the "criticism and praise" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor1234321234321 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scouts' Honor" follow up questions

[edit]

Since "Scouts' Honor" is currently central to this case it makes sense that we give at least passing mention to how many other reporters wrote the article and what, if any, actions were taken against them. Also was there any outcome of the case/article? I haven't read the whole thing but it seems we should mention it if the story resulted in an investigation or "shake-up" etc. Benjiboi 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Also, was the Boy scouts the only entity involved? If not we should make reference to other governing bodies affected. Benjiboi 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Content by FisherQueen

[edit]

Please note that my edits are not personal commrntary, but facts as outlined in references. if you would please point out specifically what you view in conflict please let me know. 208.54.14.11 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copy of my reply to the same question, on my talk page) The problem with your edits, as the warnings on your talk page say, is that they seem to violate the neutral point of view policy. You appear to be trying to make the subject look worse, instead describing why he is notable in a neutral way. For example, putting "scare quotes" around his Poynter institute title in order to disparage his position there, or removing the word 'praise' to make it look like his writing has only received disapproval and not praise (when the sources say that he was widely praised for the articles), or by adding 'claims to' to make it look like he is not being honest about being harassed (when the sources confirm that he faced harassment). My suggestion is that you don't rewrite the article in ways that are biased or that don't accurately reflect what the sources say. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, despite the header you've used, I have not deleted any information from this article; I have only reverted your changes, which shifted to more biased wordings but did not add any new information to the article. I object to the header you've chosen as an example of the type of editing you added- it is not accurate, and the words are chosen to bias readers against me rather than to factually describe the information. I notice that you had a more neutral header originally, and then changed it to the more negatively biased header, just as you did in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out as well that your recent edit is not accurate, according to the sources. Poynter is not a six week course, it is a journalism school of over 1000 students. It is true that Zuckerman is not a full time instructor but a visiting teacher, and the article already states that clearly. Again, your edits are intended to discredit Zuckerman and the school but do not accurately reflect the sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation

[edit]

There have been a couple of reverts around the term "openly gay." I would like to suggest that Zuckerman's sexual orientation in itself is not particularly noteworthy; it doesn't have any bearing on his career or public persona. The fact that he is involved with Sam Adams is certainly noteworthy, for many reasons. So I'd suggest leaving "openly gay" out; if anyone is interested, it is readily apparent, but there's no reason to call it out explicitly. -Pete (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in a world where everyone is presumed to be heterosexual sexual minority status is inherently noteworthy. We don't call someone a gay writer or gay journalist per se but we do include this information with due weight. If it is extremely important to their life or work it may be in the lede0 If not it's often found in the "personal life" or "family" section(s). You may infer that someone who has a traditionally male name who is said to have a partner who also has a traditionally male name is gay but we write for the world and as such we spell out certain aspects like this. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live in a world where everyone is presumed to be heterosexual. I understand that such worlds exist, but I'm not particularly interested in structuring an encyclopedia to cater to their inaccurate view of reality. Also, I don't think this relies on the name "Sam" being traditionally male; the article about Sam Adams is full of male-gendered pronouns, and has two photos of him. -Pete (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text should be NPOV and cater to our general readers who would not inherently infer that Zuckerman is openly gay. No reason to omit that. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some reflection, I think the only problem is the word "openly." Of course there's no problem with mentioning that he's gay, but I don't see any reason for emphasizing that he's open about it. If he tried to keep it under wraps, that might be noteworthy; but if it's written up in various sources and there's no controversy, why call out the "openness" of it? -Pete (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College

[edit]

Peter Zuckerman was an editor for the college newspaper, The Quest. Also while a student, he authored an opinion piece for the Oregonian which described widespread drug use at the college. Students reacted very harshly to his depiction of the college, and the college responded to the controversy with this column: http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/may2002/columns/NoC/NoC_op_ed_piece.html Not sure if either of these facts are encyclopedia worthy, but they do seem relevant to the biography of an investigative reporter. Quaternion (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, I had not put together that that piece was by Zuckerman. I found the original piece and some followup in the Oregonian's archives, and added a couple sentences to the articles. -Pete (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the comment about Zuckerman "resurrecting" the Quest after it had ceased operation during the preceding year, replacing it with something more neutral about Zuckerman merely serving on the paper's editorial board. I was involved with the paper in Fall 2001, prior to Peter and Phillip's (?) editor-ship in Spring 2002, and my strong recollection is that the end of F'01 saw a standard Quest Board election, and orderly transfer of power to P & P in S'02. I'm really not certain what this bit about resurrecting the Quest is intended to refer to.

I appreciate that the original comment was sourced, but the reference there was only to a faculty biography page, which I assume was not itself checked in any manner.

I would love to include here references to the Quest's own archives, but these are not accessible from off campus. Long story there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.89.201.2 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovereed (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) - my apologies; unclear on the technology. I am responsible for the three paragraphs above.[reply]

Original research?

[edit]

An anonymous (or not-so-anonymous, IP editor) has been making a number of detailed edits to the article recently. They mostly look OK, though a few of them stray from what the sources cited have to say. (I've reverted those changes.)

Anyway, it looks like these edits are pushing at the boundary of the policy on original research and possibly constitute a conflict of interest. Doesn't look like a huge problem to me, but worth keeping an eye on.

And to the account-less editor, may I invite you to say a few words here about your background, sourcing, and /or intent in working on this article? Not required of course, but often helps clear the air and keep things congenial. -Pete (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot my wikipedia login and, for full disclosure, did see Zuckerman give a talk at a bookstore and subsequently read his book, but I do not know him. I felt the critical response line was fair because it's what others have noted (per note added), the Amazon review average is five stars, and I read just about every review I could find, and all were positive except two: one was by someone who was discussing why he would not read the book; another was a complaint that it's too expensive. I think the book may deserve its own Wikipedia page -- it breaks a lot of ground about Sherpas and high-altitude workers -- but let's wait a few months to see more about how it is received and what kind of impact it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.46.237 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for his father

[edit]

Can this be added? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Zuckerman&oldid=1211061650"