Talk:Ronan Farrow/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remove "Journalist" Functional Title

On review of Farrow's various published writings it appears he exclusively contributes opinion columns and op-eds and doesn't conduct actual news reporting. Policymakers and policy commenters, including Vladimir Putin, John McCain, John Thune, etc., frequently contribute opinion columns and op-eds of the type Farrow has authored and we don't describe them as "journalists" in their Wikipedia entries. I propose deleting references to Farrow being a journalist. BlueSalix (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If he's strictly an op-ed writer, it's true that "journalist" is incorrect. If he's a columnist, it's murky, since some columnists write primarily opinion columns while others contain new interviews with newsmakers and reporting. Unfortunately, in trying to access a Wall Street Journal column seemingly footnoted here, I ran into links like "Farrow 2006a" and "Farrow2006b" that just link back to this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've consistently run into the same issue with this article and have so far given those citations the benefit of the doubt but they should probably be removed. This is what I've found vis a vis Farrow's writings by googling the phrase "by Ronan Farrow" in Google News Archives plus manually searching for the articles listed in this WP entry -

• Wall Street Journal #1 - (re-published at the Yale Law School website on the basis of which I trust it was at one time published in the Journal) - described as "a commentary"
• Wall Street Journal #2(re-published at the Yale Law School website on the basis of which I trust it was at one time published in the Journal) - described as "a commentary"
• New York Times (online only - originally published in the Times' International Herald Tribune) - published in the section "Opinion"
• Los Angeles Times - published in the section "Opinion"

I was unable to find any other published writing by Farrow beyond these four outlets. BlueSalix (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion is considered Advocacy journalism. If you do a little research, you should be able to find more published writing by RF. In 2013 alone, he wrote for The Atlantic in May 2013, Guardian in June 2013 <http://www.theguardian.com/profile/ronan-farrow> and Foreign Policy in July 2013 <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/16/censuring_the_censors_technology_companies_internet> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.40.227 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian and Atlantic columns were also opinion columns. Op-eds are not advocacy journalism. BlueSalix (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

More details about current career available

I am not authorized to edit the page, but MSNBC has confirmed that Farrow is signed on to host a show in early 2014. The reference is here. . Could someone with access please edit the 'Career' section to reflect those changes? Snarkady (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Woops that citation link didn't work. Here is the link: http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/msnbc/pressreleases?pr=contents/press-releases/2013/10/16/ronanfarrowjoin1454075.xml Snarkady (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, major fail. Turns out I was authorized to edit the page, but I didn't realize it. Nothing to see here! Snarkady (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Tag on page

Given the number of editors on this article, I'm not sure I'm seeing who User:Robedia, who tagged in good faith, believes is either Farrow himself or someone connected to him. As the tag itself says, there should be a discussion on the talk page about this accusation or suspicion. Otherwise, it's hard to to tell whose edits should be given scrutiny for signs of bias. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous sources

The cites for Farrow's purported sexual orientation all appear to be anonymous "sources" that may or may not be accurate. While certain newspapers may find it appropriate to publish unsubstantiated, unconfirmed statements, i.e. rumors, an encyclopedia has a higher standard. This is particularly true with biographies of living people. If something doesn't have concrete verification — and anonymous "sources" aren't that — we can't put it in an encyclopedia, which states only fact. And saying, "Well, it's a fact that this is a rumor!" is just a semantic workaround for publishing the rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC Ethiopia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An edit dispute between two versions of Ronan_Farrow#Ethiopia exists between user:Tenebrae and myself. My suggested text is (differences between our versions highlighted in bold):

In January 2008, Farrow and his mother, Mia Farrow, accompanied U.S. Rep. Donald Payne on a short visit to Kenya, following which he wrote an opinion column for the Los Angeles Times criticizing counter-insurgency operations in the Ogaden desert by Kenya's neighbor, Ethiopia. The Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles responded to the column by noting Farrow had only interviewed a single person living in Kenya to arrive at his conclusions and observing Farrow had "failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa."

His suggested text is:

In January 2008, Farrow and his mother, Mia Farrow, accompanied U.S. Rep. Donald Payne on a short visit to Kenya, following which he wrote an opinion column for the Los Angeles Times criticizing counter-insurgency operations in the Ogaden desert by Kenya's neighbor, Ethiopia. The Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles, Taye Atske Selassie, wrote a letter to the Times saying Farrow had "quoted a single person in Kenya claiming Ethiopian security forces were responsible for human rights abuses, but the 'separatist rebels' had merely carried out a few attacks," and that Farrow had "failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa."

Ultimately, this is a question of which version is more readable (my 42 word sentence or Tenebrae's 60-word sentence), as I think they're both factually accurate. [The functional differences are (1) I believe it is appropriate, as a point of editorial style, to omit Consul Taye's name and simply refer to him as "the Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles" as he is a relatively unknown person and it reads a bit smoother by decreasing the word count in an otherwise unwieldy sentence, (2) use "noting" instead of "saying" [while both terms may be appropriate, I think 'noting' offers a smoother read than the more utilitarian "said this" "said that" and is synonymous with "saying" in any case - user:Tenebrae believes the word "noting" instead of "saying" is a violation of WP:NPOV], (3) accurately paraphrase the article instead of inserting a long quote from Consul Taye as this would keep it stylistically consistent with the lead-in sentence which summarizes Farrow's position instead of copypasting it] We had previously disagreed on the date - I wanted to insert the date of January 2008 while user:Tenebrae kept reverting to April 2008 (an unsourced date originally inserted by a 7-identity sockpuppet) - however, we were able to come to a conclusion on that point on our own (January 2008) and this is the only remaining point of contention. BlueSalix (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose change to BlueSalix version. There's no reason not to properly identify someone, particularly when the source is an opinion given in a letter-to-the-editor and not in an article where the reporter would fact-check his statement. If someone's giving a derogatory opinion about a living person, we have to take extreme care per WP:BLP, and that means we fully identify him.

I've been a journalist for well over 30 years, and the connotations of "to note" and "to say" are different. To note is "to make special mention of or remark on" while "to say" is completely neutral. If we want to be technical, the absolutely correct word would be "opined" or a synonym. Next: Adding the intensifier "only" is unnecessary — not even the original letter-writer did that! Ultimately, if we're going to give someone's non-fact-checked derogatory opinion — which I believe is undue weight since we don't know what the facts are — we should give it exactly as he said it, with no embellishments.

Two minor points: The January/April date issue was inadvertent; I hadn't noticed the month. And secondly, this editor has been a single-purpose account for the past two days, with virtually not a single other edit except to this article and its talk page. What this means, I can't say. But for context and perspective, it should be noted.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) There are no "embellishments" in either version; both our versions correctly recount the opinion statement of the Consul - yours with a direct quote, mine with an accurate, abbreviated, summation. That is not the question of this RfC. This is a style issue as to which version of the sentence is more readable, my 42-word sentence or your 60-word sentence. (2) I prefer we not engage in a IRL credential tête-à-tête so will refrain from posting my C.V. in response to yours. (3) I've previously, politely, requested you stop declaring I'm part of a conspiracy to "get" Ronan Farrow as you have been pushing in the Talk page. I've been on Wikipedia since 2011. I've only edited Ronan Farrow during the last two days because I spend a limited amount of time on Wikipedia and generally prefer to focus on one subject at a time. I appreciate you enjoy more time to devote to WP, and thank you for your contributions, but ask you not use my more limited ability to contribute to editorialize personal accusations unrelated to the RfC. This entry came to my attention last week when I noted a 7-identity sockpuppet had been editing it and I have attempted to work to better it since then. That's my only interest. If you feel I created this account in 2011 and spent the next 2 years creating and editing unrelated articles to establish a pattern of credibility, all with the secret goal of eventually ambushing the Ronan Farrow entry, there is a dispute resolution process in which you can raise this theory that is separate from this RfC. I kindly thank you for choosing to stay on topic moving forward. BlueSalix (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An "embellishment" is anything not in the original source, or wording that skews meaning. I and the editor below have both clearly enunciated those embellishments. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Accurately summarizing or paraphrasing a book, article, or report for purposes of brevity and style is not an embellishment. If it was, all of Wikipedia would be one giant embellishment. I'm really not going to defend this further; anyone who reads our two versions will observe they are virtually identical in every sense except you've used a lengthy copy/paste quote and I've succinctly summarized that quote. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. Both my choice to paraphrase and your choice to copy/paste are acceptable, I simply believe mine reads a little nicer and have asked for others to comment. This should be a simple style question we can resolve easily and civilly. I don't understand why you've chose to make this such a dramatic episode. Perhaps we can agree to restrain our discussion at this point and just await others comments? I think that would be most productive. BlueSalix (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the 1st version; Support the 2nd version (The way the rfc is set us makes a simple support/oppose unclear). First, "this is a question of which version is more readable ... as I think they're both factually accurate". I disagree, It is only a question of readability if you are right that they are both factually accurate, but the first version is not. by using the word "noting" it asserts as fact that Farrow only interviewed one person. This is not established fact. The word "observing" is problematic for exactly the same reason. Second, the first version says "only interviewed a single person" but the quoted text shows that the criticism was not that he only interviewed one person, but that he only quoted one person. Selassie does not make the stronger claim that the one person quoted was the only one interviewed. Third, even if the two texts were equal for factual accuracy, there is nothing at all less readable about the second version. The suggestion that a word count settles what is more readable is simply false.

One acceptable rewording of the fist version would look like this: The Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles responded to the column by saying Farrow had only quoted a single person living in Kenya in presenting his conclusions and claiming Farrow had "failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa." If that were the suggested first version of the text, I'd say it is a coint toss wich is better, but if forced to choose I still prefer the version that mentions the critic by name if for no other reason than that it does that.

Final comment: I only read Tenebrae's opposing view after writing mine, and having done so I agree with him about the use of the word "only", so I have now struck it out from my suggestion above. 99.192.69.120 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. Given that this article has been recently inundated with sockpuppet edits and is currently semi-protected, I invite you to register a Wikipedia account so that others give your well-formed argument the consideration I believe it deserves. Thanks!BlueSalix (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. So somehow disagrees with you and you imply he's a sock puppet. Very nice. If you think someone's a sock puppet, report him. Otherwise, please don't make insinuations.

As for "a limited amount of time," we all have a limited amount of time. What I'm seeing is someone exclusively devoted to this article who seems to be taking an inordinate interest in adding derogatory opinions to a living political figure's article. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tenebrae. I really think you need to dial it back just a little. I suggested 99.192.69.120 register an account so that others participating in this RfC give his comments the full weight they deserve, given the recent history of this article and the likelihood that some editors might, therefore, dismiss comments from an IP editor. If that suggestion came across as an accusation, I apologize. I'm unclear what you mean that I have an "inordinate interest in adding derogatory opinions." I have been on Wikipedia for 1,000 days and have only spent 2 of those on Ronan Farrow. Most of it has been spent removing promotional language. You, yourself, said "None of this is to take anything away from the very important service you did in checking the claims and removing the fluff. I would say I did not touch (other than a non-substantive copy edit or punctuation) the vast majority of your edits, so I believe we're far, far more in agreement that not." Your opinion appears to have changed when I posted this RfC which appears to have made you very angry and coincided with you beginning to accuse me of conspiring to "get" Ronan Farrow. Again, I hope we can dial it back a bit.BlueSalix (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It's natural and understandable that somehow doing embellishing, even if subconsciously, doesn't believe he did. Two editors, as outside observers, have pointed out specific words and at least one case of saying something the quoted source didn't say.

And I repeat: Let's please not exaggerate for effect: No one, to use your earlier words, is "denouncing [you] as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy." A conspiracy by definition involves more than one person, for one thing. I suggested the possibility of personal bias; that's hardly an attack or denunciation. It happens, often without us knowing it. So: "Conspiring"? Really? To use your own phrase, dial it back.

When your edits were strictly factual, we agreed. I'm no fan of fluff, and as a journalist I strongly believing in factual accuracy and context. When you add commentary, the basis of which may or may not be justified, we part ways. And I would be saying this if an Obama administration official were calling the article subject the greatest thing since sliced bread. You'll notice none of my edits have been to add opinions, but just to add facts and remove unsourced or dubiously sourced content. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You've accused me, three times, of "bias." You've accused me, twice, of trying to insert "derogatory language." You've accused me, twice, of being a single-purpose account (despite the fact only 0.2% of my WP life has been spent on this article). When I say you've rudely and rabidly accused me of being out to "get" Ronan Farrow, that's an accurate summary of the discussion-derailing personal attacks you've been deluging me with, attacks I have thus far refused to reciprocate. And I have no idea where "I would be saying this if an Obama administration official were calling the article subject the greatest thing since sliced bread" came from. I guess in this conspiracy theory I'm some kind of Mitt Romney-backing saboteur? Ten minutes on my edit history should dispel that notion pretty quick. (See, especially, my comments in Talk:North Korea's cult of personality.) My interest in removing promotional language from Ronan Farrow and the critical and immediate import of doing it is described here. Again, please limit your comments to the RfC, kindly stop subtly inserting your C.V. into the Talk, and please stop accusing me of being out to "get" Ronan Farrow. This is a simple discussion on removing 18 words from a 60 word sentence over a style and readability question that is becoming increasingly insane-sounding. BlueSalix (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You really don't think "conspiracy theory" is over-the-top, if for no other reason than a conspiracy takes more than one person? It's not a term I ever used (or would use) so I see you embellishing even what a fellow editor says.

What I'm seeing is an unrelenting attempt to get a derogatory opinion — the factual accuracy of which is completely unknown — into this article. I would say we don't know if the opinion in that letter-to-the-editor is true or political spin, and that it doesn't belong here at all. But you want to add this opinion, fine; reasonable people can compromise. But then embellishing the opinion with loaded language and saying something the person did not say? That's not a compromise. That's you trying to bulldoze.

I suppose I can start arguing for the deletion of that opinion as undue weight and of unknown factual accuracy, but I really was trying to compromise with a fellow editor. I'm sorry you want it only your way or nothing. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a style difference revolving around a possible run-on sentence. Please stop trying to obfuscate this rather simple grammar/style discussion with this over-the-top idea I'm trying to "insert opinions." I'm noting the two diffs here again so reasonable editors can see how they are almost identical and how unhinged this suggestion mine constitutes an "insertion of opinion" is (I'm open to anyone who thinks my version is less readable and we should go with your version, I'm not open to the idea mine is part of a plot to embarrass Ronan Farrow I created this account 2.5 years ago to engineer. I'm not interested in entertaining Alex Jones-type denouncements against me and there is no reason I deserve to be subjected to them.):

• Version 1 (Mine) - The Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles responded to the column by noting Farrow had only interviewed a single person living in Kenya to arrive at his conclusions and observing Farrow had "failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa."
• Version 2 (Yours) - The Ethiopian consul in Los Angeles, Taye Atske Selassie, wrote a letter to the Times saying Farrow had "quoted a single person in Kenya claiming Ethiopian security forces were responsible for human rights abuses, but the 'separatist rebels' had merely carried out a few attacks," and that Farrow had "failed to study the geopolitical intricacies of the Horn of Africa."

Please stop accusing me of bias, please stop accusing me of being a single purpose account, please stop accusing me of trying to "get" Ronan Farrow. If wanting it "my way" means I want to have a mature, issues-based edit discussion in which I'm not being savaged with unfounded accusations about my integrity then, yes, I do want it my way and I've been very clear on that point since you inexplicably began behaving this way a few hours ago after I posted this RfC (prior to which, as noted, you said you agreed with me on most substantive issues). Once again, I would like to suggest we defer this conversation until other editors can weigh in as it is obviously not productive and most certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia or, frankly, adulthood. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Another editor in this discussion disagreed with you, and you not only suggested he's a sock but you went to admin to check up on him. You couldn't even let that editor have his say without immediately weighing in and trying to discredit him. You are so desperate to insert a derogatory opinion about a living political figure — one that two editors specifically identify where it contains bias — that you take the same argument you made up top and repetitively copy-paste it here! All the while you refuse to address those two editors' substantive points with the equivalent of "lah lah lah, I'm not listening". And then you have the nerve to talk about a "mature" discussion.

I didn't want to believe it, but your obsessiveness to insert that letter-to-the-editor opinion as if it were concrete fact shows clear political bias. Earlier you were trying desperately to insert tabloid-journalism anonymous-source claims from an opinion column! So let's expand the discussion: That political-spin opinion above by the politician trying to assert his country has more control over its violence than it does in reality does not belong in this article. I tried to compromise, but as we see in Congress now, you can't compromise with extremists. That passage of opinion masquerading as fact has no place in this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae - one day ago 7 sockpuppets were discovered active in this entry. The only other person to participate in this RfC discussion, after hours and hours, is an IP editor whose first edit on WP is Ronan Farrow. It's very unlikely I'm going to apologize for exercising cautious skepticism, however, I will be happy to do so if that would allow us to focus on this RfC rather than questions about my integrity as a person or value as a human-being.

You said - substantive points with the equivalent of "lah lah lah, I'm not listening .... I tried to compromise, but as we see in Congress now, you can't compromise with extremists." ... I don't believe I deserve to be called an "extremist" or have my opinions summarized as "la la la" for asking for a RfC regarding a run-on sentence. The entire point of this RfC is to facilitate compromise; that's the reason I started it. I'm not at all convinced I'm correct, and am simply interested to get input from outside editors. I will be happy to continue this discussion when you've calmed down a little. BlueSalix (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an old debate trick: When you can't address another person's points, you accuse him of irrational behavior. Experienced Wikipedia editors are wise to that.

Now: It is not a "minor grammatical point," and you continue to deliberately ignore substantive points of two editors both describing specific things:

• "to note" is stronger and less neutral than "to say", and "observing" adds an authoritative tone that belies that it is opinion, i.e. what he believes
• the intensifier "only" isn't even used by the source;
• and as the other editor put it: "The first version says 'only interviewed a single person' but the quoted text shows that the criticism was not that he only interviewed one person, but that he only quoted one person. Selassie does not make the stronger claim that the one person quoted was the only one interviewed."

So please just stop claiming it's some "minor grammatical point" or that this is about a "run-on sentence" (and note that another editor had no problem with the sentence). Claiming this is about a "minor grammatical point" is misleading and disingenuous. Two editors have pointed out how the tone and substance of your version is both biased and factually inaccurate (re: "interviewed" vs. "quoted"). Enough with your attempts at a smokescreen. Address the two editors' specific points.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I have not accused you of irrational behavior or used the word "irrational" at any point in this RfC. (As linked above, you've accused me, twice, of being a single-purpose account, however.) 2. The "two editors" you're mentioning are yourself and a IP editor who began posting after I'd uncovered a 7-sock hive "guarding" this article, who were then banned. 3. I would again like to kindly suggest we drop this and allow other editors the chance to provide their opinions on the question of which version of the sentence is grammatically correct. I'd like the opportunity to hear the input of others. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

First, "when you've calmed down a little" is exactly the accusation of which I spoke. Second, you're again insinuating the anon IP, whom you've apparently chased off, is a sock even after an admin told you there's no evidence of that.

Finally, you continue to be dishonest and push the continuing lie that that is about "grammar" when it is not — see the bulleted points above. This is about substance and it's about spin — both your own and that of the politician who didn't like an expose and wrote an opinion letter trying to discredit the reporter. There are no confirmed facts in the consul's passage — just opinion and standard political spin, and that quote does not belong in the article at all.

I agree many more editors should weigh in. But not if they're being handed a lie. Address the bulleted points and stop lying about how this is "just about grammar." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, so far - in a RfC on a minor grammar issue - you've called me an "extremist," you've said I'm a liar, you've twice accused me of being a single purpose account (despite the fact I've been on Wikipedia since 2011 and only spent 2 days editing Ronan Farrow), and that's just for starters. When I said I am interested in talking to you when "you've calmed down" I meant it. I don't enjoy being harangued and screamed at - I do enjoy having a civil discussion. If you took that as an insult, I'm sorry. I really don't know what else to tell you at this point. I'm not going to be posting in this RfC further until a third-party, confirmed editor weighs in. I think that's in the best interest of everyone. BlueSalix (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It is in no way, shape or form a "minor grammatical issue," as two editors have pointed out in specific, bullet-point detail.

You can keep repeating that over and over all you like, the way a little kid does, but doing so doesn't magically change reality. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, in addition to my previous requests you not call me an "extremist," a "liar," a "single purpose account," summarizing my posts as "la la la" in this RfC, I kindly ask you not call me "a little kid." I have not resorted to name calling and, for the seventh time, I ask you reconsider your decision to do so. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I ask you to stop falsely claiming this is a "grammatical" issue when two editors have pointed out in specific, bullet-point detail that it is not. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae - as I've previously stated, I understand you disagree with my opinion that this is a grammar issue. I also understand a one-off IP editor in a sock-heavy thread has posted agreement with you. We are in disagreement, that is the reason the RfC exists. I hope you can take it in that spirit. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinion has nothing to do with it. Whether it's a grammatical issue or not is a matter of objective fact. And as two editors have pointed out — including one you keep making insinuations about despite an admin having no evidence to support your accusation — there are factual issues you refuse to address. "Grammar" is a smokescreen. I've been around long enough to see editors use smokescreens before, and you know what? They're really obvious to admins as well, and admins generally don't like such deflection. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm being deceptive. I assure you that's not my intent. Thank you for your contributions to this RfC. BlueSalix (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and remove from your user page the contentious, out-of-context blurbs attributed to me that were talking about two different things, and which you posted in a sad effort to belittle me and to mislead other editors. You have behaved dishonestly and disingenuously, and I'm very disappointed in you. Even though you've only been editing since late 2011, you should know better than to act that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose change to BlueSalix's version. Tenebrae's is better. Yworo (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose BlueSalix's edit. Clearly rooted in bias. Thank you for your service in cleaning up this page after BlueSalix's disruptive edits, Tenebrae.AsadR (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Since there appears to be consensus in preference for Tenebrae's version, I withdraw my suggestion and will insert it back into the entry. BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This seems mostly settled, but I was randomly selected through the RfC Feedback System and I thought I'd weigh in and say that while I understand the substantive criticisms of BlueSalix's version, it honestly does feel more readable to me. The Ethiopian consul's name seems like irrelevant information, and it takes a second to parse out what his point is from Tenebrae's version. I would suggest a hybrid version which drops some of the extraneous information without making claims about the factual accuracy of the consul's points.

I also think that one thing I found hardest to parse in User:Tenebrae's version was what what was being claimed by whom. I think it'd likely be best to to break that out of the quote, or replacing the quote entirely with a summary of what he is saying. Frankly, it's still not clear enough to me without looking into the incident in more detail to break it out myself, because I don't understand what's being claimed. Is he saying that separatist rebels were responsible for the human rights abuses? Is he saying that the human rights abuses didn't happen and the separatist rebels were an unrelated thing? It'd be best if these questions were clear from a quick read. 0x0077BE (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The danger is that we're quoting exactly what the consul said and that if try to interpret it, we've always wound up with biased POV that changes facts. For example, the consul said Farrow had only quoted one person, but BlueSalix changed that to say Farrow had only interviewed one person ... a substantive factual difference, and not something the consul ever said.

I, for one, don't believe this passage belongs here at all, since it's an embarrassed consul's political spin in a letter-to-the-editor, and not a statement in a news article where a reporter would have checked to see if the statement were true and would have asked Farrow for a response. Having it here at all was a compromise.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I think sometimes it's clear to people familiar with the situation what is being said, but that may not be the case here. I am honestly not sure what it's adding to the article in its current form, as the way it is phrased is confusing. It seems to me like the goal is to add a flavor of balance, which readers generally take with a grain of salt anyway. If it can't be rephrased or the quotes appropriately chopped up to make it comprehensible, I think culling works fine as well. 0x0077BE (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• More is better. Tenebrae's version which offers more information is the better choice. Don't forget, Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, a source of information, and variant discussions about readability are important yet are secondary to the primary charter of being informative. Damotclese (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AsadR Blocked for Sockpuppetry

I'm no longer active in this entry, or on WP generally, however wanted to note that User:AsadR - who made massive edits to this entry previously to remove potentially unflattering information about Farrow and who was cited extensively by another editor to establish consensus to support his own whitewashing edits (despite the preponderance of evidence it was a sock) - has been confirmed and blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This is, I believe, the ninth sock ID blocked for making extensive edits and rollbacks to this entry in the last couple months. I'm logging this here for archival, informational purposes and the benefit of passers-by; this entry is, apparently, currently the subject of an off-WP review occurring into the practices of a NY-area reputation management firm purchasing/leasing dormant and established WP accounts for activities of the kind their AsadR and various other - some still active - identities have been engaging in with respect to this entry. (I won't mention specific active identities due to the recent cacophony of abuse and name-calling the "other editor" directed at me in this Talk page; a reasonable person can come to his own conclusions.) If anyone has further questions, feel free to contact me off-WP; due to the above referenced bullying I'm no longer active on WP so am unlikely to see messages here. BlueSalix (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone outside the apparent sockpuppet accounts, who has edited this article in good faith, I also wish to state for the record that no one, absolutely no one, "bullied" BlueSalix. That is solely his reaction to editors calling him out on what appear to be his biased, one-sided, attacking edits based on his personal disagreement with the article subject's politics. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As a good faith editor of this article whose good faith has been confirmed by actual, real life editors (not sockpuppets), I must correct you. You said it was my reaction to "editors calling me out" when in fact it was "editoR" (singular). There were no "editors" who "called me out" other than you and 9 banned sockpuppets. These socks included AsadR, whom you've previously cited to present the appearance of more editors than just yourself taking a position on an edit disagreement. I'm extremely concerned of this, the 17th time (I counted), in which you've cited sockpuppets as examples of those who support your position; it is extremely troubling and concerning. (Also, as previously stated, I have no issue with subject's politics. While subject is more right-wing than I am, I have demonstrated my ability to fairly edit wikipedia across many entries.) I kindly ask you discontinue citing sockpuppets to create the appearance of widespread opposition to my good faith edits in your unusual campaign against me. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's "campaigning" against you, and you remain as disingenuous as always: Despite your continued prolific presence on Wikipedia you have the crybaby gall to write on your user page that due to alleged "bullying," 'I am on indefinite wikibreak." You clearly are not, so to hear the phrase "good faith" from you is remarkable. Attempting to drum up sympathy by presenting yourself as a victim when, in the end, your biased edits are the root issue and are what's "extremely troubling and concerning." And in what world is Ronan Farrow right-wing? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And excuse me, but without even looking hard I see that User:Yworo and User:Damotclese, who also both opposed your edits, are not among the sockpuppets. You continue to have remarkable trouble with simply telling the truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Pandora's Box

User: Tenebrae let's discuss your edit. I feel that you're holding Ronan Farrow's page to a higher standard than other Wikipedia pages. Many pages inform readers of upcoming projects, promotions, etc. The information was cited directly from the publisher's announcement and used the word "currently" to indicate that the release date may change. I recommend that Farrow's book announcement be kept in the career section unless all other upcoming projects, promotions, etc are taken down from ever Wikipedia biography. I welcome your feedback and look forward to discussing this with you further. ---User:LOP97

cc of my reply at LOP97's talk page

I understand you're new to Wikipedia, at least under this registered name, though if you've registered under other names to add promotional material, that would be troublesome.

RE: "I recommend that Farrow's book announcement be kept in the career section unless all other upcoming projects, promotions, etc are taken down from ever[y] Wikipedia biography." That's an unreasonable demand; there are millions of Wikipedia articles and that's not how Wikipedia works. Other stuff exists, and not every Wikipedia article is up to high standards — that's why we have Good Article and Featured Article reviews. We don't make an article worse and then point to a bad article; we point to a good article and make articles better.

RE: "The information was cited directly from the publisher's announcement and used the word 'currently' to indicate that the release date may change." The word "currently" is disallowed in Wikipedia since "currently" is constantly changing; see the guidelines at WP:DATED. You might also see the policies / guidelines WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. What I suspect — and I hope I'm wrong, though I don't think so — is that you are affiliated with the publishing company or perhaps with Farrow, in which case you should look at the policy about conflict of interest.

What I'm seeing isn't someone interested in helping to build an encyclopedia and contributing constructively to different articles. I'm seeing someone trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia doesn't need that. If you're sincerely interested in helping Wikipedia and not pushing an agenda, please learn the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia and please respect the policies and guidelines involved in creating an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LOP97 on this one for several reasons: (1) On almost every page for recording artists information is given about upcoming unreleased albums. On almost every page for actors and directors information is given about upcoming unreleased films. On almost every page for authors information is given about upcoming unpublished books. It is also routine for there to be articles about films, TV shows, and even books that have yet to be released/broadcast/published. This is standard Wikipedia practice. This is not an "other stuff" situation.

(2) This is also not a "crystal ball" situation because the information being reported is true right now. Penguin already has announced that they have a book deal with Farrow for this book. Reporting that is no different than reporting that an athlete has signed a contract to play for a team even if he never actually plays a single game for them. Also, the information being reported is when the book is scheduled to be published. That is true and will always be true even if the schedule changes - it will be true that it had been scheduled to be published at a certain time.

(3) The sentences about the Penguin book were added to a one-sentence paragraph. That one sentence says, "In October 2013 MSNBC announced that Farrow would host a weekday, one-hour show beginning in early 2014." This sentence does not appear to have raised any concerns for Tenebrae even though it is identical in form to the information in question. Tenebrae has not only not objected to that information, but has edited the sources provided for it to improve it. So if anything, it seems that the objection to this book information is out of line with common Wikipedia practice and even Tenebrae's own standards for inclusion. 99.192.68.77 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the only comment in support of the promotional-sounding edit comes from an anon IP that just happens to have made his first edit to Wikipedia to support the apparent book publicist.

Unlike films, TV shows and albums, books don't require a considerable apparatus to complete, and pre-production is already underway before companies announce &mdasn; with a specific release date — a film, TV show or album. Yet book deals, especially those involving celebrities, are occasionally announced and then never happen — or, in a couple of celebrated cases involving authors, don't happen for, literally, 10 years or more years. Wikipedia won't break if we wait and see if a book really comes out. And publicists and their cronies or sockpuppets should not be attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional reasons. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, the best argument you have is your decision to not assume good faith and assume that LOP97 works for the publisher and I am a sock puppet. Well done, Tenebrae. Now how about just sticking to the merits of the question?

If you really object to pages mentioning books that have not been published, you might want to vist the hundreds of author's pages that, as I pointed out before and you seem to ignore, routinely list books before they are published. It happens on every author's Wikipedia page. With the best known authors, these books even get their very own Wikipedia pages, sometimes years before publication (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). There even is already a page called Category:2014 novels with five entries in it. This is not just "other stuff". This is routine for Wikipedia. 99.192.70.78 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.68.77)

User:Tenebrae, thanks for your suggestions and patience, as I am new to Wikipedia. It's a little disheartening that you immediately associated me with trying to promote material (which I'm not). I read the guidelines you suggested and was invited to take a Wikipedia adventure tour. Hopefully the guidelines, tour and your original feedback will help me for future posts. I think my new revised edit addresses your initial concerns regarding encyclopedic value. Thanks again LOP97 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LOP97. I think the more neutral tone of your edit and your willingness to learn about Wikipedia and be a contributing part of it rather than just dive-bomb something that seems promotional invites compromise. I've subbed a journalistic cite rather than a publisher's press release, and and on my end, certainly, I think we've reached middle ground and if you're serious about editing more and being part of this altruistic free encyclopedia, let me welcome you heartily. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As for anon IP 99.192.68.77: I've been a WIkipedia contributor for more than eight years. In that length of time, one sees familiar patterns assert themselves over and over. Given a wealth of past experience, and the timing of your and LOP97's sole edits, I think any long-experienced admin would agree that the duck test in such cases trumps WP:AGF in keeping Wikipedia honest and neutral. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So, Tenebrae, you were wrong about excluding mention of the book from the page, wrong about thinking that LOP97 works for the publisher, wrong about thinking I am a sock puppet, and wrong in your belief that my first comment in this section was my first edit to Wikipedia. But you have eight years experience, so those mistakes couldn't possibly be your fault. It seems to me you would make a lot fewer mistakes and baseless accusations if you would only assume good faith and talk about the merits of an edit instead of attacking other editors. 99.192.73.175 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.68.77)

I see: You're one of these people for whom compromise and trying to reach a middle ground with someone else is weakness. No wonder you hide behind various anonymous IP addresses, including 99.192.68.77 and 99.192.73.175. And your protests notwithstanding, I haven't seen anything that convinces me you're not either a sockpuppet or a "meatpuppet" — i.e., someone else with the publisher or a PR firm. Your and LOP97 edit's taken together seem completely like that of someone with a promotional agenda. Once again: The duck test in this case trumps WP:AGF. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lawyer

User:Robedia, according to the Attorney Directory, Ronan Farrow is a lawyer. Wikipedia is about sharing the facts and it has been explained to me by User:Tenebrae that we should not look to other articles to decide whether or not something should be included in an article. If Farrow does not renew his registration in December 2014, then it would be appropriate to remove the description from his Wikipedia entry. LOP97 (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with LOP97 here; if one passes the bar, then one is an attorney, practicing or not, and that New York State directory is about as official as it gets. As LOP97 also notes, other stuff exists, and the citation he gives here certainly seems definitive. You know I've been an advocate of keeping puffery out of this article, and "lawyer" simply seems plain-vanilla factual. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Parents

User:Tenebrae I'd like your opinion on the repetitive nature of one of the facts. It's posted in back to back sentences that Ronan Farrow's parents are Mia Farrow and Woody Allen. Is that necessary? Thanks LOP97 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LOP97. If you mean the mention in the lead and then in the body of the article, that's normal per WP:LEAD. The lead encapsulates the article and generally has nothing not already in the article body.

This is a short article (compared to Jack Kirby, say), so the lead is short. It could probably go another sentence or two, but even as is it seems to summarize well that for which the subject is best known. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure. I also noticed that there isn't any mention of his journalism career in the article, but he's written for publications like The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, International Herald Tribune, NY Times, Forbes, etc. Is that by design? I was going to add the information, but didn't want it to simply list a number of publications…not sure of the best way to add. Thanks again for your guidance. LOP97 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's odd — I seem to remember there'd been a sentence about him having written for those publications, but in all the back-and-forth this article's endured, it must have fallen through the cracks. I'll see if I can find it in a past version and reinsert it, which would say us the trouble of looking up the citations for that all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - happy to do some additional research if you're not able to find it. Is it acceptable to cite his articles as sources or would his journalism career need to be cited in another way? LOP97 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Moot point; all done. If you want to fill out the raw URLs, though, that'd be a big help. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

BlueSalix assertion

Despite Blue Salix's note in his edit summaries, 108.50.220.60 is not one of the sockpuppet IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive. Based on that, Blue Salix appears to be edit-warring for three inappropriate edits:

• redundantly repeating "interned" in the same sentence about where he interned;
• an irrelevant, non-notable sentence about him being recruited as part of a team — no one would infer that anyone on a diplomatic mission is doing it rogue and freelance — and with a WP:PEACOCK term
• a discussed and long-removed, irrelevant opinion from Barbara Sinatra.

This is part of a pattern with User:BlueSalix, whose edits on this page have been primarily to denigrate the article subject. This editor appears to primarily edit articles about conservative Republican politicians and seems to show a politically oriented bias against this liberal subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

1. The issue with the Barbara Sinatra quote was arrived upon by consensus achieved in a discussion involving only the above editor plus the multiple sockpuppets that have been active in this entry for more than a year. 108.50.220.60, like the other 15 socks involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive, AsadR and the rest, has engaged in a pattern of behavior that indicates he is "patrolling" this entry; it is the only entry this IP editor has ever edited in his time on WP.

2. Please note Tenebrae has engaged in a pattern of behavior vis a vis this entry; his edits are widely supported by socks. When I make accusations of sockpuppetry, he has unfailingly taken the side of the socks (see here). In each case, so far, my requested sockpuppet investigations have been upheld and the socks banned.

3. Please note Tenebrae frequently, and vociferously, declares I am showing "political bias" and frequently repeats the intentionally deceptive statement that "he appears to primarily edit articles about conservative Republican politicians." I invite anyone to review my edit history. The bulk of my edits are to non-political articles, however, I have edited a few articles about politicians in the area in which I'm from, including exactly 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans. My most recent edit on a political person was Jamie Pedersen, a LGBT Democratic state legislator, several months ago. (As a general aside, I have to note that the idea that I'm a "Republican" is funny if you knew me IRL, as I'm very far from that; though I'm disturbed I've been forced to make an overt declaration of ideology in order to participate in editing.)

4. As already noted, I do not intend to make any further undos of the 108.50.220.60's edits deleting sourced material. If Tenebrae would like to file an ANI notice against me, he should pursue that instead of raising this in Talk.

5. All further discussion in Talk should focus on the article, not individual editors. Thank you.

BlueSalix (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with his inability to confirm how an IP who disagrees with him is purportedly a sockpuppet — as noted, the SPI didn't mention this IP — and his pattern of edit-warring without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the Barbara Sinatra quote, she's entitled to her opinion, but she's an outside party with no concrete, quantifiable material to add. Nancy Sinatra gave her opinion as well. So have other people. None of these are relevant to the simple facts as stated here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP, as with the other 15 socks whom I've asked to be blocked (and were), is only active in this one entry, despite his edit history going back more than a year. He is dormant for months until an edit occurs, and then immediately becomes active within minutes to undo it. This is the MO of the previous socks being run by the PR agency that is working this entry, as I know you know. Thank you for your feedback. As far as Barbara Sinatra, to keep things succinct and since you've decided to file an ANI on this, I'll be tabling the content-focused portion of the discussion until a ruling has occurred. BlueSalix (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your conspiracy-theory assumptions aside, what's the name of the purported publicity company supposedly adding promotional content to this article? And you can't call somebody a sock based on your personal opinion of him and then say it's all Checkuser's fault that you didn't go to there or file an SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Admins have protected this page based on my concerns with 108.50.220.60. You can read the consensus opinion with respect to 108.50.220.60 here, if you like: [[1]] I certainly do not believe I have "conspiracy-theory assumptions," nor do I believe the admins were acting out of a conspiracy theory when they decided to protect the page, however I respect your right to reject the consensus opinion with respect to 108.50.220.60 and declare we were all acting out a conspiracy. Wikipedia is all about diversity and dialog, after all and we don't always have to agree with each other. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Parents

User:Tenebrae I'd like your opinion on the repetitive nature of one of the facts. It's posted in back to back sentences that Ronan Farrow's parents are Mia Farrow and Woody Allen. Is that necessary? Thanks LOP97 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LOP97. If you mean the mention in the lead and then in the body of the article, that's normal per WP:LEAD. The lead encapsulates the article and generally has nothing not already in the article body.

This is a short article (compared to Jack Kirby, say), so the lead is short. It could probably go another sentence or two, but even as is it seems to summarize well that for which the subject is best known. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure. I also noticed that there isn't any mention of his journalism career in the article, but he's written for publications like The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, International Herald Tribune, NY Times, Forbes, etc. Is that by design? I was going to add the information, but didn't want it to simply list a number of publications…not sure of the best way to add. Thanks again for your guidance. LOP97 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's odd — I seem to remember there'd been a sentence about him having written for those publications, but in all the back-and-forth this article's endured, it must have fallen through the cracks. I'll see if I can find it in a past version and reinsert it, which would say us the trouble of looking up the citations for that all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - happy to do some additional research if you're not able to find it. Is it acceptable to cite his articles as sources or would his journalism career need to be cited in another way? LOP97 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Moot point; all done. If you want to fill out the raw URLs, though, that'd be a big help. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

BlueSalix assertion

Despite Blue Salix's note in his edit summaries, 108.50.220.60 is not one of the sockpuppet IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive. Based on that, Blue Salix appears to be edit-warring for three inappropriate edits:

• redundantly repeating "interned" in the same sentence about where he interned;
• an irrelevant, non-notable sentence about him being recruited as part of a team — no one would infer that anyone on a diplomatic mission is doing it rogue and freelance — and with a WP:PEACOCK term
• a discussed and long-removed, irrelevant opinion from Barbara Sinatra.

This is part of a pattern with User:BlueSalix, whose edits on this page have been primarily to denigrate the article subject. This editor appears to primarily edit articles about conservative Republican politicians and seems to show a politically oriented bias against this liberal subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

1. The issue with the Barbara Sinatra quote was arrived upon by consensus achieved in a discussion involving only the above editor plus the multiple sockpuppets that have been active in this entry for more than a year. 108.50.220.60, like the other 15 socks involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive, AsadR and the rest, has engaged in a pattern of behavior that indicates he is "patrolling" this entry; it is the only entry this IP editor has ever edited in his time on WP.

2. Please note Tenebrae has engaged in a pattern of behavior vis a vis this entry; his edits are widely supported by socks. When I make accusations of sockpuppetry, he has unfailingly taken the side of the socks (see here). In each case, so far, my requested sockpuppet investigations have been upheld and the socks banned.

3. Please note Tenebrae frequently, and vociferously, declares I am showing "political bias" and frequently repeats the intentionally deceptive statement that "he appears to primarily edit articles about conservative Republican politicians." I invite anyone to review my edit history. The bulk of my edits are to non-political articles, however, I have edited a few articles about politicians in the area in which I'm from, including exactly 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans. My most recent edit on a political person was Jamie Pedersen, a LGBT Democratic state legislator, several months ago. (As a general aside, I have to note that the idea that I'm a "Republican" is funny if you knew me IRL, as I'm very far from that; though I'm disturbed I've been forced to make an overt declaration of ideology in order to participate in editing.)

4. As already noted, I do not intend to make any further undos of the 108.50.220.60's edits deleting sourced material. If Tenebrae would like to file an ANI notice against me, he should pursue that instead of raising this in Talk.

5. All further discussion in Talk should focus on the article, not individual editors. Thank you.

BlueSalix (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with his inability to confirm how an IP who disagrees with him is purportedly a sockpuppet — as noted, the SPI didn't mention this IP — and his pattern of edit-warring without discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the Barbara Sinatra quote, she's entitled to her opinion, but she's an outside party with no concrete, quantifiable material to add. Nancy Sinatra gave her opinion as well. So have other people. None of these are relevant to the simple facts as stated here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP, as with the other 15 socks whom I've asked to be blocked (and were), is only active in this one entry, despite his edit history going back more than a year. He is dormant for months until an edit occurs, and then immediately becomes active within minutes to undo it. This is the MO of the previous socks being run by the PR agency that is working this entry, as I know you know. Thank you for your feedback. As far as Barbara Sinatra, to keep things succinct and since you've decided to file an ANI on this, I'll be tabling the content-focused portion of the discussion until a ruling has occurred. BlueSalix (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your conspiracy-theory assumptions aside, what's the name of the purported publicity company supposedly adding promotional content to this article? And you can't call somebody a sock based on your personal opinion of him and then say it's all Checkuser's fault that you didn't go to there or file an SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Admins have protected this page based on my concerns with 108.50.220.60. You can read the consensus opinion with respect to 108.50.220.60 here, if you like: [[2]] I certainly do not believe I have "conspiracy-theory assumptions," nor do I believe the admins were acting out of a conspiracy theory when they decided to protect the page, however I respect your right to reject the consensus opinion with respect to 108.50.220.60 and declare we were all acting out a conspiracy. Wikipedia is all about diversity and dialog, after all and we don't always have to agree with each other. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Parents

User:Tenebrae I'd like your opinion on the repetitive nature of one of the facts. It's posted in back to back sentences that Ronan Farrow's parents are Mia Farrow and Woody Allen. Is that necessary? Thanks LOP97 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LOP97. If you mean the mention in the lead and then in the body of the article, that's normal per WP:LEAD. The lead encapsulates the article and generally has nothing not already in the article body.

This is a short article (compared to Jack Kirby, say), so the lead is short. It could probably go another sentence or two, but even as is it seems to summarize well that for which the subject is best known. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure. I also noticed that there isn't any mention of his journalism career in the article, but he's written for publications like The Wall Street Journal, LA Times, International Herald Tribune, NY Times, Forbes, etc. Is that by design? I was going to add the information, but didn't want it to simply list a number of publications…not sure of the best way to add. Thanks again for your guidance. LOP97 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's odd — I seem to remember there'd been a sentence about him having written for those publications, but in all the back-and-forth this article's endured, it must have fallen through the cracks. I'll see if I can find it in a past version and reinsert it, which would say us the trouble of looking up the citations for that all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - happy to do some additional research if you're not able to find it. Is it acceptable to cite his articles as sources or would his journalism career need to be cited in another way? LOP97 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Moot point; all done. If you want to fill out the raw URLs, though, that'd be a big help. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)