Talk:Robert Malley: Difference between revisions
Obama adviser paragraph |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==Obama adviser paragraph== |
==Obama adviser paragraph== |
||
I wrote up the controversy that broke about May 10 and made it the second paragraph, stating in my edit summary back then that the topic was important "now" but later on may not be. I think we should continue having that paragraph up there for a while longer, and so after an editor moved it down, I've just moved it back up. The reason is that the controversy has generated a ton of interest in the article from readers, with traffic stats going from 10-56 page views from May 1-8 and shooting up to 710 on May 9 and continuing in the days thereafter at more than 300 per day (see [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Robert_Malley here]). It seems to me to be useful to have something about this at the top (for one thing, it confirms for readers that this is indeed the person they were looking for; it's also good to have a neutral summary of the incident for those who only know about this from some opinion piece or worse). So I think the paragraph is important enough to stay up there for a time. Why don't we keep it that high until traffic stats go down to, say, 100 a day for a few days? I assume that'll take about a week. Let's serve the readers. The incident is important right now in understanding the subject. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
I wrote up the controversy that broke about May 10 and made it the second paragraph, stating in my edit summary back then that the topic was important "now" but later on may not be. I think we should continue having that paragraph up there for a while longer, and so after an editor moved it down, I've just moved it back up. The reason is that the controversy has generated a ton of interest in the article from readers, with traffic stats going from 10-56 page views from May 1-8 and shooting up to 710 on May 9 and continuing in the days thereafter at more than 300 per day (see [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Robert_Malley here]). It seems to me to be useful to have something about this at the top (for one thing, it confirms for readers that this is indeed the person they were looking for; it's also good to have a neutral summary of the incident for those who only know about this from some opinion piece or worse). So I think the paragraph is important enough to stay up there for a time. Why don't we keep it that high until traffic stats go down to, say, 100 a day for a few days? I assume that'll take about a week. Let's serve the readers. The incident is important right now in understanding the subject. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
: The paragraph is phrased in a very misleading way. Obama's campaign - the most authoritative source on whether he was an advisor or not - has said the following: |
|||
: "Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future." |
|||
: Thus, this position should be made clear at the beginning of the paragraph. You cannot "impose" on a campaign an advisor they deny was ever an advisor. That is simply absurd. Second, please use the more nuanced word "distanced themselves from Malley" rather than the sensationalistic "sever ties", "sacked" etc. That's good for bloggers or yellow journalism, not proper for encyclopedic reporting. [[User:SelfEvidentTruths|SelfEvidentTruths]] ([[User talk:SelfEvidentTruths|talk]]) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:38, 15 May 2008
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Adviser to Obama?
TNR says that Malley 'is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro.' However this is not quite the same as 'foreign-policy adviser', which is the article's wording. What's the truth?—ZephyrAnycon (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
He has a negative record on Israel. 67.87.92.56 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've just now added a paragraph about Malley's ties (now former ties) to the Obama campaign, as reported by The Times of London. As of now it's the second paragraph because it's prominent news about him. Noroton (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Obama adviser paragraph
I wrote up the controversy that broke about May 10 and made it the second paragraph, stating in my edit summary back then that the topic was important "now" but later on may not be. I think we should continue having that paragraph up there for a while longer, and so after an editor moved it down, I've just moved it back up. The reason is that the controversy has generated a ton of interest in the article from readers, with traffic stats going from 10-56 page views from May 1-8 and shooting up to 710 on May 9 and continuing in the days thereafter at more than 300 per day (see here). It seems to me to be useful to have something about this at the top (for one thing, it confirms for readers that this is indeed the person they were looking for; it's also good to have a neutral summary of the incident for those who only know about this from some opinion piece or worse). So I think the paragraph is important enough to stay up there for a time. Why don't we keep it that high until traffic stats go down to, say, 100 a day for a few days? I assume that'll take about a week. Let's serve the readers. The incident is important right now in understanding the subject. Noroton (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The paragraph is phrased in a very misleading way. Obama's campaign - the most authoritative source on whether he was an advisor or not - has said the following:
- "Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."
- Thus, this position should be made clear at the beginning of the paragraph. You cannot "impose" on a campaign an advisor they deny was ever an advisor. That is simply absurd. Second, please use the more nuanced word "distanced themselves from Malley" rather than the sensationalistic "sever ties", "sacked" etc. That's good for bloggers or yellow journalism, not proper for encyclopedic reporting. SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)