Talk:Jane Mayer

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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Another editor removed my notability tag from this article, however, I do not believe that notability has been satisfied in this case. Please show a biography of her, or a major award, or something else that is covered in wp:creative. Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The woman is a frequent contributor to The New Yorker magazine, as well as a well-known author who was a finalist for the National Book Award. The editor was correct to remove your notability tag. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could argue that being awarded a prestigious honor would establish notability, however, she did not actually win the award, and I question weather the National Book Award qualifies as honorable enough to establish notability (like, say a nobel prize would). Further, being a contributor to The New Yorker doesnt establish anything. She is a journalist, so being published is a typical part of her job. Again, wp:creative says that the person must stand out, not merely be doing their job.
Additionally, tags of whatever sort should not be removed without discussion. Merely declaring Jane Mayer to be notable is not the same thing as discussing it, and, as such, the removal of my tag was improper. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is to discuss? Even a cursory glance at the notability criteria leads one to see that Mayer meets them without a doubt. She is one of the most widely read and important investigative journalists in the United States today. Placing a notability tag on her bio seems more an act of mischief-making than a serious editorial position. Surely there are better targets for your energy and intelligence than this lost battle.Roregan (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If she is really that important, then it should be trivial to establish notability as is required of any wiki article. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well im still not convinced that almost winning the National Book Award and almost winning the Pulitzer prize counts as notability, still, its clear that this article is now moving in the right direction. Another issue of note in this article is the use of external links. WP:ELNO says "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." The rest of the article goes on to say that ELs should be kept to a minimum and serve to enhance the reader's understanding topic. We should pick 4-5 that best illustrate Ms. Meyers work and cull the rest. Aside from that, im content that this article is now at least following the spirit of WP:Notability, although not the actual letter of the rule. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
errant nonsense - WP:ANYBIO: "1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Pohick2 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that User:Bonewah's attempts to challenge this article's notability are politically motivated. Mayer's article on the Koch brothers [1] is not flattering. It appeared after most of the discussion above, but a little more digging may bring up other conflicts with the editor's interests. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I challenged the notability of this article because she might one day in the future write an article that is not flattering? What utter nonsense, i cant see the future so how would i have even known that Mayer was going to write an article about the Koch's when i commented here in 2009? And if you bothered to look at the article history (not to mention the comment above) you would see that I relented after another editor substantially improved the article. If you want to go over my edit history, be my guest, but try assuming a little bit of good faith before you go questioning my motives. Bonewah (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bonewah is correct here, in my book. He and I had some differences over the piece in the beginning. I added some things, and we worked towards some resolution -- which is exactly how this process is supposed to work. I also agree with him about assuming good faith. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you challenged the notability of this article because, I think, you consider Mayer to be a part of the so-called "liberal media," as claimed by conservative organizations like MRC/Newsbusters. Your contributions to other articles show a similar bias. And finally relenting to other editors doesn't change the fact that you objected early on (and repeatedly) to someone who is so clearly notable enough for wiki. I could have explained the Koch connection better, though I did say that it was published after the above discussion, so your "utter nonsense" is overly dramatic. Mayer's report on the Koch brothers was just meant to be one example of her investigative journalism. Funny how often WP:AGF pops up whenever someone disagrees with political activists. -PrBeacon (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can think whatever you like, but dont act like you know me, you dont. If you have a problem with my behavior, take it up on my talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. Bonewah (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't presume to know you nor did I claim as much. I can only comment on the apparent conservative bias I've seen, and it's certainly appropriate to mention it here. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granddaughter of Allan Nevins?[edit]

In the line "She is the granddaughter of American historian Allan Nevins. [2][3]" Neither of the sources actually say that. Im removing that claim, but i will copy the refs here for potential use later. Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horton, Scott (July 14, 2008), "Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side", Harpers online

Interviewed July 18, 2008 on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/18/the_dark_side_jane_mayer_on

That was removed? I still see it in the article as of now. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and biased sections[edit]

Several of these sections seem to have been written by one person in un-encyclopedic language. Many of them are completely irrelevant; the section on Herman Cain, for example, is about a blog post she wrote to which the subjects responded. Can anyone tell me why these sections merit inclusion in this article? 128.36.146.196 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?[edit]

Should there be a larger section on criticism? There are many charges that she writes with a political bias and attempts to distort or ignore facts contrary to the story line. Also, Ed Crane claims she breached journalistic ethics by quoting his off the record statements. Since there is a smear section, perhaps a criticism section could discuss the "smears" that are justified/backed by evidence or statements by notable people. I fear by painting all criticism as smear the article loses NPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.220.10 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Section[edit]

Regarding the Nolan blog post on Gawker: The opening paragraphs state "Sources tell us that rumors have been circulating ..." Further, the blog post states "Nothing's been confirmed so far. But the circumstantial evidence does seem indicate ..." To summarize, this allegation is based on reports of rumors from unnamed sources, and admits that nothing has been confirmed. Deleted sentence for this reason.

The next sentence, "At the New York Post, Keith J. Kelly asked: “Who is behind the apparently concerted campaign to smear The New Yorker's Jane Mayer?" The references for this sentence do not confirm that the question was asked. But even if it was, a question does not confirm that something happened, without an answer and evidence for that answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Cage (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence has no references for "right wing media" or "painted ... in a bad light.": "In 2006, right-wing media in the Washington, D.C. area reported a conflict with a neighboring family that painted Jane Mayer and her husband William Hamilton in a bad light." This sentence goes to a dead link on a site that is apparently an opinion blog: "Later, a second judge overruled the earlier decision and said that the home would not need to be torn down." Edits made for that reason. Added reference to about appeal.James Cage (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Money in Politics[edit]

@Bonewah: My edit to this section was generated by a peculiar absence of any germane information to convey an understanding regarding the subject of Mayer's prizewinning article, Art Pope, and his influence on North Carolina politics. The change is meticulously documented in the original cited source article which I retained. It's not POV at all. I hope that any conflict of interest has not generated this deletion. If you want to redact it, please first seek consensus here, rather than rushing to edit warring. Activist (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a tremendous problem with the edit, although i do not feel its appropriately worded. However, per WP:BRD if a addition such as the one you did is reverted, the next step is to discuss it here, not simply re-add it and demand the other party seek consensus. Again, i dont have a problem adding to that section, but phrases like "dominant spending" "extraordinarily successful efforts as a Koch brothers ally" and so on should be avoided or attributed if we cant think of a more neutral phrasing. Bonewah (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonewah: All I inserted into the article were well known facts that were documented in the original cited source. Pope was able, almost solely, to radically change the face of North Carolina politics, changing the makeup of the legislature and the congressional delegation, by a massive infusion of post-Citizens United money. He is the biggest spender in that state's politics. He is joined at the hip with the Kochs and has adopted their tactics to a tee, such as launching primaries against Republican moderate incumbents. As budget director he removed the state's model public financing of judicial elections that had removed them from dependence upon contributions from the very attorneys who had cases before those appellate judges. He credits the development of his economic philosophy with attendance at seminars at the Cato Institute (formerly the Charles F. Koch Foundation). He is a substantial contributor to the Kochs' State Policy network of which Civitas and the Locke Foundations are integral parts. He has sat on their APF and CSE boards. He has been successful in substantially reducing state funding for K-12 education. I find it quite astonishing that you could ask how you did in your deletion of the material that places Pope's actions in some context that had been wholly missing from the Mayer article. You've been criticized by many other editors who have worked on this article for similar behavior as you have engaged in today, for the past six or seven years. I don't know if prior erasures by you might have removed the context that would have made it understandable to Wikipedia readers, but you can't deny that it was missing. Ironicallly, perhaps, just this morning I read recent edits to Conflict of Interest commentary concerning paid editors who engaged in sock puppetry on behalf of the Kochs, and who were suspended for their behavior. Activist (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarmadukePercy:@Roregan:@PrBeacon:@Pohick2:@Sugar-Baby-Love:@C.J. Griffin:@Neutrality:The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.

Koch brothers use of PR firm[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Koch_brothers_use_of_PR_firm In 2010, Koch Industries began employing New Media Strategies (NMS), an internet PR firm specializing in "word-of-mouth marketing". Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that employees of the company, editing from IPs controlled by NMS, were editing the Wikipedia articles for Charles Koch, David Koch, Political activities of the Koch brothers, and The Science of Success (a book written by Charles). Under numerous usernames, NMS employees edited Wikipedia articles "to distance the Koch family from the Tea Party movement, to provide baseless comparisons between Koch and conspiracy theories surrounding George Soros, and to generally delete citations to liberal news outlets." These activities were exposed at Wikipedia and described in the press.[62] A large group of editors who were editing from NMS IPs became the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, were blocked, and later unblocked.[63] Activist (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as i said, i dont have a problem with adding some context to the section in question, im just concerned that we word it neutrally and that we cover what needs to be covered. There is nothing insidious about that and implying that i must work for the Koch brothers because i dont totally and completely agree with your edits shows an insulting lack of good faith on your part. Yes, the BRD cycle is technically optional, but it applies to almost all edits such as this and i see no reason to ignore it now. Ive given you no reason to think that i wont be reasonable about this subject and therefore i ask that you be reasonable as well. Im not going to change the article back to what it was before you edited it, even though i would be justified in doing so, but i ask that you revert your own changes as a sign of good faith that you are willing to work with other editors, which is most assuredly not optional. Bonewah (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jane Mayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koch brothers edited this article?[edit]

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/time-magazine-koch-brothers-meredith-corp/

Probably needs a close reading to see what kind of biases have been introduced by IPs, SPAs etc.. -- GreenC 14:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This happened several years ago, but the Koch brothers sleep not, so we must keep our eyes open. An example of secretive and deceptive COI editing is when the Koch brothers paid the conservative PR firm New Media Strategies to professionally whitewash many articles about them and their political activities. The whitewashing activities were discovered and then reported in the press, yet the Koch brothers/NMS team got away with it without much happening. Their sockpuppet investigation resulted in very short blocks and then nothing! Their currently active meatpuppets, who are named in the press, still guard right wing articles, and it's impossible to make them even close to NPOV. Anything negative, no matter how well sourced, will sooner or later be deleted by them. We're talking about billions of dollars at stake, so these people are serious and use any and all methods to make sure that any controversy or criticism in Koch brother related articles is removed or greatly minimized. This is extremely unwikipedian and must be firmly resisted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jane Mayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Essays and reporting"[edit]

I removed the following list from the article, as it turns this already problematic article (too much reliance on primary sources) into a virtual showcase and indiscriminate list, beyond the bounds of good taste. Wikipedia is not a directory or repository for indiscriminate information. Mayer has her own website, and New Yorker page, for anyone wishing to find her individual articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long list....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Pulitzer nominee? Not on the list[edit]

Editors have added a claim that Mayer was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. They have cited articles saying that she was nominated by The Wall Street Journal. However, the official list of Pulitzer nominees is maintained by the Pulitzer Prizes at https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2018. Mayer's name does not appear there. So the best we can say is that she has claimed to be a nominee, or that others have made that claim but that she does not appear to be one. Moreover, newspapers don't choose Pulitzer nominees. The Pulitzer jury chooses nominees. The best reference is the Pulitzer official list of winners and nominees. And she's not on it.148.75.126.156 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing is classic original research and misuse of a primary source to do it. We are not allowed to do that here. Start your own blog for that. Now stop the edit warring. You are up against two very experienced editors, one of whom is a highly respected Administrator. We follow a process here known as the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When your edit is rejected, you are not supposed to restore it, but are supposed to start a discussion and not try to restore it until a consensus has been reached. When your first edit was rejected, instead of starting a discussion, you made your edit again. That's not allowed. Now we are restoring the article to its default state (again) and expect you to stick to discussing here. If you can convince us, then you might get your way. Otherwise, if you keep this up, you'll get blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to respond to your comment: Response to BullRangifer: Have you posted a similar message on the pages of users who keep reverting edits on the same page? As you can see, they persist in posting information that is contradicted by the primary source: the Pulitzer organization. No, wait, you yourself are one of those editors! I've asked repeatedly that people take this to the talk page instead of continuing to post the unfounded (and apparently inaccurate) information. They responded by continuing to post the questionable information. And their response (well, now I see that it's your response) is to accuse me of edit warring and to threaten to ban me. Let's have this looked at by a senior editor. At best, the information you keep trying to post on the page is in question. Why are you so insistent on posting it?148.75.126.156 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the links I posted to our OR policy? We base our content on RS, not on primary sources we find, such as searches of the Pulitzer Prize website. We're not allowed to do that. I'm trying to explain policy to you. I'll ping User:Gamaliel. Let's see what they say. They have the power to block you if you keep this up. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have read the OR policy carefully. You're portraying the Pulitzer Prizes list of winners (it doesn't take a search there, just the list) as though it's possible that it could be biased. Read the OR policy. Apply common sense to what it's trying to prevent. You've turned that on its head. If I were trying to put a fact INTO this page about Jane Mayer, based on only one source, even the original source, I could see you saying, let's see it published in a secondary source. But I'm trying to do the opposite. I'm saying, there's a list of all the Pulitzer winners and finalists, and that official list is maintained by the Pulitzer Prizes organization on its web site. And her name isn't there. In fact, the Pulitzer Prizes website lists other people, not Jane Mayer, as the nominees for all years. Isn't the right thing to do to leave that out of her biography here? So the question remains, why are you so sure that it should be here? Why does it matter to you? If someone's bio said they won the Academy Award for best actress in 1958, and the Academy Awards website listed someone else as winner, would you leave that in the Wikipedia page, or would you say, hey, let's take that out until it can be confirmed? Here, for reference, is the official Pulitzer Prizes list of winners and nominees, year by year. https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2018. How could there be a better source, primary or secondary, than that?148.75.126.156 (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to the Pulitzer website does not mention nominees, only winners and finalists. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the Pulitzer Prizes board says in its FAQ, pointing out that nominees and finalists are the same thing, and noting that people who were merely entrants should not falsely claim to have been nominated. "The Pulitzer Prizes site contains the complete list of Pulitzer Prize winners from 1917 (the first year the Prizes were awarded) to the present. The site also lists Nominated Finalists from 1980 (the first year finalists were announced) through the present. ... What does it mean to be a Pulitzer Prize Winner or a Pulitzer Prize Nominated Finalist? A Pulitzer Prize Winner may be an individual, a group of individuals, or a news organization's staff. Nominated Finalists are selected by the Nominating Juries for each category as finalists in the competition. The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from the three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have been announced only since 1980. Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided. Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term "nominee" for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was "nominated" for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us." 148.75.126.156 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here is the URL for that. Bonewah (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that URL. Note that the question from user Gamaliel expresses a confusion. In fact, nominees and finalists are the same thing. This is not surprising. That's exactly the way it works at all the other contests that you're familiar with. At the Academy Awards, if the studio sends in your film for consideration, you haven't been nominated, and you're not a nominee. Only if you're chosen as a finalist, or a nominee, which are the same thing, can you call yourself that. That's true even if your employer, say The Wall Street Journal, says to you, hey, we're nominating you for a Pulitzer. No, they're not. They're submitting an entry. It's the same at the National Book Awards, the Booker Prize, any other prize for artists, journalists, authors. Many entries, a few nominees/finalists/nominated finalists, and one or two winners. Now that you realize that the Pulitzers maintain a full list of winners and nominees, and you see that Jane Mayer is not on that list, how do you make the choice to include two Pulitzer nominations on her page? Why the urgency to do so? 148.75.126.156 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article in The Atlantic on exactly this issue: "Journalists, Please Stop Saying You Were 'Pulitzer Prize-Nominated'". Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/journalists-please-stop-saying-youre-pulitzer-prize-nominated/326547/148.75.126.156 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Since 1980, when we began to announce nominated finalists, we have used the term "nominee" for entrants who became finalists. We discourage someone saying he or she was "nominated" for a Pulitzer simply because an entry was sent to us." So they are using "nominee" to mean "finalist". We are using "nominee" to mean "nominee". We're not obligated to adopt their meanings of common English words. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're using the plain English meaning of this common word. What does it mean that Meryl Streep has been nominated for an Academy Award 21 times? It says so on her Wikipedia biography. You and I and everyone else understands that to mean that 21 times the people who make the cut, shortening a long list of entries or eligible actresses down to only a few, have chosen her to be among those nominees. That's what everyone takes that to mean. That's the plain English meaning. Now, what does it mean when the Wikipedia page for Jane Mayer says that she has twice been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize? The plain English meaning of that would be that twice the people who make the cut have chosen her to be on the short list. But we see that this is not so. The short lists are published for every year on the Pulitzer Prizes site, and she's not on it. Do you understand this? Is there something not plain about this?148.75.126.156 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel, we are not *obligated* to use their definition, but my feeling is that we should. If i read in Wikipedia that such and such was a nominee to X thing, i would expect that 'nominee' corresponds to something meaningful to X thing. I could nominate Peyton Manning to be President of the United States, but we wouldnt say in his bio that he is a presidential nominee, as the typical usage of that term is "was part of serious consideration for the office" not "someone suggested his name for the job". This is true even if reliable sources reported my nomination of Manning, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We can always ignore a rule if common sense argues otherwise ("No firm rules" is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia). While certain reliable sources may state something, that statement may be incorrect or misleading. If including a disputed or shakily supported statement causes more confusion than clarity, it should simply be omitted until further corroborated, rather than risking the perpetuation of misconceptions, even those held by journalists. We're humans trying to write good articles, not robots enslaved by and beholden to Wikipedia guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Addition): In my brief research, it appears that the mention of a Pulitzer nomination is in the far minority of sources about Mayer, and often in the less reliable sources (e.g. this article on Yahoo News re-hosting a HelloGiggles article whose only mention of Pulitzer is an embedded Tweet from a freelance journalist is not the best supporting evidence for a WP:BLP.) Further, NPR also mentions it was The Wall Street Journal itself (Mayer's then employer) who nominated Mayer for the Pulitzer, which seems quite similar to when any film or TV show submits their best work for consideration to the Oscars or Emmy. It's also notable that these nominations for a major journalism award are conspicuously absent from Mayer's own personal website, as well as biographies published by professional biographers:

In conclusion, I think the nomination, while nothing to scoff at, was somewhat of a publicity move picked up by a couple sources, but not widely reported on, probably due to the fact that pretty much anyone can nominate anyone. It's not an entirely false claim, but it is a bit fluffy, ambiguous, and misleading. With no disrespect, I think it's not worth including, as it misleads more than it informs. Mayer has plenty of other accolades and accomplishments on which to focus. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal per IAR, as the article will not suffer from doing so. I suspect that the one RS we use refers to the more informal use of the term "nominate", as explained by Animalparty. We've had a good discussion here, and the consensus seems to be for removal. She's still a very respected journalist, one of the best. Her work is often extremely thorough analysis worth reading. Who knows, we may some day end up adding a Pulitzer win to the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noticed this discussion. I agree that the reference to "nominated" should be removed. Anyone can be nominated for anything. Retaining such material is POV and misleading. I think the confusion may come from the fact that an Academy Award and show business award "nominee" is actually on the shortlist for the award, while nominees for the Pulitzers and other awards have simply applied to get the award, as anyone can do. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wife of Bill Hamilton (journalist)?[edit]

The article lists William B. Hamilton as her husband, who is or was National Editor of the Washington Post, and Washington editor of the NY Times. As such I believe he would (or even should) have a Wikipedia article. Bill Hamilton (journalist) is very short and has Washington editor of the NY Times as almost his only notable post. I think this is enough to link to him as her husband, but others may disagree. I'll also come back and recheck later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind, I found it in her wedding announcement [2] in the NYTimes, already in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Mayer&oldid=1210260197"