Talk:Juan Williams

NPR/FOX Labeling

For some reason, someone deleted notable factual information from the page. NPR has requested that Fox not identify Juan as an employee based on controversial statements he has made when he is on the O'rielly talk show as a pundit. It is very well sourced:http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html It made the mainstream media: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/business/media/16williams.html It was blogged about by both both liberals : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/npr-tells-fox-news-please_n_166467.html and conservatives: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/02/12/too-conservative-npr-veep-urges-juan-williams-drop-his-npr-affiliation-o If you feel it should be re-worded than do that, but don't delete notable, true, and sourced information.. Otherwise it is clear you have an agenda 24.207.226.182 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the information about the NPR/Fox labeling controversy--I moved it to the FNC paragraph of the Career section. Something like that didn't deserve its own section.--Drrll (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. The way you have it now the article gives no context as to why he is considered so controversial that NPR doesn't want him identified as part of their organization. Especially since that editors like yourself have edited out all of the criticism of williams. To just slip it in between under his regular career info hurts the article. 10:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.20 (talk)

If you can show that this received major news coverage, then maybe it could go into its own section. I've added the controversial quote from him that triggered the move into the article to give a better context. Drrll (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling his remarks "bigoted" is POV. I changed it to "the following". I considered "controversial" and would not object to that. 208.115.147.16 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We should also add That Juan Williams claims that he was fired for stating his oppinion. We should also note the double standard and that NPR islying in the name of pc, as Nina Tottenberg does the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaka is a joke (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams was a news analyst for NPR, while Nina Totenberg is a legal affairs correspondent. There is a difference in how these positions are allowed and expected to practice journalism, as there is a distinction between being a reporter of the news and a commentator about current events and public policy. Fox has blended the perspective of new analyst to include commentator whereas, NPR makes an attempt to clarify the distinctions. Edunoramus (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes--Juan Williams was a news analyst, while Nina Totenberg is a correspondent/reporter. Analysts are expected to give their analysis, while reporters are expected to simply report. Yet Totenberg regularly provides not only analysis, but sharp-edged commentary on Inside Washington. NPR held Williams to a strict standard, while allowing Totenberg enormous latitude. Drrll (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I say, find a reliable source making the Totenberg-double-standard point, so that it isn't original research, and then it would belong in the article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This article states that NPR relationship began in 1999. It does not state that the Fox relationship was already in place (see Fox bio page stating he started working with Fox in 1997). The effect of this omission suggests that NPR was surprised when he went to work for Fox when they actually knew of his relationship going in and were surprised when Fox began to identify him as someone affiliated with NPR. GageParker (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing information about Williams' personal life

The text currently reads:

Personal life

Williams has a son, Tony, who was Senate page and intern for Senator Strom Thurmond from 1996 to 1997, a speechwriter and legislative correspondent for Senator Norm Coleman from 2004 to 2006, and in 2006 ran for Council of the District of Columbia, losing to Tommy Wells. Williams also has another son, Raffi, who is currently studying journalism and playing lacrosse at Haverford college in PA.

I imagine that there was at least one woman - and possibly more - involved in the production of these two sons. He may be/have been married. If the article states what sport one of his sons plays at college, the article should at least identify the woman/women with have assisted Williams in becoming a father... Davidpatrick (talk)

He has a wife as of Oct.20th 2010, she is referenced in the NPR Article: NPR Ends Williams' Contract. The very last line reads "Reached late Wednesday night, Williams said he wasn't ready to comment and was conferring with his wife about the episode." Sorry to say I don't have time to track down more information. --CygnetFlying (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction regarding archiving

Somewhere along the line a number of recent threads (some less than a few days old) were deleted along with material that had been moved into the archive, most likely unintentionally. I have restored this more recent discussion. My edit summary had said I'd be rearchiving, but I didn't need to do so as the stuff from 2007-2008 was correctly saved, it was just stuff from October 2010 that had fallen into the abyss. 23skidoo (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you showing up to help out after being away since June, but the discussion you "restored" above did not take place on this page but on User talk:Davidpatrick. It was moved here without agreement by Davidpatrick, and doesn't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have to say, you've shown a bit of bad judgment restoring a thread from a year ago that claims Williams was the subject of a "sex scandal". We really don't need that kind of thing on a BLP talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed and removed. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you were so fast on the ball, I was unable to reply to you in time to prevent your reverting. Here is my explanation which you requested. 1) I am writing as an Administrator. Please do not confuse my temporary hiatus from Wikipedia for business reasons with a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia procedures.

2) I am restoring the archiving of recent discussion because it is simply not acceptable to archive recent discussions. Archiving old discussions from 2007-2008 is fine. But not discussions from October 2010. There is no space issue. And you cannot archive discussions just because you don't like the content. One of the things you objected to contains a link to the Washington Post with content therein that exactly matches what you are objecting to!

3) You have complained that the recent post which is another reason you gave for archiving today's discussion was not what you wanted to see on the Talk Page as you explain that it arose from some text posted on your Talk Page and that of another editor. However there is a notice on your own Talk Page that says "As long as the entire discussion is preserved intact, I am generally flexible and open to a change of venue from one user talk page to another, or from a user talk page to an article or project talk page if it is deemed appropriate." (My emphasis)

4) I have checked the Talk Pages and recent histories for both you and Davidpatrick and I notice that he placed several comments on your Talk Page that are no longer there nor are they in your recent Talk Page archives.

5) Davidpatrick has placed the entire set of exchanges between you (apart from the comments purged from your own Talk Page) on the Talk Page of the article. His comments apart from a brief preamble explaining why he has placed the exchange here is all about the Juan Williams article and therefore completely appropriate on this Talk Page.

6) Please do not delete text posted on this Talk Page or archive recent text. That is not allowed, unless it is clearly unrelated to the topic at hand. Thank you. 23skidoo (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to Wikipedia after a four month absence to restore old discussions from a year ago claiming that Juan Williams was involved in a "sex scandal" (he wasn't), and for restoring an off-topic discussion that was made on a user talk page and moved here without my permission. I should also thank you for restoring personal attacks and for disrupting the talk page. I am not at all clear how you could possibly justify restoring this material on this talk page. Looking above, I see that you have bizarrely attempted to claim that I "deemed it appropriate" for my words to be moved here from another talk page, when in fact, I have stated repeatedly, I have not. I also fail to understand why a discussion from a year ago falsely accusing a BLP like Mr. Williams of a "sex scandal" was restored here. The Washington Post link is already in the article and the thread serves no purpose whatsoever here, so your argument for including it here makes no sense. Could you please address these issues directly in your response? Until you do, I will remove the content per BLP and my expressed wishes not to have my own words moved here from another page per my edit page notice, and the fact that it is not up to User:Davidpatrick to move my comments here, but requires the agreement of both parties. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Time for contentfork

Forgive me if this has already done, but is it time to WP:CONTENTFORK the recent NPR firing? NickCT (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think so. It's only two paragraphs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Well, do you not think the story itself would meet WP:NOTABLE? NickCT (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be undue weight. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Weight given to sourced important matters that Williams himself acknowledged & apologized for

The matter of sexual harassment is important and should not be belittled. Nor of course should it be given undue weight. This is a BLP article. User Nuclear Warfare has deleted text that is completely supported by the sources - the primary source being the Washington Post itself - Williams' employer. With all due respect, I think this user (and others) should engage in discussion about the matter, which we can do in a civil manner without getting into an edit war. Williams had the courage to acknowledge and apologize for aspects of his behavior. (I for one think this speaks to his courage - but my personal view is not important.) Whether the behavior happened yesterday or two decades ago is not the pertinent point. We need to evaluate the veracity of the text - which is very easy to do and is supported by the sources. And then evaluate its importance and how prominent or tucked away the matter should be in this article. Is sexual harassment (whether verbal or physical) important? How are incidents like this handled on other articles of BLP? This is NOT an ideological matter. Personally, I think it is a matter of sensitivity about respect for women. Please let's have a civil dialogue about this and work together to achieve consensus. Davidpatrick (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean that the section needs to be puffed up as much as possible when a few sentences will cover it fairly. NW (Talk) 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to please explain why stating information from the Washington Post's own report of the matter is "puffing up" the topic? Is verbal sexual harassment not that important? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is verbal sexual harassment not that important?

A multi-faceted query and hardly susceptible to a one-size-fits-all response. Contextual considerations, eg. the precise nature of the alleged harrassment, frequency of occurences, breadth of occurences, record of conduct objections raised, prior responses to any raised objections and on and on and on must all be considered in rendering a judgement...but judgements, indeed, WERE made inre Juan Williams...and by those who are most expected to be both privy to and responsive to the saliency of the admitted misconduct.

What I don't see thus far in this discussion is an acknowledgement that, for apparently 9 more years, Mr. Williams remained in the employ of The Washington Post and was then, I assume, found to be of adequate character for subsequent employment by PBS...sooooo...returning to your question...

Is verbal sexual harassment not that important?

Apparently not important enough inre Juan Williams to preclude and additional 9 years with The Washington Post and subsequent employment by PBS. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Previously, the issue of verbal harassment consumed more space than any other thing in the article except for the NPR firing, and the firing has garnered far more coverage in the media than the verbal harassment. Drrll (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are incidents less important if they happened in the pre-internet era? If a lot of the extensive coverage in media at the time of a story happened before the internet era and not all of it is available to be instantly accessed online the way present-day stories are accessible online - does that render those incidents less important? Or do we determine importance by evaluation of the facts and the gravity of the topic as reported in the available sources? Davidpatrick (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did a Lexis-Nexis search on the two incidents from 'Major World Publications'--non-internet published sources--and there were 3 times as many references to the NPR firing over the period of 1 week vs. a couple of months for the verbal harassment. Also, there are fewer published sources now than in 1991. For a point of reference, the charge of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones consumes less space in his enormous WP article than what you had for the much smaller Juan Williams article. And that was a charge against a president, was a far more serious charge, and it went through multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. Drrll (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting after the request at the BLPN - The section as added by User:Davidpatrick looks unduly reported and the resulting undue weight to it in the article should be avoided. Excessive reporting on such content negatively portrays living people. WP:NPOV - Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and the requirement that BLPs be written conservatively, I left in the salient fact, and removed the problematic statements of opinion etc. When in doubt, just list the facts. Collect (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NW, Collect, Off2riorob, and Drrll. Given that this is a BLP, I've restored the somewhat more conservative version by NW. Cool Hand Luke 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I also support Collect's even more conservative version, but I think that NW's is a better starting point than the prior subheading. Cool Hand Luke 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect I disagree and judging by the actions of another editor, I am not alone in thinking that the very abbreviated version is not the right way to go. But I believe we should discuss this civilly on this talk page rather than engage in reversion wars. So please let's have that discussion and work towards civil agreement. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes , I support the well trimmed version, we are not here to attack living people, a simple comment is plenty for NPOV. Its not really attacking but that is the result of excessive weight of reporting such additions.Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only is no one (that I can see) advocating attacking living people (I appreciate you dialing that back) but I don't agree that that is the result of what you describe as "excessive weight of reporting" that I (and at least one other editor) feel is calm reporting of impeccably sourced facts about an important matter that is otherwise swept under the carpet. Let's please discuss this. First of all - let's please look at how a similar matter (not identical) is handled at Bill O'Reilly (commentator). And that is an article that is very closely monitored for BLP issues by multiple issues. Davidpatrick (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the one you has reverted this section more than once, not me, David.

I think a case handled privately at Williams' workplace with no lawsuit and no termination is much, much less notable than your new example (and an order of magnitude less so than Bill Clinton). And that's before considering that this article is only half as long as O'Reilly's. It's simply undue weight to cover a workplace decision in such detail when the sources on Williams do not support such weight. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What one finds in another article is not binding on consensus here at all. The controversy is mentioned properly here, and that is how BLPs should handle such stuff. Collect (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately no one has advocated that what one finds in "another" article should be BINDING on consensus here. So we don't have to address that particular point. Unless we all feel that we have supreme wisdom and cannot possibly learn from studying other examples, then it would seem reasonable to DISCUSS the merits or otherwise of what is done in other comparable articles. The BLP "policing" is very strict on the O'Reilly article for obvious reasons. And yet a solitary incident is given approximately 140 words with a section sub-heading. Are those who police that article for BLP violations all blind? Is Wikipedia lacking editors who might wish to minimize an incident affecting a person with such a strong following? Or is it just that editors with different perceptions of BLP interpret the policy differently and feel that it would be un-encyclopedic to try to condense such a serious matter into a couple of lines? I think it would be productive and helpful to have this discussion - the better to improve this article. Davidpatrick (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez. The admitted misconduct was handled administratively by the Washington Post and Williams continued his employment (with some distinction I assume) for another 9 years there. We don't need chapter and verse on what rose to nothing more than a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned. The single sentence offered is, IMHO, appropriate and adequate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly has worked on at Fox News for 6 years so far since his solitary incident, and that incident is not buried into one sentence. You say the matter was "nothing more than a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned". Thank you kindly for making my point for me. If that's all it was - and it HAD been settled "to the satisfaction of all concerned" then you would be absolutely correct. One sentence would be just fine. But that's the problem of hastily deleting things. If you had read the following text from the official report published in the Washington Post (one of the sources) you will see that it was MUCH MORE than "a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned"

A letter to the Post's Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. signed by 116 newsroom employees said: "We feel Juan's unrefuted false statements to the national media continue to cause anguish and professional harm to the women involved. They have also left many people inside and outside The Post with the impression that either the complaints were not serious or were not taken seriously." [1] [2]

Does that sound like "nothing more than a personnel matter settled (apparently) to the satisfaction of all concerned"?

No, you're right. It doesn't sound like that at all... Which is why we have this Talk Page to DISCUSS a balanced way to document this in a way consistent with BLP - yet not airbrushing history for any reason... Davidpatrick (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Look,... and then nothing at all happened. Nothing ... at all. He didn't lose his job or get charged with anything at all in fact he continued in extended employment with the company offering a new contract. Its not a matter of airbrushing but more a case of NPOV and BLP not to add excessive commentary about such minor issues so as that it affects the life of a living person in a undue and possibly detrimental manner. As I see it we are requested as per guidelines as regards living subjects to err on the side of caution. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You have written "and then nothing at all happened. Nothing ... at all. He didn't lose his job or get charged with anything at all in fact he continued in extended employment with the company offering a new contract."

Thank you. You have just described exactly what also happened with Bill O'Reilly. And notwithstanding the fact that HIS subsequent professional life has continued with the same employer - the article on HIM nonetheless reports the facts that were made public at the time. Their relevance in O'Reilly's life - and thus his Wikipedia article - are not whether the incident resulted in job loss. But that it was a matter of record - reported at the time it happened. Many people - especially women do not regard sexual harassment (be it physical or verbal) as a "minor issue". As the Washington Post story about 116 employees complaining to the Executive Editor (see above) made clear.

The editors of the Bill O'Reilly article - a very similar (though not identical) subject - have made an entirely different call on this point. They are just as bound by BLP as we are. Why not try to reduce the content about Bill O'Reilly's incident to a single sentence and see what reaction you get? You know what would happen. I would appreciate it if you and others would engage in constructive dialogue about why we should not follow the example of the O'Reilly article in documenting this important matter. Carefully of course. But not air-brushing an important matter into a solitary dismissive sentence. Thank you. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not describe the Bill O'Reilly matter. Allegations against Bill O'Reilly were not handled as an internal administrative matter—they were resolved in a settled lawsuit. It was also more widely reported. Hell, it has its own article.

This is an encyclopedia, which means we give matters weight that reliable published sources have given them—we are not in the business of deciding this weight for ourselves on the basis of how "serious" we imagine the situation is. Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems likely that it would have never made the news at all if he hadn't written that column. It's interesting for that reason, and important to note, but a play-by-play is UNDUE. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No disrespect - but the MANNER in which something egregious comes to light is not the determinative factor as to its import. If one of the people breaking into the DNC HQ at the Watergate hadn't made a foolish error, we might never have known the entire undertakings of the Nixon White House - but that is an incidental point. The fact that it was Williams' column defending Clarence Thomas that brought to light his own behavior - including disciplinary action and his apology - is an interesting sidebar - but not more important than what it led to revealing. A play-by-play would be overdoing it. Noting that it happened, that Williams made an apology and that 116 employees stated on record that his apology and statements did not address the gravity of the situation - is not "play-by-play". It's fair reportage. Conveying less than that is diminishing the import of the matter. It's un-encyclopedic. Just ask the editors of the Bill O'Reilly article. Please take the time to respond to these points. I think it would be constructive. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Davidpatrick, please take a look at WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources. For our purposes in 2010, the sources you are relying from the time of the event are primary. This presents a problem, as you are the one asserting importance, not the secondary sources. I've restored the consensus version at this time. Please don't continue adding this material into the article until there is support on the talk page. Exclusion is the default position in BLP articles, not inclusion. Instead of reverting against consensus, please start an article RFC to invite more editors to comment. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rick Santorum video

I am watching a video of Rick Santorum speaking in Janesville, WI. He mentions a conversation with Juan Williams where Juan says, 'Let me tell you what the White House just told me. We beleive Americans love entitlements. And once we get them hooked on this entitlement we will have tthem hooked.' Can someone verify that Williams actually said that? That the White House actually said that? Or was it taken out of context? Thanks. Mylittlezach (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)