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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this correct grammer? "here he became a bar mitzvah at Congregation Beth El". It's the same wording as the source but, assuming the grammer is incorect, should we not reword it to make it so?
btw I haven't participated in many talk pages so let me know if I'm doing this wrong! Thesowismine (talk) 14:57, 2 June 20017 (EST)
Goethian, come back with some better sources indicating how this one particular instance is notable enough for inclusion. Otherwise it be gone and it stays gone. One sentence that precisely one partisan commentator saw fit to whine about does not a noteworthy addition to a WP:BLP make. CENSEI (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"An opinion published on TPM is not particularly notable." TPM is the winner of a Polk Award and is widely considered to be among the most important sources of online news. The fact that your own political leanings are clearly to the right should not cloud your judgment about this. Increasingly, wiki is seen as the Fox News of the internet. Comments like yours only reinforce this opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.130.251 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is the first thing in his personal section the statement that he was born into a Jewish family? I would think the most prominent thing about his biography is that he is the son of the well known Morton Halperin, who had a prominent career in government as a foreign policy expert, who was wiretapped by the Nixon Administration because of his opposition to the way the war with Vietnam was being conducted. He also was head of the ACLU- well you can read the rest of his bio. Just seems like it makes more sense to mention the family relationship first, especially since his father is so prominent. Do Wikipedia biographies usually mention the religion of the person's parents? What's the relevance? Iful (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the following sentence from the 2006 elections section here for discussion:
In a WP:BLP, a negative claim like "reputation for inaccurate prognostication" needs strong sourcing (and Glen Greenwald, dailykos.com and HuffPo employees are not acceptable in this context!). Producing a lot of examples of Halperin's bad predictions is not enough (and violates WP:SYNTH); we would need an authoritative source using "reputation for bad predictions" or equivalent words.
Does anyone have a good source for this claim? Or even a not-that-great source we could discuss? CWC 13:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
On taking a closer look, I noticed this article contained quite a lot of unsourced or badly-sourced controversial claims. I just did a big edit to remove that stuff (as required by WP:BLP), while making some minor improvements. I do not claim that the result is all that great, only that it conforms to Wikipedia's rules more closely. Further improvements welcome, particularly finding good sources for claims I removed and putting those claims back.
Please note that blog posts, HuffPo opinion items, Daily Kos items, etc attacking the subject of a BLP are never acceptable as sources. In fact, it usually violates WP:EL to even link to them! (OTOH, mainstream media reports mentioned in those posts/items are usually quite OK ... hint, hint.)
BTW, I suspect that some of the claims I removed are correct. That doesn't matter; we need to following Wikipedia's (extremely cleverly designed) rules. Cheers, CWC 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There are still a series of things cited under 2006 elections and 2008 elections that are highly questionable with respect to their notability. It seems that someone has gone through and cherry picked statements that he made that proved not to pan out, in order to make him look bad.
Particularly for an active television pundit who needs to make random opinions on how the election is going every day, a prediction that Bush would be over 53% soon, a prediction that didn't pan out obviously, is not particularly notable at all, is it? Unless there are multiple third party reliable sources indicating that this statement is an important part of his career that had some real impact, it should be removed.
Similarly his comments on the Drudge report: unless there is significant third party reliable coverage of his remarks, I fail to see how we can in good conscience include them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"On November 21, 2008, at a Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, Halperin called the election media coverage "the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage." In a 2010 interview on The O'Reilly Factor, Halperin pointed out the use of subtly racist language in headlines on the website Drudge Report, and accused the site's creator, Matt Drudge, of exploiting racist sympathies, though he also added that Drudge was not himself a racist. As evidence, he cited a headline on the Drudge Report that read "Obama Goes Street: Seeking 'Ass To Kick.'", saying of Drudge: "he knew full well that [the headline] was provocative and racial" and that Drudge "knows how to tap into the sentiment of a lot of his readers." For those reading this who haven't seen it, this is a clip of that O'Reilly Factor interview of Halperin
I have suggested that the new article "I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday" should merge here. It is a WP:FORK of this article, in my opinion. Halperin is not notable enough for a separate article to exist about one episode of his work life. Sharktopus talk 12:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has twice restored unsourced material to this BLP. (No, it is not sourced by the Walt Whitman High School citation.) Furthermore, when re-adding it, the editor has undone other fixes to the article. Please take care to revert more surgically. AV3000 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
"He was born in Bethesda, Maryland, or Cambridge, Massachusetts"
So which is it? Does anybody have a clue? Is it considered better to have an obvious inconsistency displayed than a ridiculous error? Why is that? Perhaps the whole sentence can be removed until someone can confirm where this guy was born. Perhaps ClueBot (who BTW missed the ironic edit before the reversion) could ferret out Mark's place of birth. (Yeah, I know what ClueBot is and his very high opinion of his ability to detect fake edits. It's a wonder to me he missed this one.) Style-wise this is very un-ecyclopedic. The inconsistency should have at least been noted in the text and some effort made to explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.243.156 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
To add: With All Due Respect (TV series). ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Halperin. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/25/media/mark-halperin-sexual-harassment-allegations/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.69.173 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the response of his girlfriend, Karen Avrich, is to these reports of his sexual harassment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.42.184 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Sexual harassment in an employment setting is not "private conduct." It is a civil wrong and not private when it involves employment. Thus, the clause "After allegations were made about his private conduct" should be changed to "After allegations were made of sexual harassment in the workplace." This change would comport with wikipedia's guidelines since factually, the allegations are of sexual harassment in employment. Leaving it as it is perpetuates notions that workplace harassment is somehow between two people, perhaps of equal power, rather than acknowledging it as the wrong, usually based on power differentials, that it is. "Private conduct" usually involves a consensual relationship, not one in which a powerful man is propositioning or wrongfully touching less powerful women in the workplace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.126.98.177 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The article needs more detail about the sexual assault allegations. Three women, for example, describe Halperin having pressed his erection against their bodies in unwanted fashion, but this information doesn't appear in the article. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Most blatantly when he gushed in Aug. 2015 after being given a ride on Trump's helicopter? That was not normal for an adult, much less a political reporter.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-helicopter-reporters-iowa_us_55d20262e4b07addcb4371f9
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.136.74 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
User Hans100 made an edit to this page, changing "is an author and senior political analyst" to "is a conservative author and senior political analyst." The revision should be reverted to the original version, as there is no evidence provided that Halperin's political orientation is conservative. Suddenly pinning a "conservative" label on Halperin's page immediately following his sexual misconduct allegations, when that label had never been used previously would appear to be political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.220.21 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Unless someone can find more reputable primary or secondary sources "exposing" Halperin and Milbank of "colluding with the Clinton campaign team" this claim will not be included on Halperin's page. I believe phrases like "exposed DNC insider" are either outright deceptive or contain editorialized, negative connotations. Wikipedia was designed to emphasize a claim's verifiability and neutral point of view. Neither of these are accomplished here by including these sources and so I have deleted them. ⁂ (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Came here to say the same thing. The Gateway Pundit has been known to report outright falsehoods and spread fake news. It is NOT a reliable source, and should not be included. Velociraptor888 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I removed the statement regarding Halperin's attempt to rehabilitate its image for being editorial commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selethor (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
OP blocked as sockpuppet
|
---|
This page has been updated with major daily newspaper sources multiple times and use LM2000 continues to remove them. User reported my account as a sockpuppet in the back and forth edits. It's likely that the user is the subject- Mark Halperin- doing the edits.Truthfactsmatter (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Ian.thomson You are picking apart small things and makes me think you are also personally connected or paid my LM2000. I have used The Washington Post, the Hill, the New York Times, CNN. Do you consider all those outlets' reporting to be "wild accusations" And if you want to continue this false accusation of sock puppetry, I expect proof or I'll add you to the harassment list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfactsmatter (talk • contribs) 03:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Ian.thomson You seem pretty defensive and not willing to check the sock puppet false accusation. Why? Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
|