Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I've done some work on this article. I wrote:

Blair is an African-American, and while he was not hired or promoted according to any formal affirmative action policy, some, including Ann Coulter, believe that Blair was fast-tracked because of his race.

My invocation of Ann Coulter (a controversial conservative polemicist) was not to defeat or attack the point— in fact, I'd believe that more neutral sources have also expressed this suspicion. However, I knew that Ann Coulter had this suspicion, and anything would've looked better than a "some believe" statement. EventHorizon 19:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with bringing up Coulter is her history of attacking the NY Times over matters out of context or things she just flat out made up. Is there anyone rational who could be used to soften this statement further? --Feitclub 02:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's not true that anything would look better than a "some believe" statement. Ann Coulter's verdict on this matter is pure wind. She certainly was not the only one to bring up the matter of race and affirmative action and the Times' own 9,000 word "Correcting the Record" article addressed this issue of race numerous times, asking editors whether Blair had been hired, promoted and/or excused for his errors because he was black. Howell Raines admitted that this was the case. Given all that happened, why anyone would bring in Ann Coulter as evidence of anything is a mystery to me. You could have written an entirely different paraghraph. If you won't, then I strongly suggest removing Coulter's name. It makes this entry look bad.--Dougzinho 01:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think my reference to Mnookin makes this a better entry. Mnookin, by the way, not only covered the Blair scandal for Newsweek, he wrote a book about it.--Christofurio 03:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Removed fraudster as category. This is most commohly used as a criminal category.--FloNight 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to court records, his first name is actually spelled Jason.

Can someone find a source for this and edit the article appropriately?

I'm concerned about this bit of trivia. Was Blair the one to make the decision to bring the comic on? If not, it's an irrelevent detail that, considering the racial nature of the comic, serves to paint Blair as having a particular political allegiance. If so, it should be made explicit. 24.136.38.121 00:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors in chief have that name because they are in charge. QED. -Will Beback 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And most papers have separate editors for sections like comics, entertainment, etc. Again, was he the one who made the buy? 24.136.38.121 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Diamondback, for instance, I would assume the purchase of Boondocks would be made by the Diversions editor. 24.136.38.121 23:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was before Boondocks was syndicated, it was a college student writing a cartoon for a college paper. Anyway, here's the source: [1] -Will Beback 00:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also, The Boondocks, [2], and [3] "I know Jayson Blair from college but it's not like we were friends but he was the editor of the school paper at University of Maryland where The Boondocks first appeared, I credit him for making the decision to run it." -Will Beback 00:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that the first sentence on this page is copied directly from Jayson-Blair.com. Also, I think the article should elaborate significantly on what happened after his resignation, since an article on a reporter's resignation is hardly worthy of existence, even when it was nationwide news. I might rephrase that to say that this is (supposedly) an article on Jayson Blair, not the Blair Scandal, and should be treated as such, unless the name of the article is changed.

I agree. And the material on the scandal is alarmingly POV as well; it's all written in a tone of indictment against the conspiracy of unnamed persons who supported Blair in the rise of his journalistic career. His supporters must have been aware of all his earlier misdeeds; however, (overcome by their hopelessly liberal prejudice,) they chose to look the other way (because he is black). When you fill in the obvious blanks, it's a trifecta slur against the New York Times, liberals and black people all in one. DSatz 13:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DSatz: "I agree. And the material on the scandal is alarmingly POV as well; it's all written in a tone of indictment against the conspiracy of unnamed persons who supported Blair in the rise of his journalistic career."

Most of the people who conspired to aid and abet Blair have been named.

"His supporters must have been aware of all his earlier misdeeds; however, (overcome by their hopelessly liberal prejudice,) they chose to look the other way (because he is black)."

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, that's about right. And trying to smear as racist anyone who reports on the obvious is a bit much from someone crying, "POV!"

70.23.177.216 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]