Jump to content

Talk:Deborah Solomon

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

Comment moved from mail article

[edit]

I've moved the comment below form the main article. - TB (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: There is a current (2006-9 and continuing) reporter at The Wall Street Journal by the same name. She is a different person, according to an e-mail from Susan Davis of the paper's "Washington Wire" blog.<ref>E-mail Monday, April 27, 2009 6:28 PM: "Hello, to answer your question .... They are two completely different Deborah Solomons, one currently works for WSJ, and the other for NYT. This confusion happens often. ... Best, Susan"; Susan.Davis_at_wsj.com. Response to query from [[User:Swliv]].</ref>

Undue weight

[edit]

Im not sure the criticisms of her deserve so much space compared to her professional work. before i added it, she didnt even have a section for her professional work, just a few sentences under "early life and education". Even the ref i provided shows that New York Press has not utterly dismissed her as a journalist. It would be better to add some more professional content, such as critical responses to her books, details of her guggenheim fellowship, details of her column, etc. This is currently reading like an attack piece to me. and i have no connection to the author.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

false information

[edit]

Hi there, Someone keeps adding hostile and incorrect information to this Wikipedia entry, which I just removed. If you would like additional information or verification, please let me know. thanks. Abitofmoonlight (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abitofmoonlight it's clear you're someone close to the subject matter, if not Deborah Solomon herself. Due to our WP:COI policy, I recommend you not edit the article and request for changes to it be made here. This way it can be impartially reviewed so its bias is not strongly in one direction or another. Mkdwtalk 20:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over this article. There are some very biased opinions and words that have no place on a neutral encyclopedic article. They're not only a violation of WP:BLP but not supported in the sources provided. There is undue weight issue on certain things like incidents. Not all seem to be widely written about in the media where there was enduring importance. It's likely best for these sections to be merged into smaller subsections or removed but not at wholesale. For example, the 92nd Street Y incident hardly involves Solomon other than she was the interviewer. The central issue was with the organizers. To put it in perspective, the incident isn't even mentioned on Steve Martin's article or the article for 92nd Street Y -- and seemingly justifiable per WP:UNDUE. Further, the Norman Rockwell book while very controversial has been written by someone who is clearly a supporter of the views that Solomon's account was inaccurate and inflammatory. It would appear someone has gone out of their way to include even obscure comments from lesser known op writers in the book review field to unbalance the tone of the article. I have done my best to provide a platform for both sides but while not leaning too strongly in one director or another. That being said, if further is to be written about the Normal Rockwell book, it should be moved to an article about the book with a Main Article note on Solomon's article. It's important to note that there is a big difference between opinions about a book written by a writer, and opinions about a writer. Most seem to refute the content and assumptions of the book and therefore have been given undue weight here. I would like to point out that I edited this article in response to an OTRS ticket and have engaged myself as an editor and offer my third opinion on the matter having no previous stake or history with this article or its associated subjects or people. Mkdwtalk 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki editors, Please keep vandals off this page!

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I am not an expert on Wiki style, so please forgive any stylistic infelicities on my part. I wish to say that User: Mkdw strikes me as most unfair and biased. He or she added a section on Solomon's Rockwell biography that foregrounds the complaints of two people while ignoring the enormous praise the book received. Moreover, Mkdw keeps deleting the list of literary awards that grace Ms. Solomon's career-- her Rockwell book, as previously indicated on her Wiki page, was shortlisted for two major national awards, the PEN award, and the Los Angeles Times Book Review award for biography. It was also a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. Surely it is relevant that the book was reviewed very positively by major critics writing in so many national newspapers and magazines..

For instance, the Wall Street Journal opened its admiring review of the book by asserting: "In anticipation of Thanksgiving, every American who cherishes the traditions that make this country great should acquire a copy of "American Mirror," Deborah Solomon's brilliantly insightful chronicle of the life of illustrator Norman Rockwell. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304200804579165980988272564

And here is a link to the review that appeared in USA Today, which praised the book for its: "elegance, irony and straightforward storytelling" despite the family's insinuations: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/11/30/american-mirror-norman-rockwell-review/3469923/

The two members of the Rockwell family who have publicly criticized the book, by contrast, attempt to support their arguments by citing obscure reviewers in obscure publications, or reviews that they wrote and self-published on sites such as Amazon customer reviews.

If two members of the Rockwell family elect to devote their days to critiquing a widely praised, award-winning book on Norman Rockwell, perhaps their criticisms should be relegated to the Wiki page about Norman Rockwell or his middle son Thomas Rockwell, rather than Ms. Solomon, whose book takes as its goal the the promotion of Norman Rockwell from the lowly ranks of illustration to the highest ranks of American art. As the New York Times reported on Dec. 2, 2013: "Ms. Solomon, when told of the Rockwell family’s statements, said that the discussion of Rockwell’s sexuality was “a tiny part” of the book. “I feel like this is really the first book that convincingly makes the case for Rockwell’s artistic importance, and I would hope to keep the discussion on that subject.” "

Moreover, a Wiki page devoted to Thomas Rockwell might also mention that he has attacked Laurie Norton Moffatt, the well-regarded, longtime director of the Rockwell Museum, for supporting Solomon's book. Moffatt, who read the book before publication, endorsed it wholly and wrote a blurb for the book jacket that states: "America Mirror is a masterpiece -- vivid, forthright, and insightful. Through superb research and keen interpretation, Deborah Solomon tells the story of an artist so many thought they knew well, and perhaps did no know at all. An epic achievement."

Here is the list of Solomon's literary awards and honors which User:Mkdw removed more than once, indicating bias on his or her part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abitofmoonlight (talk • contribs)

@Abitofmoonlight: You are mistaken and you have made several incorrect accusations about me. It is with much regret that perhaps by either being new, or not knowing how to accurately cite the article history, you have come to your conclusion and now are incorrectly make very serious accusations. You have consistently failed to engage with editors on the talk page, until now, and have been warned about disruption several times.
  • The section that Norman Rockwell was largely expanded by Annacannafrannistan in this edit. I have not contributed any content to this article. The removal of the awards section you allude was first reverted by DemocraticLuntz in this edit reverted your unexplained mass removal of content. I subsequently made a similar revert here where you repeated the action. I believe you have mistaken these reverts as us stating the awards section is not appropriate for the article, when in fact, you're simply being reverted for mass removal of content. The awards section is suitable if you provide a reliable source per our policy on WP:BLP.
  • I came here, with no other history with the article, to moderate a dispute where you have made several attempts at unexplained (in terms of consensus and citing wikipedia policies) mass remove content: here, here, and here. I and other editors have reverted your edits because you have removed large parts of the article that are supported by references and failed to address WP:COI and WP:OR.
What you may not realize is that I looked over the article and recognized it was quite imbalanced and removed some of the content that was providing undue weight while still keep the core point included in these edits. I think we're on agreement that the article has issues but sadly you've made several incorrect assumptions and as an administrator, based upon your last edits and the number of warnings you have received, I have no choice but to implement a preventative block. I hope you take this time to reflect on your actions, review the article history, and read over some of the many Wikipedia policies that have been pointed out to you. You're clearly someone close to the source if not Solomon herself and again you need to read WP:COI. Regretfully, Mkdwtalk 17:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that USA Today and Wallstreet Journal article are valid sources and should be included in the article for balance. However, since you have failed to adhere to warnings about disruption and in your edits to add them also removed large portions of the article, the edits needed to be reverted. When your block expires, you will need to discuss these additions here on this talk page before making any further edits to the article. Namely, your constant attempts to remove content will need to be addressed. Mkdwtalk 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Honors

[edit]

Abitofmoonlight (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a independent and reliable source to support that Solomon has received these awards? Mkdwtalk 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the findings of the SPI and per the instructions of block evasion, the edit which included the links was reverted. That being said, I have preserved the links below for other editors to use in expanding the article. Mkdwtalk 15:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I've been asked, as a compete outsider to this article, to take a look at it for balance and neutrality. My first reaction was that the 92nd Street Y incident seemed trivial and I was going to delete it. However, in a search I found that the incident received coverage beyond what is cited in the article, so I will rewrite it instead. Then I will tackle the "Norman Rockwell controversy" section, which IMO is not deserving of a whole section; at most a balanced paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent quite a bit of time looking for coverage of Solomon's books. The Rockwell book received the most coverage. However, most reviews mention the homosexuality angle in passing or by implication; that issue does not appear to have been the overwhelming response to the book, as the article now implies. I intend to replace that "Norman Rockwell controversy" section with a "Books" section, comparable to the "Journalism" section, with quotes from various reviewers, and the homosexuality issue reduced to a few sentences. I am currently working on a draft; if anyone wants to see it or comment on it, it is here: User:MelanieN/Deborah Solomon. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and replace the "Norman Rockwell controversy" section with a "Books" section, including reliable-source reviews and reaction to the books, as we would do with any author. My searching did NOT find that the controversy was a major issue in the reviews - it was mentioned, if at all, in a paragraph or less - so I think we should deal with it accordingly per WP:UNDUE. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be, the grand-daughter's Huffington Post articles (well-documented, in my opinion) deserve to be listed in the Reference section (even if Wikipedia won't quote either of them):

• Deborah Solomon's Disaster (and How She Duped So Many) by Abigail Rockwell, Huffington Post, 7-30-2014

• Autopsy of a Fraud (Update on Deborah Solomon's Disastrous Norman Rockwell Bio) by Abigail Rockwell, Huffington Post, 2-23-2015. Asteriks (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteriks: Thanks for adding the references. There's no reason why they can't be summarized in a sentence, and I have done so.--MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement that the comments by Abigail should be added to the article. They're prominently featured in the Huffington Post and outline the still on-going conflict between the family and Solomon. Mkdwtalk 04:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deborah_Solomon&oldid=1210448001"