Jump to content

Talk:Emily Bazelon

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

Discussion of Notability

[edit]

Thanks for your msg on Emily Bazelon. What makes her less notable than other Slate contributors is her relative lack of published work--Dickerson and Plotz, for example, have both written books (and Dickerson is notable in his own right for his family connections, etc). I don't want to press the issue, but to my mind, Bazelon just doesn't make the notability cut. FCLymond (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to say that I’m not very familiar with Wikipedia policy. The reason I created the Emily Bazelon article was because it was red-linked at the Slate magazine Wikipedia page. I have not been able to find any "published, third-party sources" about her, only articles she herself has written. I took the information for the article from various bios about her that publications she’s been associated with had published such as this.
So I’m not really sure how to proceed with this. Clearly she’s not a very notable person but she has written, at least in my opinion, some notable articles about controversial subjects, perhaps most notably a cover story for the New York Times Magazine about the post-abortion syndrome.
Although probably not a very good argument for keeping her article, but just looking at the other people included in the Slate magazine people category, I would argue that she is at least as notable as some of her fellow Slate writers who have their own articles. Kinggimble (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that her status as senior editor of slate makes her important enough to have her own wiki article. Also if Dickerson is notible for his family connections, surely Bazelon is. ----Watchreader (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote keep. I just ended up at here because I read Slate magazine often and became curious about its senior editor. - Atfyfe (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for information on her, so I'd say she's notable enough. You want people to actually use wikipedia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.76.177 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion, I removed the notability tag. FCLymond (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of NPOV/Carl M. Cannon quote relavence

[edit]

Is the quote from Cannon establishing anything about Mrs. Bazelon or is it an unanswered swipe at her? It hardly seems a notable quote in the sense that it doesn't establish the characterization of Emily Bazelon without bias. 69.23.60.94 (talk)

Criticism of Justice Ginsburg

[edit]

The section on Justice Ginsburg strikes me as rather out-of-tune and out-of-harmony with all of Justice Ginsburg's jurisprudence. The presumption is that "growth in populations that we do not want to have too many of" is in reference to protected classes, such as any specific innocent (i'm reacting, in particular, to the Gerson Op-Ed, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Comments on Abortion in the New York Times) as opposed to community neglected populations, like children left for years inside abusive foster homes. Berth adoption is not occurring at even-close-to-adequate rates, and as a community calm coordination problem, it's among the simplest to solve, if We but only have the Will.

Perhaps Justice Ginsburg was also, in issuing a plural ("populations"), thinking of the population of crimes that children who were unwanted by their parents are more likely than wanted and planned children to trend toward. This would have nothing to do with the use of populations in terms of people, but rather in terms of actions that the Peoples and People have a compelling interest in reviewing for affirmatively negative, non de-minimis criminal deviations. It could also be in reference to the population of fundamentally broken homes, based not on the social class or preparation level of the parents, but rather the intention and attention to parenting, and the intrinsic motivation that the parents have to climb the parental investment learning curve to the best of their abilities, that the parents commit to their children through intentional conception, rather than the reluctant acceptance of responsibility for a deeply vulnerable soul that comes from forming, in the parent's or physician's best judgment, to terminate the soul pregnancy, only to find that they are prevented from following their considered moral imperative and left to raise a child they only through legally-forced-on-an-individual-morality hypocrisy raise.

Even with the most severe pro-life religious views, where even rape and incest are not exceptions, these parenting populations are not truly wanted; for severe pro-life views, they're an unfortunate, intolerable, but nonetheless sufferable side effect of the soul's conception, as embedded in the Laws per the Hyde Amendment as recurrent rider and Harris v. McRae 448 U.S. 297 (1980). Others, like myself, wonder whether the word conception is not better reserved for the point of Marital Union, to reflect Our commitment to only bring souls into this world that we can care, nourish, and educate by equity × equality at home, with justice attending to ensuring even opportunity, no matter whether the child emerges from a partly-broken or full house eight-eyed home, for the good and welfare of the child, as evident in the longevity tables on the grandparental bonus in living with your parents while raising children. On the whole, accepting the limitations of present community tastes and liberty interests, which may or may not reflect well-considered self-consistent values on, for instance, statistically killing your children three years early in denying our children the grandparents' bonus (as is more customary in countries like Zhong), more eyes in the home proves to be better than fewer, not just for the grandchildren but also for the parents and grandparents, who are all, typically speaking, less lonely, more industrious, more connected, and longer-lived. Which is to say that the growth in population of eight-eyed homes is something we may not be able to have too many of, relative to two-eyed homes, and all the pains, troubles, and sufferings that entails for the children, the separated parents working four jobs to maintain two separate households, and the lonely, more disintegrated grandparents burning through their savings to give their children the freedom and independence that their children say they need, knowing, nonetheless, that that freedom and independence costs their children and their grandchildren deep years of good and welfare commitments that boil out into unwanted populations of life, liberty, love, and labor conditions for all those most intimately affected by a state-rejected moral judgment with our impoverished and grossly inadequate contraceptive technologies that affect above all today the poor encountering the Hyde Amendment and Harris v. McRae downwardly-mobile most-reluctantly-assumed-parenting hazards and judicial permittivity on States' Rights access barriers under Hyde that are connected to a States' Rights noninterference in Hyde Amendments. The States' and State have a compelling interest to prevent growth in the populations of the downwardly mobile and downwardly vulnerable. If forcing parents who can not, will not, and do not want to handle the intensive (permanently epigenetic, for at least three generations) responsibilities of careful pregnancy precautions and pregnancy cares in line with justice for the baby's soul, as parentally, communally, religiously defined,the outcome of that forced handling may, without a deeper civic religious, civic, all religious commitment to berth adoption, deep-phronesis education, et. al., tend to be growth in downwardly-mobile populations of weakened home growth factors that no one wants. Insofar as i myself can say, the statement looks to me to be innocuous; an artifact of a more general and abstract secondary representation of the term populations than most of us in our daily lives employ. While a follow-up question is perhaps advisable, i don't find it necessary, but to make sure beyond all doubt that the speaker, the Justice, represented Justice. It seems wise, unless and until further evidence emerges, to drop this criticism from prominence on Emily Bazelon's page. It strikes me as out-of-proportion, given the age of this journalistic fail. That being said, journalists are too rarely held to account for the questions that are not asked, as to what was left unasked, or as to follow-up.

Neutral tone may, nonetheless, here require some review. Emily Bazelon's explanation could be right, that the Justice slipped out of time and local identity while summary-explaining competing perspectives. The Justice uses two tenses in a single sentence: "i had thought at the time...we don't want to...", showing reliving. In the main clause of this transcripted sentence, the Justice first introduces perspective taking as well, saying, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about X that we (quite likely, or not less likely than not, the polite "they") don't want to have [in excess]." i don't think there's a lot to go on here if you're reading it as a listener would interpret it or speaker would deliver it, with some understanding that the Justice can not attribute the view of the Prevailing Parties, supported by the Majority, to a "they", creating an "us vs. them" divide when the Justice was responsibly subsuming himself within the body then and now, as wei all do more frequently while contending with and settling faithfully Gordian positions of competing claims to rights, liberties, accessibilities, accommodations like this. i'm not a great fan of the quote, but neither am i a fan of quite how hard the presumption against the Justice and the Journalist here slants. More to the point, the Journalist apologized, and there should be some time clock on how long this remains on Wikipedia as notable, all things considered. It's his second result on a web search index operating with 6 of 10 share and first result on another search index with 2 of 10 share. 8 of 10 search patterns lead us to the impression that Emily Bazelon shows extreme carelessness in interviews with those who may share his views, without, in this case, most likely reading patterns by most arriving readers picking this apart per the dominant oral parsing of this. i can say, "i thought at the time of my childhood that we as a republic don't want growth in slave populations, these slave populations we don't want too many of." But then i read the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution with great care, and realized that the Government is exempted from slavery liabilities if the person so held is convicted of a crime or, by extension, arrested and held under probable cause, which also permits for brief or prolonged enslavement.

In particular, SECTION 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. SECTION 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

At first glance, based on teachings delivered in public high school curricula, it looks like slavery was abolished just after the Civil War by the 13th Amendment, but that's *absolutely false*. Slavery wasn't abolished, it was just restricted to jails and prisons, sometimes on the basis of a person not being permitted to access their checkbook in their locked up items in the arresting police station to make bond, as occurred indiviedually to me, leaving me in what can only be described as slavery (involuntary or, more accurately, semi-voluntary and voluntary servitude) for 28ish days. Again, this extended servitude was because the State does not permit a person to bond themselves out of slavery, when there's no cause to believe the person is an "own cognizance" flight risk.

This isn't about me, it's about the 2.3 million slaves and indentured servants held in jail or prison. wei were misinformed; the 13th Amendment was not the Abolition Amendment; it merely restricted slavery/servitude or partly abolished them. This slave population has grown over the years, and looking back on 01973 from the point of view of the year 02009, it is hard to fault the Justice for waiting to see lesser growth in the slave populations held by the States, inasmuch as those slave populations are, in part, influenced by "choice of abortion" v. "abortion of choice" policy. The commenter is in favor of reasonable limits on choice of abortion today, with heavy, heavy investment in acquiring and implementing any and all technologies necessary to fully hold young families responsible for almost error-free accountability on crash conceptions. [RISUGs|Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance] appear to be a necessary part of that mix. Without RISUGs, the Supreme Court of the United States can not easily overwrite Roe v Wade. Altar the fact pattern, by way of introducing more reliable, higher quality, doubled over responsibility for insemination, and better technology for shunting sperm away from a receptive egg, and Roe v Wade can be reconsidered in light of new or old law, policy, and technology. Perhaps my new favorite section of law is 18 U.S. Code §242, "Civil deprivation of rights under color of law." i can imagine a suit that claims that enforcements based on the Hyde Amendment rider, in the absence of an attached rider for full funding of all AHRQ-assessed promising early-stage RISUG / massive reliability contraception research is in prima facia violation of equal protection under the laws, for lack of substantial male accountabilities burdening X-chromosomal Eve over Y-chromosomal Adam. 1 in 100 pregnancies on perfect IUD provision and hungry consent frequency still translates into tens of thousands of crash conceived murders, from the mindset of a RISUG tomorrow, where the populations of the crash-conceived may be, by voluntary and community choice, generally dampened or halted, to an epsilon-lambda differentiable error.

Nonetheless, not having read the case, and not having time instantly to read the case, i can not say more.

Adam D. Clayman (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emily Bazelon. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Emily Bazelon. 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).

  • 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) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emily Bazelon. 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).

  • 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) 10:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain photo request

[edit]

Can any editor provide a better photo than the awful one currently in this article's infobox? Activist (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: better? --GRuban (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Better? "Much mo' bettah!!" Activist (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing on prostitution section edit

[edit]

@Innisfree987: In this edit, Innisfree removes all non-primary sources from this section, leaving it "she wrote an article", without any explanation why this particular article is important enough to deserve a section in her bio. Presumably she writes lots of articles, she is a journalist after all, and yet we are not writing about all of them. I humbly submit that the criticisms in the New York Post and the Huffington Post are actually sufficiently important Wikipedia:Reliable sources to remain, and therefor justify this section. But if not, then the whole thing needs to go, since what is left is useless. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a single sentence section is dumb. I also vaguely recall this flap tho, so I tend to think there are probably more significant views to cite (on both sides) than what was previously in there, which is why I didn't delete it entirely (envisioning someone might want to develop it into a better version of the discussion of the article). As for sourcing that, being published in the HuffPost Blog section really does not indicate significance unless the author is sufficiently significant to warrant attention simply because they said it. The NY Post is a maybe to me but it'd be better if there were secondary sources discussing its criticism to validate its significance. Primary sources really needs to be prima facie significant to rate inclusion and I don't think this is. (Additionally, including it but nothing else I think would have quite distorted the picture of responses to the article.) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a general remark, the more closely I look at this article, the more concerned I become with significant overreliance on primary sources, especially for a BLP... Innisfree987 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance on primary sources?

[edit]

I'm trying to figure out what the intent was behind adding that flag. I'd agree that the article makes a lot of citations out to writings by the subject, but it seems to me it's not using writings by Bazelon as primary sources for factual claims about her. e.g. It's not pointing at a personal blog that says "I was born in Pennsylvania" as the citation for her being born there. It's using examples of an author's writings to ground descriptions of her political or philosophical attitudes, in much the way that you might cite the writings or speeches of a dead president in the course of discussing his political agenda. For that matter, have a look at how many of the citations in the article on celebrated journalist H.L. Mencken are to writings by the man himself. I'd say the fraction of the total set of cites is comparable. Auros (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Does citation of an acknowledged expert's Twitter feed count as "original research"?

[edit]

Hi Innisfree987. You had cut part of the material I recently added, citing WP:NOR. I disagree that this is an instance of "original research". I think it is closer to a fair criticism to say that this is a Primary Source, since it's direct citation of the words of an expert, rather than a more digested secondary source like a peer-reviewed journal article by the expert, or a news article quoting the expert. But I would argue that if it's worth having this section about a controversy, at all, then it's worth citing a range of opinions from experts on the topic. Dr. Drescher is somebody with extensive experience dealing with the type of medical care under discussion, who has been sought out as a source by various media sources in the past, and his opinion in this case seems relevant. Whether we like it or not, Twitter threads have become a way that serious scientists exchange and critique ideas. (There have been some amazing threads on COVID, including some that actually led to changes in policy.) As I've been poking around, I found there is a template available for citing Tweets, and guidance on when Twitter is a valid source: "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source." I'm not going to revert this change immediately, to give some time for a response from you or other editors. Auros (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest clicking through on the “self-published” part of that quoted guidance. It will take you to WP:SPS which reads, “Never [emphasis in the original] use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” Even if we weren’t dealing with a BLP it also advises: “Exercise caution when using [self-published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.” Absent independent coverage indicating significance and relevance, WP editors would have to insert their own judgment about which of the many experts who (as you note) share their opinions on Twitter all day every day ought to be cited; that falls in the “original research” territory we strenuously avoid.Innisfree987 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, OK, I'm convinced you have this right. Will keep an eye out for a better secondary source balancing this topic. Cheers. Auros (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emily_Bazelon&oldid=1256942780"