Talk:Molly Ivins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

Contents 1 Photo 2 Battle with cancer 3 Plagiarism controversy 4 Campaign contributions 5 "Sewer Editor" 6 Removed sentence 7 Liberal tag 8 Gutted article 9 Am I the only one who can see how hideously imbalanced this article is? 10 Frances King Controversy Dead Link 11 Incorrect Statistics 12 Date of death? 13 Shrub stupidity 14 Tone of article 15 Quotes 16 Personal Life

[edit] Photo

Does anyone know how recent the photo displayed in the articleis? It certainly looks...ummm..."outdated" at best...can we find something a bit more recent? Or at least something slightly more flattering? -Grammaticus Repairo 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a more recent photo at http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins.html?columnsName=miv, the website of Creators Syndicate. 24.14.253.159 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)K Byrnes

[edit] Battle with cancer

Anyone have info on Molly's bout with cancer? That would go well here. Cgranade 08:31, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Molly is dying and was recently moved to a hospice. She will probably be dead within a few weeks, possibly any day now.

Could this part be removed please, "Ironically, the cancer did not take her life, but rather a Great White shark bit her, leading to death by blood loss in a nearby hospital" since it's not correct. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.47.168.9 (talk • contribs).

I reverted that edit within a minute or so (I happened to be watching Recent Changes at the time). --Tkynerd 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism controversy

In 1995, humorist Florence King noted that Ivins had on several occasions plagiarized King's work, and on one occasion had mis-stated a quotation from a King column. Ivins apologized in a letter to King, but concluded the letter by writing "you sure are a mean b----, aren't you?". King published Ivins's letter and King's own reply. Source Ellsworth 22:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign contributions

I'm wondering about the encyclopedicness of the external link posted by anonymous user User:68.173.19.193 that links to a page showing the political contributions made by the subject of the article. The anon has evenhandedly posted the equivalent link on numerous biographical articles of persons both on the left and the right (e.g. Molly Ivins, Robert McNamara, Theodore Olson, Alex Kozinski, and several others), but despite saucing both the goose and the gander having these links in the articles doesn't seem right. Yes, it's factual; yes, it's verifiable; yes, it's interesting; but it still seems like a sly bit of POV, particularly for each individual article viewed in isolation. I haven't removed any of the links but I'm curious how others see this.

I've posted this question on the talk pages of all four articles mentioned above in hopes that a wider spectrum of editors will see and comment. -EDM 05:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Sewer Editor"

I did a Google for ("sewer editor"), and every reference I found was either a Molly Ivins bio or a reference to an editor at Cinema Sewer. Googling ("sewer editor" -ivins -cinema) produces no meaningful results. Is this a real position or a case of widely-propagated vandalism? blahpers 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• No, this is true, check out her 2003 book talk on C-Span2, it's all there Robert Taylor 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to that; looking around the net, though, it looks very much like this is part of a shtick she developed herself for use in humorous "about the author" paragraphs, rather than an actual job title. I would be ok with something like "from which she soon graduated to, as she puts it, 'sewer editor', in charge of...", which mirrors the usual phrasing of the line as I see it on various webpages. Otherwise, it should probably be stricken; it makes very little sense as-is. /blahedo (t) 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that sewer editor isn't usually an official designation at any newspaper; it's usually someone who covers the nuts 'n' bolts public works part of a city's administration on the Metro or City desk. Most likely she was the only reporter assigned to write about issues related to road construction, utilities, garbage pickup, parks, library additions, and, yes, sewers. And, as many often do when they have a meaningless but unique job, she gave it a humorous new title, with a "raise" as well. Hence, the 'editor.' It's the equivalent of calling yourself the Facilities Engineering Specialist, when you're the janitor.

[edit] Removed sentence

The article stated, She is part of the journalism network of Amnesty International and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. This sentence makes no sense and is factually inaccurate; therefore, I removed it. What is "part of the journalism network" mean? AI is a nonprofit interest group; it's not a media group. And, Ms. Ivans has no connection to Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. She's not mentioned on their website nor does she sit on their board. David Hoag 02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Linking to a somewhat dated biography, user Wisco provided information about Ms. Ivans's involvement with these two organizations. However, the original sentence was not factually succinct and has been therefore edited. Ms. Ivans' is a member of RCFP, as are many journalists; however, the sentence as originally structured sounded like Ms. Ivans was "part of the journalist network of... RCFP," by making RCFP part of the prepositional phrase. As well, Ms. Ivans is part of the AIJN, which is not the same as saying she is "part of the journalism network" -- it's a proper noun and should be used as such. As an editorial aside, this demonstrates why it's always better to correct and edit that which is unclear, as opposed to simply reverting to a prior version which, in this case, was not succinct and poorly written. Vagueness is not factual. David Hoag 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal tag

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Molly Ivins (and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this? WBcoleman 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC) _________________________

More often than "liberal", Molly Ivins refers to herself as a "populist" when discussing her ideological leanings. (See Populist lagniappe, The Free Press, 4/28/05) When referred to as representative of the liberal viewpoint by Bill O'Reilly at a panel for BookExpo America, she responded by saying "My name is Molly Ivins," in context declining to have her views identified as that of "the liberals". (I can't find a link to the audio at this moment in time; however, this was the occasion on which Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken had well-publicized public hostilities.)

By contrast (and in admittedly somewhat limited exposure) my experience of the Wikipedia-identified "conservative" commentators you listed is that they frequently self-identify as representatives of a "conservative" viewpoint to their audience.

As for Dowd, etc., I haven't read their writings in as much depth as Ivins, and don't know how they self-identify to their audience. It would be interesting to see what you find out about that differential in identification. --Parcequilfaut 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So, then, are only those liberals who specifically (and provably) self-identify themselves as "liberal" allowed to be labelled as such? It seems to me that the labels given to columnists, talk show hosts or pundits ought to be based on their writings, statements and actions rather than their own professed self-identity. If Limbaugh decided to refer to himself as a "Martian", do you really think the public (well, most of it) would choose to accept him as such, or do you think they would prefer the term "loony"? -Grammaticus Repairo 02:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But that would be based only on your opinion. For example, you might think something like concern over the loss of civil liberties is a "liberal" issue, whereas others might believe concern over the loss of civil liberties to be a matter of concern for all Americans. If we are going to go around labeling people based on our opinions of their writings, then I would be obliged to go through Wikipedia and remove the label "conservative" from anyone who supports Bush. Clearly Bush is not conservative on anything other than social issues. But since these people identify themselves as being conservative, I don't do that. Tags like "liberal", "conservative", or "populist" should only be used of the subject self-identifies as such. The Martian example is absurd... not even worth discussing. nut-meg 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Molly has called herself a liberal over the years. She had an article about not needing to be a masochist, because she'd been a liberal in Texas, or something like that. So it wouldn't be a big deal to call her a liberal. She wouldn't see it as an insult, even if it were meant as one. Some people take offense over the weirdest things.

It's not an insult. I means "generous, open-minded, enlightened"... or "favorable or respectful of individual rights and freedoms". If someone thinks that's an insult, they might need to do some self-reflection. nut-meg 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if she would consider herself a liberal but in her October 31, 2006 column (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/ivins.advice/index.html) she refers to herself as a democrat. "I realize for many Democrats it has been so long since we won, we have completely forgotten the etiquette." "Second, I'm sure we will all be full of grand theories if Republicans lose and we win."

[edit] Gutted article

I gutted the article, on the grounds that most of it was copied from [1]. Feel free to restore the information in, you know, your own words. Phil Sandifer 22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The material Phil Sanidfer gutted was not copyrigted. Her cancer has returned, it'd be a shame if the article was only corrected from obits.

[edit] Am I the only one who can see how hideously imbalanced this article is?

The article concerns only controversies, and critical aspects of the career, not to mention her cancer. Not one positive facet of her career is noted. This is from her bio at creators.com

"...in 2001 she won the William Allen White Award from the University of Kansas, the Smith Medal from Smith College and was elected to the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was the 2003 recipient of the Ivan Allen Jr. Prize for Progress and Service; also in 2003, she received the Pringle Prize for Washington Journalism from Columbia University and the Eugene V. Debs Award in the field of journalism. In 2004, she received the David Brower Award for journalism from the Sierra Club. Her freelance work has appeared in Esquire, Harper's, Atlantic, The Nation, The Progressive, Mother Jones, TV Guide, and many less-worthy publications when she desperately needed the money -- of which the most memorable was something called Playgirl. She is also known for her essays on National Public Radio as well as media appearances around the world. Ivins has written six best-selling books, the most recent being, BUSHWHACKED: Life in George W. Bush's America, in 2003 and WHO LET THE DOGS IN? Incredible Political Animals I Have Known, in 2004."

I dont have the time to correct now, but if someone could address it that would be great. - Glen 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I inserted some text about her writing style, as well as a list of some of the awards she's won. I believe the article is much more balanced now (though I trust that someone will help improve the paragraph about her writing style—I don't think I came close to doign her sense of humor justice). Is it about time to remove the Neutrality tag?--RattBoy 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frances King Controversy Dead Link

I tried to follow the outlink to the Frances King article accusing Molly Ivins of plagiarism (final link in the References section: ↑ King, Florence. "Molly Ivins, Plagiarist". The American Enterprise. September/October 1995).

The link is dead, and a Google search is not directing me to any online copies of the article, only copies that reference it.

Can someone either provide a working link, or delete the reference?

--Parcequilfaut 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.16894/article_detail.asp

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16475/article_detail.asp

Here are 2 links to Ms King's articles regarding this. For the record, I believe Ms Ivins' assessment of King was accurate.

[edit] Incorrect Statistics

I removed the sentence about her use of "incorrect statistics" from the "Accusations of plagiarism and incorrect statistics" section. Opinion writers get facts wrong on occasion; unlike many famous opinion writers, she quickly issued a correction—thus, it's neither notable nor emblematic of her career.--RattBoy 23:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of death?

The lead section currently says she died on Tuesday 30 January 2007, but the "Cancer" section says she died today (Wednesday 31 January). Which is correct? --Tkynerd 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was announced that she died today, the 31st. Unless the initial news reports are wrong, that is the correct date. nut-meg 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RIP Dearest Molly - You always were, and now you truly are, an angel. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I only wish I had written her a fulsome fan letter while she was around to appreciate it. I've been thinking of her a lot lately - a great, rollicking, original American hero. Sigh. - Rousse 06:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shrub stupidity

While I don't think Shrub is particularly funny as an epithet for Bush I don't get offended. However, the implication of the article is such that it seems that GWB stupidly picked arbusto thinking it meant "bush," when it in fact means "shrub." Arbusto can be translated as bush or shrub so why make fun of GWB for this. Sure, use a humorous "pet" name for GWB that kind of makes you grin, but why imply that he is stupid on this account when it was a reasonably clever company name for GWB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.104.37.18 (talk • contribs).

It is my recollection during the GWB's first campaign, that she had taken to calling Bush "shrub" because a shrub is simply little bush and that is what she considered GWB - a "little bush" as compared to President Bush Sr. I didnt think it had anything to do with the name of one of his companys (which seems like an obscure reason to tag a nick name)Dman727 08:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of article

Please read what is up on Wikipedia now - the tone is harsh and almost mean. Molly wrote the way she spoke, she was 'Old' Texas through and through, she didn't have to pepper her columns with the 'feel' of Texas, she was Texas. Get the lead out and fix this.(Yellowrosetx 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)).

Really? I thought i was rather gentle and almost flatterous. Dman727 08:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Please look up what "homilies" means. If she wrote anything that sounded like a homily I'll eat my hat. If I wore one, anyway, I would. She made fun of the overtly pious, she never pretended to be one of them. And I agree that the "feel" of Texas comment sounds belittling. Oh well, the more of Molly's quotations we put in, the more people will understand how her wit worked, I think.

Rousse 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I think one of the best ways to convey to readers who she was is to include some of her many many witticisms. I've started a quote section with one quote, please add to it.QuizzicalBee 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life

She said she never married and never had children and I'm not even a Lesbian. This is from the NY times. Something along these lines should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.37 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Uh...why exactly? I'm for leaving her private life alone, and concentrating on her work, which is why she's in Wiki at all.

Rousse 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)