Talk:Molly Ivins

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

Removed False / Joking vandalism[edit]

Somehow this white-washing of Ivins' anti-Nazism stuck around since 2012. It is obviously false. I reverted Jairuscobb (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

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outdated" at best...can we find something a bit more recent?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)[reply]

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[reply]

Posting solely the photo of an old Albert Einstein seems like a lie since he did his greatest works around age 25. Likewise it seems scattered photos of Molly over her career would be the most honest as well as more encyclopedic. (I notice one composer with about six sound clips.) Just one photo when she's older? Under which justification or bias? Harumphitude? CHEERS!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:D4B9:DE66:D30D:B0A8 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Battle with cancer[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)[reply]

Plagiarism controversy[edit]

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)

Campaign contributions[edit]

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)[reply]

"Sewer Editor"[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Removed sentence[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Liberal tag[edit]

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) _________________________[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."

Gutted article[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Frances King Controversy Dead Link[edit]

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)[reply]


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.

Apart from an orphaned link in the References section, the article in its current form does not mention Ivins' plagiarism at all. Given that Ivins seemed to be a divisive figure, this seems fishy. I think someone has cut back too much chaff. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Statistics[edit]

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)[reply]

Date of death?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Shrub stupidity[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)[reply]

Tone of article[edit]

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)).[reply]

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

Quotes[edit]

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)[reply]

Great idea, and Thanks. I have saved colums of hers for years, after hearing her speak on NPR, I bought her book, and laughed out loud for days. After that, her colum was a daily read. WE MISS YOU MOLLY! 67.174.157.126 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I heard her say many times she was straight in interviews and anyone as OUTSPOKEN and political as Ms. Ivins would probably not deny her sexuality if asked. I have also heard rumors about her in the press being gay but even if she was, WHO CARES? At least she had the class to not wave her sexual self in our face and down our throats like Act Up or Perez Hilton. Some things are private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.188.205 (talk) 00:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

"extremely liberal"[edit]

Isn't the phrase "extremely liberal" an oxymoron? (English is only my second language, so not a rhetorical question.) In any case, too indistinct for an encyclopedic context. Isn't "left-wing liberal" a wording less open to interpretation? If also correct I leave to others to decide. Go-in 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left-libertarian[edit]

I've removed this recent quote mining from an op/ed piece. We don't selectively quote mine from op/ed's, we cite reliable biographical sources and we represent its content in proportion to its use. "Left-libertarian" is totally out of proportion to its use, which is zero. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is entirely appropriate as it is a self-description and quoted from a reliable biographical source. Gobbleygook (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not how it works. We cite secondary sources when we write articles, and we cite those sources so that editors like yourself can't cherry pick and quote mine to push their POV. The fact that she had "trouble fitting in to the corporate culture at the NYT is supported by the sources and is the primary reason she left the paper. You should not have removed it. According to those same sources, she is notable for being an "American newspaper columnist, author, political commentator and humorist". She is not notable for being a "left-libertarian" so we don't add that to the lead section. Anything else is editorial fluff decided by Wikipedia editors, not the sources. Feel free to do the research and study her numerous biographical articles as I did. We write accurately and neutrally about our subjects. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read Wikipedia editing policies. Your assertion that she left because she "trouble fitting in to the corporate culture at the NYT" is unsourced and should not have been included (and re-included) which is a violation of Wikipedia editing policies. The proper citation of her being a left-libertarian is also in keeping with Wikipedia editing policies as that is a self-description.Gobbleygook (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that she left the paper because she couldn't fit into the corporate culture a the NYT comes directly from secondary sources. Lead sections are generally unsourced because they reflect sourced material in the body. I will remedy this problem. As for her being notable as a "left-libertarian" the biographical sources don't say that, you do, which is why we can't add it to the lead. Editors don't determine what is notable, the sources do. You can't pick and choose based on your own criteria. She was notable for being a newspaper columnist, author, political commentator and humorist, not for being a "left-libertarian". That's something you cherry picked from primary sources and added to the lead, a huge no-no when it comes to writing biographies. You really need to start doing research for the first time; I would recommend looking at the biographical indexes, including her obituaries. They don't say anything about her being a "left-libertarian". Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes directly from secondary sources, then have it cited directly to the secondary source. The source cited also say that she is a self-described left-libertarian which constitutes legitimate grounds for inclusion, so if your remedy includes removal of this citation then I would strongly advise against that course of action; after all, "editors don't determine what is notable, the sources do." Gobbleygook (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still are missing the point. "It" comes from The Guardian obituary and other sources. You would know that if you actually did the research, but you haven't. There are no secondary sources that say she is notable for being a "left-libertarian". That is something you cherry picked from an interview, which we don't do. The lead is used to summarize the article and focus on the main points. What part of this article has secondary sources talking about her "left-libertarian" views? Also, her views are completely independent from her notable role as an author and journalist and should be discussed separately. I'll be making the changes shortly. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that if you do I will report it to the AN/I; at least start a 3O on this to show that you're actually interested in resolving this dispute. Gobbleygook (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable secondary sources discuss the notability of her "left-libertarian" beliefs, and if there are none, why did you cherry pick the ambiguious statement from a primary source and add it to the lead section? Why aren't you relying on biographical sources about the subject? If you can't answer those very, very, simple questions, I'll remove it. You can report me to whomever you want, I've been more than civil and patient with you from the beginning. You simply aren't answering any questions about your edits, and if you can't justify them, I'll remove them. It's very simple. Oh, and I would encourage you to file that report, as it will show that you stalked me over to this page. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessary to include secondary sources for a self-description, but in any case I've already included the secondary sources so your suggestion isn't relevant. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary to draw all content about BLP's, especially content we add to the lead section, from good secondary sources. You drew this particular content from a primary source interview, and you cherry picked it and added it to the lead. Since none of the secondary biographical sources say she is notable for this, we don't add it. It's very simple. You say you've already included the secondary sources—where? Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbleygook, which third-party sources call her a notable left-libertarian? Here's a few lead sentence examples for you to consider:

American Decades: 2000-2009 (2011)
  • "Molly Ivins, 62, newspaper columnist, wrote syndicated column featuring wry and pointed attacks against politicians, campaigned against President George W. Bush and against the Iraq War, called for Bush’s impeachment, 31 January 2007."

In this source, Ivins is notable for her work as a writer and a journalist. Her writing involved specific details whicih are highlighted. Let's look at another example:

American Women Writers: A Critical Reference Guide from Colonial Times to the Present (2000)
  • "Molly Ivins is one of America's most well-known syndicated political columnists. She writes for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, but her hilarious accounts of Texas and national politics may be found in over 100 other newspapers throughout the country. Her three bestselling books bring together collections of her wittiest and most scathing columns, essays, and magazine articles on politics and journalism."

Again, she's notable for her work as a writer and journalist. Was she also notable for being a liberal and/or part of the American left? Some sources say that, and we may be able to discuss that in the lead section if we have more to say about in the body. However, it is her occupation and the quality of her work that she is most known for, not the quality of her political beliefs or alignment. She's known for attacking politicians, arguing against Bush and the war and calling for the impeachment of the president. We explain those things by illustrating them. Simply calling people "liberals" doesn't do this, and just feeds into the left-right polarization tactic. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except BLPs have much tighter rules than standard articles, what she identifies as personally is what counts the most, which as per the Amarillo source, is left-libertarianism ("I don't have an agenda, I don't have a program. I'm not a communist or a socialist. I guess I'm a left-libertarian and a populist, and I believe in the Bill of Rights the way some folks believe in the Bible.") She's not just known for attacking politicians as much as she's known for attacking certain politicians from a particular political viewpoint. There's also other reliable secondary sources that have described her as being a liberal which will be included in the article shortly. Gobbleygook (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've actually read the BLP policy, you're just parroting a comment I made to you on another talk page. No, there are no reliable secondary sources that support your inclusion. You cherry picked a statement from an interview she gave and added it to the lead section. That's not acceptable. If you can't find reliable secondary sources about her notable beliefs, then we can't add them to the the lead section as I've already shown. Your obsessive behavior with adding "liberal, progressive, left" and any other political term you can find to biographical articles is problematic. Your most recent edit is again problematic. This section has nothing to do with her beliefs, it's about her writing style and positions. Beliefs have little to nothing to do with this subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you didn't make that comment a third party commentator did so you can't even remember what you've written. Like I said, it helps if you know how to read. There's also no need to satisfy this "reliable secondary source" criteria for including material (unless it requires an expert interpretation of that primary source), so it seems as though you don't know how BLP actually works.Gobbleygook (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In actuality, I've made that comment to you dozens of times before the 30 repeated it to you, and it looks like you still don't understand it. You do need to satisfy the reliable secondary source criteria, more so when your edits are disputed, and you don't get to include whatever you want from primary sources. In this case, your edits are disputed, and you've been asked to provide secondary source coverage showing the importance of her "left-libertarian" beliefs in the literature and your addition of them to the lead secton. Editors don't get to pick and choose what is important from interviews. There's nothing in the body of the article so I'm curious why you added it to the lead. She may have called herself many things, from a liberal to a Democrat, to even a progressive, it doesn't matter, editors don't get to pick and choose. We rely solely on the reliable secondary sources, and when there's confusion, we leave it out. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources for a primary source is only needed for expert interpretation of that primary source, but in any case the point is moot as my recent edits have already included secondary sources that prominently highlight her liberal beliefs. Like I've said many times to you before, it helps if you know how to read. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Editors don't get to pick and choose what is important. Either she was known as a "left-libertarian" in the secondary biographical sources or she was not. Since you can't provide any good secondary sources that demonstrate that this is what she was known for, and since there is nothing in the body of the article about it, why did you add it to the lead section? Provide the secondary sources or it gets removed. You're engaging in WP:IDHT behavior, as this has already been discussed many times, particularly up above at Talk:Molly_Ivins#Liberal_tag. Until there is a good consensus for your proposed edits, we can't add it. Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned to you countless times before it doesn't matter if secondary biographical sources describe her as left-libertarian as it is a self-description and thus is a claim that does not require expert interpretation. If you still have problems understanding this simple explanation, then please follow the appropriate Wikipedia editing procedures for content disputes (30, DNR, etc); actions otherwise will be reported to the AN/I.Gobbleygook (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are engaging in WP:IDHT again. It matters greatly that secondary biographical sources notably describe her as left-libertarian, as editors do not get to cherry pick what is notable about her. Now, if you don't have a secondary source indicating the notability of this in relation to her biography it will be removed. Is this making sense to you yet? Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Even though she is dead, the use of primary sources still holds for all of our articles. I hope you now understand that you have the burden to provide a secondary source per our best practices. Your cherry picking of a Molly Ivins interview is an interpretation of the notability of her identification, and this has been previously discussed on this page at Talk:Molly_Ivins#Liberal_tag. Cherry picking a quote out of context is not a "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact". If the author is notable for being a "left-libertarian", then our best secondary sources on the subject of Molly Ivins will have discussed it and highlighted this notability for us. Wikipedia editors don't get to determine what is notable. Surely, you can find at least one secondary source that describes her as a "left-libertarian"? What about her obituaries? What do they say? And since the lead section only summarizes the biography, continually adding this material to the lead without justifying its presence in the body proves my point that it isn't notable at all. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But she is dead so why would WP:BLPPRIMARY apply? Gobbleygook (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on 17/11/2013 from 'Beliefs' section[edit]

I performed a delete, due to the citations referring to [1] an [2] that was already referenced in the lead.81.158.170.104 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Molly Ivins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Molly Ivins. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Writing![edit]

I write this to be fair, since 95% of the time I complain about crappy writing. I normally explain that that "encyclopedic style" does not mean dry and dusty. ...that a list of truisms and facts is not a definition nor an explanation. ...That they read like the answer sheet to a test. Double Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:D4B9:DE66:D30D:B0A8 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Article issues and classification[edit]

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written..
Most of the first paragraph in the "Early life" section is unsourced. The second paragraph of the "Career" section has an April 2022 inline "citation needed" tag. In the "Beliefs" section, the second paragraph not counting quotes has an unsourced quote stating "which she simply called "The Lege".
There are twelve entries in the "External links" section with an article External links tag. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ELCITE ...and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
Trim links and remove 2013 maintenance tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Molly_Ivins&oldid=1205235109"