Jump to content

Talk:Nat Hentoff

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

"Idiosyncratic"?

[edit]

I think referring to his various social and political positions as "idiosyncratic" is a personal opinion and not a fact. - Marauder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.100.13 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, however, that the constellation of positions he holds is a relatively rare one. Peculiar or unique to Hentoff? Perhaps not entirely, but certainly far removed from the ordinary. There aren't many Hentovians around. He wanders back and forth across the lines that separate most pundits. Agree with him or not, to call his worldview idiosyncratic or original is not to disparage it but to do it justice.Jackaroodave (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context, his "idiosyncracy" seems entirely to be his general pro-life position. In any case, the statement is not referenced, and should be, or should be removed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA

[edit]

The article still needs a fair amount of expansion for a figure of his stature. The career info is cursory and the lede doesn't fully reflect the contents of the article, as of now. The sources should also be double-checked for reliability and secondary sources used instead of primary sources for highlighting the key parts of his political commentary. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning czar 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, mate. I intend to work on this article next weekend when I'd have enough time. —MBlaze Lightning T 01:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nat Hentoff. 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) 08:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nat Hentoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • We need a source date for all the web citations (if possible, as all of them may not mention one).
  • Also, replace references 17, 23, and 24. They do not seem reliable.
  • References 29, 30, 31, and 36 are not working, so replace that too.
  • There are a lot of places with two continuous spaces.
  • "which published his work until his death" his only one work or works?
  • "and his writing was also published in..." was it only one writing or writings?
  • Link Boston, Massachusetts.
  • @MBlaze Lightning: Lastly, there is a slight copyvio issue. Would be great if that could be dealt with.
  • Done
It still shows with this and this. Just slight paraphrasing is required. @MBlaze Lightning: Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done :)
It is still present with the first one (nytimes). A slight paraphrasing will do. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Although, if you check now, it is done.

The rest seems fine to me. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Great work! The prose is especially good, as there were almost no errors. It is a definite pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things missing

[edit]

This article is missing some things. First, there is no description of his writing style – a major omission for a writer! Second, there's no mention of his liner notes for albums; he wrote hundreds (at least) of them. Third, there's not much on his early life and what there is leads to more questions: in what ways did Sweeney influence him? What did he study at university? And at Harvard, and did he complete his studies? And at the Sorbonne? Not mentioned: what led to his interest in jazz/music generally? Did he play? Fourth, there's no sense conveyed of what impact his writing had: he received some awards, but did any of his campaigning (on musical or non-musical matters) have any effect? What were the reactions to / comments on his writings? Filling in these gaps would create a better picture of him. EddieHugh (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And more... the lead states that he was a historian and novelist, but the main text barely mentions anything about history, and his novels, as far as I can see, aren't mentioned in the text at all (only in a list at the end). EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Nat Hentoff's name is known to most Europeans primarily as the author of innumerable sleeve notes. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:

  • Cite templates will be used where possible.
  • I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
  • Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed.

This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nat_Hentoff&oldid=1240941221"