Talk:George Packer

Hello Wiki editors. I just thought you should know that the Herbert Packer that is George Packer's father doesn't seem to have a page at wiki. He should, but the link in the name goes to the wrong Herbert Packer, who does have a page.76.103.124.111 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3880/is_200210/ai_n9140068/pg_2

Dear editors, the link above is a starting point for searching Herbert Packer's and other's writings. I hope to have time in the future to create the article but hope a fellow editor would start the Herbert Packer article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the section on campaign contributions. I'm not sure what the agreed upon policy is here, so I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion in Talk. But Packer's not a political correspondent; he's a foreign correspondent. While politics--and specifically foreign policy--play a role in his career, it seems odd to list all the campaign contributions and purported political affiliations of every journalist on Wikipedia, and without any further explanation of relevance, the intent of the anonymous editor who added this is clearly to imply bias, an implication that cannot be backed by reliable sources.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion on this, but it seems like an excessively personal, irrelevant, and POV little tidbit to have in there. S. Ugarte 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to expand upon what I said a little bit, because it turns out that the anonymous editor who added the campaign contribution information here added it to a bunch of other articles (as well as some even more baffling contributions, like noting so-and-so is Jewish). My feeling on this is that unless there's a clearer evidence of bias or some other relevant point (for instance, Randy Cohen's contributions were more relevant because they became a topic of public discussion, including affecting the distribution of his syndicated column), this information is unencyclopedic. George Packer is not encyclopedic because he's a campaign contributor; he's encyclopedic because he's a significant American journalist. Therefore, his contributions must have some relevance to his journalism or else they're not encyclopedic themselves. Simply having made the contributions, presumably not in violation of rules of The New Yorker (or at least, there was no claim that he did violate those rules), and with no indication that they evince any journalistic bias or anything else, is not relevant to his role as a journalist. Noting his contributions implies relevance unbacked by the source; the implication is one of bias. Without a reliable source to show the relevance (bias or otherwise) of such contributions, they're simply unencyclopedic.

Whew! S. Ugarte 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

it seems odd to list all the campaign contributions and purported political affiliations of every journalist on Wikipedia

Actually, that strikes me as an excellent project: Openness about journalists’ biases would be more realistic than the current pretense of universal objectivity. More specifically, George is notable for being a pro-war Democratic critic of the conduct of the war, so evidence of his political affiliation is decidedly relevant. More generally, knowledge is good, and in even borderline cases, accurate information should be included rather than deleted.

Disclaimer: I was at college with George, and his mother is now a neighbor.

—FlashSheridan 16:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Actually, that strikes me as an excellent project: Openness about journalists’ biases would be more realistic than the current pretense of universal objectivity." I never made such comments about objectivity. But those contributions are already listed at OpenSecrets.org for Packer, for you, for me. Should Wikipedia simply provide a listing of all campaign contributions by all people in the public eye, cribbed from OpenSecrets? What's the standard for notability of campaign contributions, if the contributor is notable? Are the contributions of a notable athlete notable? What about the contributions of a notable actor?

If Packer is notable for his views on the war, write up something about it and provide a source. I have no trouble with describing the political views of journalists who, in part, cover politics; I have a problem with what the editor who added this information did, which is go through a list of well over a hundred journalists, pick out a handful who had made contributions to Democrats (or, in one case, were "Jewish," which is frankly bizarre) and add that as a separate section to their pages. Adding a section, "Campaign Contributions: So-and-so made campaign contributions" is absurd, and the partisan way in which it was conducted by that editor is just shameful.

Again, write up the relevant information with proper sourcing about Packer's views. I'm not really familiar enough with them to say, though I've read a few articles by him on the topic. I didn't remove this to try to whitewash Packer; I removed it because it was an easier way of removing that bias than rewriting it into something actually relevant.

Or, go ahead and start adding campaign contributions for every journalist in Wikipedia. OpenSecrets.org is your friend. Let me know how that works out for you.

S. Ugarte 17:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

In retrospect, I might have been a bit turned off by the partisanship of the editor who initially added this, but that doesn't mean Packer's entry in particular is irrelevant (though some of those added clearly were). If you think this is notable, leave it in. I'd encourage you to add a greater explanation of Packer's political views so as to make the notability of this clear (e.g., an example of bias, an explanation of his activities as a journalist--for example, his authorship of opinion pieces--etc), but that's up to you. I hate getting embroiled in arguments on Wikipedia, so I'm going to back off of this one and leave it up to you. Cheers! S. Ugarte 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not disagreeing with your claim of the original contributor's bias (though I haven't verified it myself); but that's the beauty of Wikipedia: even if the contributor's motives were impure, if he sources it properly, and if the information is noteworthy, it's a worthwhile contribution. (In this case, it's clearly noteworthy, since his source is a MSM article.) I'm afraid I don't agree with the consistency argument at all; I do think it would be worthwhile to have such a section for every journalist, but I don't have them on my watchlist, and feel no obligation (another impure but harmless motive here) to do so for those I don't know personally.

—FlashSheridan 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure. You probably wouldn't have a problem with adding it for every journalist, and you certainly are under no obligation to do so--so long as you think it would be notable for every journalist, and not merely for Packer. I do, for the reasons stated above, have a problem with adding it for every journalist--regardless of to whom the contributions were, I think it's not relevant unless a) it violated a policy of the journalist's employer or b) it is part of a larger framework showing bias. Personal political affiliations aren't inherently interesting, even for a journalist. S. Ugarte 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think such information is probably notable for journalists, celebrities and other public figures as long as it is published by a reliable secondary source. Evil1987 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, I'll start off by saying that FlashSheridan has pretty much convinced me that, at the very least, we should err on the side of including information that may be relevant and is certainly publicly available (thus obviating any privacy claims)--or at least he's convinced me not to argue about it further; I take a dim enough view of Wikipedia that I try to avoid edit wars and the like! Regarding reliable secondary sources, however, I should note that these data are available for everyone--including you and I (assuming you're an American)--from the Federal Election Commission (via Opensecrets.org), so perhaps the bar should not merely be any secondary source, but rather be a substantial focus of an article by a secondary source (as the Packer facts were the focus of the MSNBC article, for example).

Finally, I wouldn't want to encourage this data to be included for absolutely every notable figure, because depending on what he's notable for, his political affiliations may not be notable. I'd be hesitant, for instance, about including any possible campaign contributions made by some random actor or athlete or whatnot if he is not himself publicly politically involved--that is, it makes some sense for a journalist, especially one who publicly expresses his political views, as Packer does, and it makes sense for an actor who's politically involved (like, say, George Clooney), but it isn't inherently interesting merely because the person is a public figure. I don't make this objection on fairness or political grounds; it's merely my personal take on style. Make of it what you will, but it's essentially the same objection I had before--I'm skeptical that these data, which are available for all of us, are inherently notable. S. Ugarte 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that for some public figures, evidence of political views, even when published in MSM, might not be relevant. But for a journalist writing on political topics, it is. —FlashSheridan 16:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just read the article for the first time and was very confused by the inclusion of the campaign contributions section. Picking one fact out of a little known article and placing it in wikipedia with no context seems bizarre to say the least. Therefore let me try to list the reasons why I believe the section should be deleted. 1) The MSNBC article isn't about George Packer or even about biased reporting but how different news organizations have different policies on political donations. George Packer was one of several examples of reporters and other news professionals who have been politically active. He was not, as FlashSheridan claims, the focus of the article at all. The article can't be used as evidence of noteworthiness since many of the people mentioned as examples aren't particularly noteworthy other than working in the news industry at the local level. 2) As it is, going by the MSNBC article, most news organizations prohibit, or at least frown on, political activity of any kind and The New Yorker is an exception. To put this information in reporter's articles would (to me unfairly) single out those reporters who happen to work for organizations that allow these contributions. 3) Even if it were fair to look up the campaign contributions for every reporter in Wikipedia, who would carry out this program and who would keep it up to date? 4) FlashSheridan states that for a journalist writing on politics, evidence of political views is relevant. The reason is not stated explicitly but I presume it's based on conflict of interest. But if we had to wait for a completely unbiased reporter to write every story then very little news would ever be written. It's up to journalists (at least those who claim to be reporting on only the facts) to leave their point of view out of a news story and it's up to their editors and publishers to make sure that they do. It is true that there are some lines that should not be crossed with conflict of interest, but this is a judgment call that Wikipedia should not be making. If someone thinks a reporter crossed the line then they should find a reputable source that says so and cite it as a reference. The MSNBC article does not say anything about Packer having a conflict of interest. Conversely, a reporter who scrupulously avoids the appearance of being biased in deeds is not necessarily unbiased in writing. So the presence or absence of evidence on a reporter's views does not imply anything about the reporter's writing. 5) Campaign contributions in themselves do not necessarily indicate support for anything other than the candidate. For example I could give $100 to Hillary Clinton's campaign because of her stance on health care, yet completely disagree with her on the issue of immigration. The information that reporter X supported candidate Y with no information as to why is simply not noteworthy unless perhaps X wrote a story on Y while claiming to be unbiased. 6) In any case, Packer's personal views are well known so we have no need to rely on inferences from campaign contributions. If someone wants to include his opinions on various topics in the article they only need to quote one of his books or commentaries. 7) There is no context for the facts given in the section and they are misleading as they stand. In the MSNBC article Packer is quoted as saying that his donations do not interfere with his "ability to think and write honestly". By picking one fact out of article and not including explanatory informations the section violates the neutral POV policy. 8) Finally, the first sentence of the sections is taken word for word from the MSNBC article without quotation marks, a violation of copyright.--RDBury 09:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

> He was not, as FlashSheridan claims, the focus of the article at all.

I did not claim this. The other reasons for retaining accurate and relevant information stand.

—FlashSheridan 18:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, that was S Ugarte - "(as the Packer facts were the focus of the MSNBC article, for example)."--RDBury 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, this wasn't "an MSNBC article." It appeared on msnbc.com, which surprisingly was the website of NBC News, not of MSNBC, a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC, a separate company then under different ownership and leadership from MSNBC, a TV network. Confusing, eh? One would think that homedepot.com = Home Depot, but in that era msnbc.com /= MSNBC.2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:25 (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unable to reach consensus, section has been added and removed several times.

No consensus, but no serious argument for erring on the side of suppression of relevant and noteworthy information. I’ll restore it yet again.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The last deletion used as a justification that it was an “obvious attempt at political attack on this person.” For the record, I rather liked George as an undergraduate, and didn’t particularly get along with David Frum, though I agree with his characterization of George’s latest article as “a characteristically superb piece of reporting.” I don’t think anyone would claim that evidence of David’s political opinions are irrelevant, and George’s are clearly relevant as well.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Packer's campaign contributions have recently been removed because the original single source was a list (which I addressed by adding the corresponding article) and because it was called "a pretty insignificant fact" in an edit summary. Actually, campaign contributions by journalists is a major ethical problem, as evidenced by the fact that investigative reporter Bill Dedman devoted a lengthy article to the topic on MSNBC.com. In fact, Dedman devoted an entire section of that article to Packer's contributions. It was so noteworthy that WaPo media reporter Howard Kurtz mentioned at length the study by Dedman, putting Packer at the top of his list of journalist contributors. The study also got mentions in The Hotline and an entire news article in The New York Post. I'm adding it back. Drrll (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

This "section" is a color quote from Packer, who in the article only serves as an example of the 143 journalists on this list. There is no special significance to Packer other than that he returned Dedman's phone call. This study may be noteworthy, but Packer's appearance on this list is absolutely not, so we shouldn't be coatracking it here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dedman devotes almost 140 words to discussing Packer's contributions, which is beyond just giving Packer's response. Coatracking is summed up as such: "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." Giving 12 words to Packer's contributions, focused solely on that issue, is not coatracking, just like mentioning that Packer was a finalist for a particular award is not coatracking. WP:BLP says that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." That's what's being done here. Drrll (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, so? This article isn't about the study and there's nothing particularly special about Packer's appearance on the list. It's clear that Packer isn't being cited because he is noteworthy or unusual, he's just one example out of 143. Dedman can't quote every single one of them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The disputed text isn't about the study--it's about Packer's contributions. I'm going to ask about this at WP:NPOVN, which seems to be the relevant place for questions about coatracking. Packer's defense should be added to the disputed--that his readers know his views. Drrll (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just fixed the information regarding George's relations to congressmen. The article claimed that his grandfather was George Huddleston Jr. and his great-grandfather was George Huddleston Sr. George Huddleston Jr. was actually his uncle, brother of his mother Nancy, while George Huddleston Sr. was his grandfather. I cannot, at the moment, find any online sources that will confirm this. Is it acceptable to cite his own book, Blood of the Liberals, as a reference? The only other source I can think of that would neatly verify this is birth records... Reckless7 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

While I haven't been able to find a clear reference for this fact, I can provide a round about way of verifying that George Huddleston Sr. is Packer's grandfather, instead of great-grandfather. If you look at the birthdate of Nancy Packer, which is in 1925 ^[1] (in the article, written in 2012, Nancy Packer is listed as 87; doing the math provides a birth year of 1925). George Huddleston Jr. was born in 1920. If George Huddleston Jr. were Packer's grandfather, then he would be Nancy Huddleston's father (indeed he was listed as the maternal grandfather of George Packer in the article). But considering the respective years of birth for Nancy Huddleston and George Huddleston Jr., he would have been five years of age when Nancy Huddleston was born, making it impossible for George Huddleston Jr. to be her father. I only recently joined wikipedia, and as such, have not gotten a sense for the best ways in which to reference and cite this kind of information; in fact, I joined wikipedia because I noticed the error and wanted to correct it. I'm not entirely sure what sorts of sources are acceptable to confirm facts of this nature. George's book, Blood of the Liberals would certainly spell out the nature of his relations with these two men, but I'm not sure if that's an acceptable source. Reckless7 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Packer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608034851/http://kellyaward.com/mk_award_popup/packer_g.html to http://kellyaward.com/mk_award_popup/packer_g.html

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) 23:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Packer was an early termination (ET) in the Peace Corps, failing to complete his 2-year assignment, a fact which he chose to hide in his first book "Village of Waiting". I think a balanced article on Packer would include this incident, although I cannot find a proper reference for it at this time. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply