Talk:Katharine Graham

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: District of Columbia Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Journalism High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Personal life

What was the nature of her relationship with Robert McNamara? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.141.49 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda?

The quote about keeping secrets - which I moved to a separate section - seems jerry-rigged to make some sort of point. It needs to be included in more context: It implies that Graham's career was built on keeping things from people and helping the government hide things. - DavidWBrooks 01:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See Operation Mockingbird.Rich Farmbrough 19:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Graham's Arizona conference episode

Reverted from reversion by John Broughton, added sources. This is very much about Katharine, when she flies to Arizona to escort her husband back to DC, after he has accurately and publicly "outed" President Kennedy for having an affair with Mary Pinchot Meyer, then been drugged against his will, tied into a straitjacket, and hustled across country. Kennedy's affair with Meyer has been corraborated by a dozen people, it is no longer controversial. The story of Kate Graham is the story of a woman utterly enmeshed in DC power circles. This is the most important example of that story. Sources include:

T. Kelly, The Imperial Post. 1983
Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great, Sheridan Square Press; 3rd edition (October 1991)
J. DiEugenio, L. Pease, The Assassinations. 2003
Nina Burleigh , A Very Private Woman : The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer (Bantam: 1998)
Interview with James Truitt's widow, Anne Truit, 2004
Oberdorfer, Don. "JFK Had Affair With D.C. Artist, Smoked 'Grass,' Paper Alleges." The Washington Post 23 Feb. 1976: pp. A1, A9.
Bradlee, Benjamin C., A Good Life. Simon & Schuster: New York, 1995.
Nobilem, Phillip, and Rosenbaum, Ron. "The Circus Aftermath of JFK's Best and Brightest Affair." New Times 9 Jul. 1976: 22-33.
von Hoffman, Nicholas. "Unasked Questions." The New York Review of Books, 10 June 1976: 3+.
Ward, Bernie, and Toogood, Granville. "JFK 2-Year White House Romance." National Enquirer 2 Mar. 1976: 1. (Interviews James Truitt, story picked up by Washington Post, NYT, NYROB, others.)

I've done another edit - I tried to leave as much information in the article as possible while not turning it into a duplicate of the Philip Graham article, which is where all of your sources, above, belong. I appreciate all the work you're doing on this, but Katherine Graham was influenced by a lot of people - her father, her husband, Ben Bradlee, Warren Buffett, etc. If any extended details of those lives went into Katharine's article, it would be closer to a book than an article.

Also, putting sources into a talk/discussion page is not standard in any way. Among other reasons, content in these pages often is archived. John Broughton 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one of the most powerful American women of the 20th century

I added a fact tag for that. Thanks, --Tom 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Edit reverted on August 12

I reverted a recent edit by User:Dukered concerning speculation that Philip Graham may have been murdered. If there is indeed notable speculation concerning this, I would ask that:

multiple sources be provided (a search for "Philip Graham" "Katharine Graham" murder did not convince me that there is widespread speculation);
direct quotations be provided, but limited in size (the previous one of 12 sentences is too much), and used to illustrate assertions made in the article, not AS the assertion;
the bulk of any text about such speculation should be placed in Philip Graham, not in this article.

Maralia 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Graham

I'll fix the speculation to fit the article on Ms. Graham and to include it on Mr. Graham's, too, thank you. However you should know, as I said, that there's no public record on Philip Graham's alleged suicide. Besided, Dr. John Coleman accused Ms. Graham of the murder in a book, and she never refused those accusations. Dukered 23:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This marterial reads as original research/commentary and imho doesn't belong. Is the website "disinformation" a reliable source? Just the name makes me wonder :). Anyways, Dukerd has accused me of having a conservative agenda in trying to remove this material so I will not edit for now. Again, maybe this can be fleshed out more in MR. Graham's article but its seems like a disproportionate amount of material in relation to the rest of the article. Thanks, --Tom 12:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologize. I suggest to look at the other sources, there is enough to satisfy your demands. Anyway, I'm watching this page too. Dukered 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman is a notorious conspiracy crackpot. His work is not reliable for Wikipedia entries.--Cberlet 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's YOUR opinion. You have no right to decide for others, or what people will or won't read. Besides, Coleman is cited by other authors, for your information. And you're not above the First Amendment. --Dukered 13:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting back some of the info on Philip Graham's death - information that came from Katharine's autobiography. This was a hugely important event in her life; omitting it is totally inappropriate. I agree that detailed information' on Philip Graham should be the article on him, not here, but there needs to be SOME information here about the death in order for readers to understand the trama and the suddeness. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I chose to quietly recuse myself from this situation, after Dukered's highly overreactive responses to my utterly tame request above. Now that I see him throwing around the First Amendment and other largely irrelevant nonsense, I'm afraid I'll have to wade back in.

I am under no delusion that my opinions and input into the content of this article are any more important than anyone else's. However, trotting out 'the radicals guide to obfuscating a debate' will not prevent me, personally, from continuing to challenge content that risks the legitimacy of an article.

Dukered: You are trying to perpetuate what is, at best, a tiny minority view. You have accused other editors of censorship. You have made it clear that you presumed bad faith on my part from the beginning. You have refused multiple times to provide adequate additional sources, insisting that editors should 'look at the other sources' which are merely purported author's names. You have repeatedly reinserted material that has been rejected by multiple editors. In this case you are, sir, offering a textbook case of Tendentious editing. Maralia 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is an adequate source to you? After I provided three (3) sources, I think a Wikipedia editor is better fit to decide that.

About the First Amendment, please, do not misdirect things here, since I mentioned it to Cberlet because he deleted a book by John Coleman I put on the Tavistock Institute entry. That list works as a recommendation --therefore, you choose to read or not to read the book in question. That's why I told Cberlet he had NO right to decide for others. He can express his opinion freely, but not delete the recommendation. I sincerely hope that this is clear enough for you and user John Broughton.

Now, as user John Broughton dutifully told me earlier about Wikipedia policy on Disputes, I will disengage for a while. --Dukered 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cited one source, and later anecdotally referred to books by Dr. John Coleman and Daniel Estulin. You at no point made any attempt to quote either of those sources. "He said it in a book" is not sufficient; the onus is on you to provide verifiable sources, and you have not done so. Should you or someone else provide additional verifiable sources, we can then reevaluate whether such speculation is widespread enough to be of note here.Maralia 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I never put it as a fact. It was speculation and it still is. Your fierce defense on Ms. Graham is certainly admirable; however, on the basis that there are loads of Wikipedia entries with theories --which after all, is what helps discussion and deepens the learning-- the theory on Mr. Graham's murder is perfectly fine. Go out there and check yourself. I am not the only one who has said it.--Dukered 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued refusal to assume good faith is insulting. I encourage you to review the edit history of the article by which you will note I have never contributed to it prior to this issue. I have no vested interest in this article or its subject; I merely came across your edit as a member of Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol.

You fail to grasp the underlying issue here. No one expects you to prove murder. I do, however, expect you to prove that speculation of murder is widespread enough to be worthy of inclusion here. Maralia 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you just made a decision that speculation does not belong here. Katharine Graham was not a simple woman. She was a powerful individual with many (and very) powerful friends. It is not by chance that if you do some research on the possible murder of her husband, you'll find almost nothing. I did, and it was with great effort that I could come up with the sources you demanded. Go and try by yourself for a change, instead of reverting and reverting. At least let the people --the readers, that is-- be the judge, or a SysOp to decide. You don't have more authority than me. --Dukered 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dukered, you haven't been here long not that it really matters, but it now seems that a number of editors have weighed in. The material you want to introduce is questionable so it needs to be properly sourced. This project is a compilation of already established, published, peeer reviewed material. Your edits do not fall under that category in my humble opinion. Anyways, --Tom 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your edits and citations; you cannot cite fringe publications as reliable sources. Please read over WP:FRINGE to find out what standard of sourcing would be required for this conspiracy theory to be placed into these articles. TomTheHand 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TomTheHand. The war has ended, and I've lost, but I didn't lose the lessons. And I'm still here. --Dukered 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to chase you away or keep you from contributing. You've just got to contribute according to Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. TomTheHand 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Could we get some additional input regarding this quote? While I don't doubt its authenticity, it seems awfully selective to highlight this one particular quote. Is this quote exemplary of Graham's convictions? Is this really the most relevant quote that can be attributed to her? By highlighting it, we're attaching quite a bit of weight to it, perhaps even editorially advancing a point, and I'm not convinced that it's appropriate. The editor who inserted the quote restored it with an edit summary indicating that it was, indeed, selected to advance a point, if I read correctly. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How easy it is to imagine a prominent Washingtonian saying such a thing. I'll be reinserting this as necessary. Eye.earth (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you think it's "easy to imagine" and therefore belongs in the article, and you intend to "reinsert it as necessary". Anyone else care to weigh in? MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I know I'm a decade late to the party, but I'll weigh in. I have added sources providing the full text of Graham's speech and better context for it. Graham believed in freedom of the press, but she also believed that there were some responsibilities that went along with it. The quote is frequently cherry-picked and delivered out of context by those who think the CIA controlled Graham or mass media for nefarious purposes. Rgr09 might have more on this. -Location (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffett biography

I removed the following text temporarily so we can discuss better language here:

Affair with Warren Buffett

According to an authorized biography titled "The Snowball" , biographer Alice Schroeder writes that Buffet and Graham had an affair that led to the demise of his first marriage to the late Susie Buffett. "When not trotting around the country "on business," they holed up at her Martha's Vineyard mansion. Rather than hide her flirtation, Graham would toss her house key to Buffett at parties.

...Susie "made it plain to several friends that she was furious and humiliated," but sent Graham a letter granting her permission to date her husband. "Kay showed the letter to people as though it let her off the hook..." [1]

This text is clearly based on the daily news article, which focuses on Buffett. Any suggestions for a rewrite that focuses more on Graham and less on Buffett (and therefore less on words like 'affair' which are arguably inappropriate here as Graham herself was widowed at the time)? Maralia (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Katharine Graham. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130312072521/http://catalyst.org/knowledge/firsts-us-women to http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/firsts-us-women

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katharine Graham. 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/20120116082802/http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes to http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes/

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) 03:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katharine Graham. 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/20070824200735/http://www.counterpunch.org/graham.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/graham.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) 00:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ONLY woman?

In the article we say "As the only woman to be in such a high position at a publishing company" -- but Oveta Culp Hobby ran the Houston Post from the 1930's. Should we rephrase? Or is it just wrong? ubiquity (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]