This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) at 03:18, 26 July 2019 (→CJR and Wemple). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:18, 26 July 2019 by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) (→CJR and Wemple)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Conservatism Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Columbia Journalism Review
An attributed statement by the Columbia Journalism Review is not undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Snooganssnoogans (talk): He is known for biased reporting ... " is a smear and not written from a neutral point of view. Further, citations are to articles in the Columbia School of Journalism Review, as well as an Opinion article; none of these are reliable sources. Please discuss on the article talk page before continuing to re-insert and edit war. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hill, Huff post, reception section
I am trying to copy edit this to make some sense and not be so wordy and confusing. Can others help please. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is what we have:
In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal. According to the Hufftington Post, Solomon's reporting however omitted that the Wall Street Journal article that Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBi. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."
Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Summary in lede
We summarize the body in the lede per WP:LEDE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Repeated deletion of balancing information on Uranium One story
The line in bold type has been deleted twice by the same editor: "No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrong-doing has surfaced. The Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclosed four donations totaling $2.35 million from Uranium One's Canadian chairman, Ian Telfer, which were made via his family's foundation.
According to Misplaced Pages's "Neutral Point of View" policy, "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
The article does not mention the donations made by Uranium One's chairman to the Clinton Foundation, nor does it mention that they were concealed. This is important information that is relevant, well-sourced and neutral, and its omission does not give readers a balanced view of the controversy.
Here is the diff of the 1st deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896568920&oldid=896568544
Here is the diff of the 2nd deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896975287&oldid=896975012 Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article is about Solomon and should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for rehashing criticism of Clinton. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- The added text has nothing to do with Solomon. It's pure WP:SYNTH to give the appearance that Solomon's reporting has been vindicated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- The current version of the article implies there was clearly no impropriety. This is misleading. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the consensus that this material should be added, primarily per WP:COATRACK. It's just too far afield. This article is about Solomon, not the Clinton Foundation or Uranium One. Whether evidence of a quid pro quo has surfaced has some minor bearing since it reflects on Solomon's reporting. Whether the the Clinton Foundation did or didn't report some transactions has no such bearing. R2 (bleep) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
CJR and Wemple
My understanding is that using op-eds to back up assertions in a lede would generally violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV, at a minimum. Is that not the case here?
I don't have a horse in the race, but for the casual observer, it doesn't look too neutral. From a persuasion standpoint, it's also too blunt to sway anyone. Dorama285 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sources don't have to be neutral to be reliable. See WP:BIASED. Which specific sources are you referring to? R2 (bleep) 20:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm referencing the two op-eds in Columbia Journalism Review (Blake & McCleary) and one in the Washington Post (Wemple). Assuming there are no news items to cite? Plenty of people could be smeared as "communists" if three op-eds served as adequate sourcing for a claim, but the standard being applied here is clearly unusual. Dorama285 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the sources in question (, , ) are reliable. None of these are op-eds. I don't think that CJR distinguishes news from opinion; regardless, CJR has a superb reputation and is known for fact-checking and advocacy. In fact, they issued two corrections to the "Something fishy" source, so we know that piece was subjected to plenty of scrutiny. As for the Erik Wemle source (a column, not an op-ed), Wemple is one of those rare columns that is very well-cited by reliable sources for facts. R2 (bleep) 21:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Washington Post explicitly labels the Wemple column as "opinion." They aren't comfortable calling it news. Citing CJR makes as much sense as citing the Media Research Center. It's not a credible way to write an introduction (or a Misplaced Pages page more broadly), but as I said, this undermines Misplaced Pages's credibility more than Solomon's. I'll leave it to other users to rectify. Dorama285 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that a source be called "news" to be reliable. Both Wemple and CJR have stellar reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, nothing like MRC. R2 (bleep) 22:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- What R2 said. Both are usually excellent sources for this kind of thing, and likening the CJR to the MRC is false balance. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that a source be called "news" to be reliable. Both Wemple and CJR have stellar reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, nothing like MRC. R2 (bleep) 22:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Would a good resolution be to reduce the level of detail in the lede? It does look pretty biased with such a small section other than that, and it is covered in far more detail under Reception. Lensfielding 9:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't follow. It's one short sentence and describes no specific instances of biased reporting or faux scandals. Lead sections are supposed to summarize prominent controversies. R2 (bleep) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- In reference to the BLP guidelines, it 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." By my reading, that particular sentence in the lede seems neither conservative nor disinterested. Saying something about how Columbia Journalism Review has attacked him for.... would work, but as the material currently is presented does not appear dispassionate and neutral. Lensfielding 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that approach is that it would treat facts opinions. That's contrary to our neutrality policy. (See WP:YESPOV.) R2 (bleep) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- That only applies to uncontroversial factual opinions though. I'm not sure that the current wording could be called uncontroversial, or that it accurately depicts the facts from the sources linked.Lensfielding (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
How doesn't it accurately depict the facts from the sources linked? Also, would you mind using good indentation to make this discussion easier to read and understand? R2 (bleep) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, I'm still learning the formatting. Specifically the phrase 'known for' indicates wide agreement upon the subject matter, and I can't see that justified from those articles. And as I mentioned before, this does not seem to be an uncontroversial factual opinion. Lensfielding (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
CJR is a reliable source. It is in fact the gold standard for reporting about the media. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly tried to insert a smear which reads "He is known for biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals." This edit clearly violates both BLP and NPOV; you conveniently omit any mention of violation of these rules. Further, whether or not the Columbia School of Journalism's news articles are a reliable source is arguable at best, and in any event irrelevant - your citations were to two Opinion articles in CSJ as well as another Opinion article. These are not reliable sources. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)