Talk:John Solomon (political commentator)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) at 01:09, 2 August 2019 (Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:09, 2 August 2019 by BattleshipGray (talk | contribs) (Question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Conservatism Unassessed

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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)

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)

@BattleshipGray: the ] is "an American magazine for professional journalists that has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics, and stories behind news." It's chairman is Stephen J. Adler editor-in-chief for and president of Reuters. It actually is what it says it is, "It is the most respected voice on press criticism" in the US. The statements were clearly attributed to their authors and not in Misplaced Pages's voice. I've edited the lead to replace the "known" bit with "described" Doug Weller talk 08:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Another issue with this was that none of the articles cited say anything about conservative or bias, which indicates a need for rewording. Lensfielding (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

While the language "He is described ... " is better, this edit is still problematic. The sources say nothing about bias and conservative, and the third one (and arguably the first two also) is an Opinion article. Please discuss here on the talk page and get consensus, rather than re-inserting. -BattleshipGray (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lensfielding:, although I think the Wemple piece implies such bias, it doesn't state it specifically and I'd prefer a better source or leave it out. So I'd say it should go. The CJR articles clearly back the "manufacturing of fauz scandals". @BattleshipGray: I have no idea why you think it violates NPOV to say that he's manufactured faux scandals. I certainly see no BLP issue. If you want to argue that the CJR articles are opinion articles, WP:RSN is probably your best bet. I'm happy btw to quote "This magazine, too, has taken him to task more than once for distorting facts and hyping petty stories." ~ We need to say more about Circa and I found this. Doug Weller talk

I got here via off-wiki criticism. Doug Weller is correct that the CJR articles do allude to something that could be reasonably described as "manufacturing of faux scandals". Neither mentions "conservative bias" as the lede had mis"lede"ingly stated. ^^ I've fixed the SYNTH problem by re-arranging the refs. My opinion is that the lede does not sufficiently summarize the entry or the person's biography, but know better than to get involved. 🌿 SashiRolls 15:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I again removed the bias statement and reference to the Wemple Opinion piece. If this is to be inserted a reliable source is needed. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans (talk): Please stop inserting the sentence about bias. It is not cited to a reliable source. Discuss on this talk page and get consensus, and use a reliable source for citing. -BattleshipGray (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So @Doug Weller: by my understanding, it would fix this issue if we leave out the bias sentence, as we seem to have reached a consensus on that. As per the other, I would be happy with the quote provided ("This magazine, too, has taken him to task more than once for distorting facts and hyping petty stories.") as it clearly is attributable. Lensfielding (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk): Why do you repeatedly insert the bias language into the article? The only citation is to an Opinion article - not a reliable source. This is a violation of BLP, RS and NPOV, and your edit-warring must stop. As requested, repeatedly, please discuss this issue on the Talk page and get consensus. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

BattleshipGray, Snooganssnoogans is doing the right thing, and you've been warned, yet you persist. Disruptive editing and edit warring, especially after getting a DS and 3rr warnings, are very serious matters. Don't you like editing here? Do you really want to be blocked or topic banned? This isn't worth it. You should self-revert immediately and walk away from this issue, because you don't seem to understand the policies you are mentioning. Until you have a consensus on the talk page, you are not allowed to do what you've done. Blunt force doesn't work here. Edit warring is the wrong approach. Now stick to discussion here and don't repeat what you've done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bull, I don't see anything about content above. Please stick to content. 🌿 SashiRolls 15:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. We just need the article back to its status quo first. There is no consensus to remove that content, and it has been explained repeatedly that the sources are reliable. A modification of wording might be possible, but the edit warring must stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I see now that you have tried to improve the content. Thanks for trying. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

🌿 SashiRolls : I like your edit. It captures the issues with Mr. Solomon without using the Opinion article as a cite, and it avoid the conservative bias issue which is not even stated in the opinion article. -BattleshipGray (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk):

1. I am not sure what the issue was with my conduct, and I don't understand why you stated that Snooganssnoogans was doing the right thing when he kept inserting his language with no discussion on the talk page (his only statement was about Columbia Journalism Review, which was a different issue.) I have tried to get Snoog to discuss his insertion here on the Talk page, and try to get consensus, but he has refused. The issue, as I pointed out, is that the language about conservative bias was from an Opinion article, not a news article. Further, the article doesn't say what Snoog claims it says. And the consensus here appears to be that the bias language should not be included. I admit I do not understand the rules as well as someone who has editted here for years, seemingly all day long every day, but I don't understand how my behavior in trying to get the issue resolved on the Talk page warranted the attack and warning you posted on my talk page and mentioned here. I honestly thought I was handling this properly by trying to resolve the issue here, and I apologize if I have done anything that violates Misplaced Pages rules.

2. I could not self revert within hours, as you requested, because I had already put my computer away to go to work. And I don't edit Misplaced Pages at work.

3. This is the citation Snoog used to keep inserting the conservative bias language: As you can see, this is an Opinion article by Erik Wemple - not a news article. Can we all agree that an Opinion article is not a reliable source? -BattleshipGray (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was explained well enough above, and that enough editors had said you were wrong above, but to make it plain, an opinion article is a RS at Misplaced Pages. The content is not worded in Misplaced Pages's voice, but is clearly referring to the source used. That makes it okay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be improved in some manner. That is often the case, but edit warring, no matter how "right" you might be, is never proper.

You had received a DS warning and edit warring warning on your talk page. You had also been reverted several times. Those are HUGE RED FLAGS. As instructed in the edit warring warning, you should not have continued, but should have followed WP:BRD. That means no article editing related to the contested content, ONLY discussion until a consensus has figured out what to do. That's where you went wrong. You insisted on edit warring and not sticking SOLELY to discussion. In the meantime, SashiRolls came along and sought to improve the wording. I hope that clarifies things.

We use many types of sources here, including the opinion articles found in RS, and the two sources used for this content are very RS. To really show how far we go here, take a look at BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That even allows (often requires) the inclusion of properly sourced content that may well be false allegations and defamatory material, and that is often found in opinion articles. It just has to be worded and sourced with care.

What can you learn from this? When you are reverted, don't reinstate the content. Go to the talk page and discuss until you reach a consensus. Otherwise, you risk starting an edit war, and we try to avoid that here. Just follow BRD. There is only one R there. After the R, Discuss until you have other editors on the same page with you. That's the general picture. As with most things, there are exceptions to every rule, and once you have more experience you'll know when it's safe to deviate from that path. Until then, just be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I appreciate it. I don't understand how false allegations (i.e. libel) can ever be considered properly sourced and reliable, and I don't get how an opinion can be considered as reliable either, but I guess if false statements are OK then why not opinions also? You know, this doesn't say much for the supposed reliability and neutral point of view of Misplaced Pages. -BattleshipGray (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk): One other question. You stated that it is wrong to re-insert an edit after it has been reverted, without discussing it on the Talk page and getting consensus. Then how was Snooganssnoogans' behavior "doing the right thing"? I reverted his insertion since it was to an opinion piece, and more importantly the article doesn't say what Snoog claims it said, which was pointed out here on the Talk page. Yet, he repeatedly re-inserted the edit, without any discussion here. I am not trying to get him banned or suspended or warned or whatever, but it would have been nice if he could have just discussed the issue here and allowed editors to reach a consensus, rather than ignoring my repeated requests to do so and simply continued to edit without explanation. Looking at his user page and talk page, it seems I am not the only person who has ever raised a question about his behavior. Any clarification you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks! -BattleshipGray (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wemple, Erik (2018-01-17). "Opinion | Staffers at The Hill press management about the work of John Solomon". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-01-23.

Categories: