Talk:Ali Watkins

Sources

So far, there are 9 10 12 15 18 20 21 22 sources, please add more.XavierItzm (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the sources date from 2014, 2015, 2017, to 2018. Clearly the subject benefits from ongoing and sustained coverage! XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note: more sources do not necessarily improve an article, especially if they have largely redundant information. Too many footnotes clutter an article and make it harder to read. See WP:OVERKILL for more info. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many "described as" quotes

Right now the article has a long (at least proportional to the article length) list of descriptions of Watkins' career:

"Her career progression was characterized as "meteoric" by The Times of London and "stunning" by The Washington Post and she has been called "a star" by Adweek and a "hotshot" by others. In 2017, TV host Rachel Maddow called some of Watkins' work a "jaw-dropping scoop." (citations omitted)

I'm not sure that all of this is necessary or especially relevant. And I think it is at least on the border of having an advert-like or promotional tone. In addition, I do not feel that everyone quoted here merits separate mention. I'm inclined to say that the descriptions of television opinion journalists like Maddow and magazines like Adweek should not merit separate mention here. What do others think about cutting the quoted language entirely or in part? Magic1million (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Magic1million: I agree with your assessment and would support removing these types of descriptions--it's not a particularly encyclopedic writing style and can come across as promotional. Watkins is notable; we don't need to prove it by including "described as..." type snippets. Marquardtika (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the assessments of the subject's career progression. Arbitrary deletion of WP:RS evaluations of her career development (which is called "meteoric" by The Times of the U.K. and "stunning" by the The Washington Post and a "hotshot" by Fox News results in the bio of yet another 26 year old whose only claim to WP:NOTE then becomes that when she was a college intern she once was member of a team which became a runner-up for something.
  In this case, others will come and argue, probably successfully, that the subject meets WP:FAILN and the entry needs to be deleted.
  Alternatively it will be argued that the subject's controversy fails WP:WEIGHT.
  In sum, hollowing out an article and its WP:RS is a nice way to work towards getting an article deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think Watkins is notable. That's not in question. I have no intention of trying to get this article deleted. I just think it could be written in a more encyclopedic way, with less quotations. Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

For example, we could summarize the heart of the matter with text to the effect of "Watkins' career progressed quickly" or something like that, without needing to use the various direct quotes. The quotes would support a sentence like that, without us needing to actually include each one here. Marquardtika (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I, too, think she meets the notability guidelines, and I'm not trying to tank the article. Right now there are 5 quotes about Watkins' work. Perhaps the same work could be done by 2 (or even 3). I think, in particular, the Maddow quote probably is less important here because (1) the current citation is a little misleading, as Maddow called it a "sort of jaw dropping scoop"; (2) Maddow is an opinion show host whose job it is to describe things in somewhat forceful terms, and (3) the reference is to one scoop, as opposed to Watkins' career. I would also propose cutting Adweek. Although a reliable source - perhaps even the best source for some subjects - it is an advertising trade publication and would seem to carry less weight here than the other publications referenced. Magic1million (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I think if we dropped Maddow and Adweek that would leave the strongest descriptions of her work and address the concerns stated above. Marquardtika (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is why it is bad practice to arbitrarily remove WP:RS in violation of WP:PRESERVE

The Washington Post now says:

She broke a big story in April 2017 about a contact between former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and a Russian spy in 2013. “That was an important and good story

The New York Times now says:

Ms. Watkins scored a scoop that other news organizations scrambled to match: a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, had met with a Russian spy in 2013.

Which of course is what Rachel Maddow had said all along, but which earlier got expunged from the article:

 In 2017, TV host Rachel Maddow called some of Watkins' work a "jaw-dropping scoop."

I'd suggest adding back this previously rubbed-out but noteworthy step in the subject's career as as follows:

In April 2017, Watkins broke an important story about a Russian spy in 2013.

Comments much appreciated, XavierItzm (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything against WP:PRESERVE in removing the Maddow quote, which was non-Encyclopedic. In addition, there is also WP:OVERKILL to consider. Maddow, an opinion journalist, is only arguably a WP:RS here - and I cannot see how the removal of her description was arbitrary. Having said that, I think it makes sense to discuss Watkins' work on Carter Page, as suggested. I wonder if three citations is Overkill, though, and would advise using more traditional news sources rather than a television opinion program transcript. Magic1million (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As a brief addendum- when discussing the Carter Page scoop, it probably makes sense to provide a little more context for what the story is. Perhaps something like, "In April 2017, Watkins broke a story about former Donald Trump campaign advisor Carter Page meeting with a Russian spy in 2013." Magic1million (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A fact cannot be "unencyclopaedic" one day and "encyclopaedic" a week later. That just shows lack of respect for the WP:RS and utter arbitrariness by the deleter. The facts are:
1. Maddow said Watkins had a scoop
2. The scoop part got memory-holed, source and all (in violation of WP:PRESERVE)
3. The Washington Post and The New York Times fully agree with Maddow, who preceded them, so now the same fact becomes "encyclopaedic"?
Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to waste your time litigating this, but I think this section unfairly characterizes the Maddow story and the reasons for its removal. The issue was overkill on quotations about Watkins' career, including the one from Maddow. The idea of that sentence WAS preserved, and can still be found in the article. And the removal was not arbitrary, but rather the subject of discussion right on this page. If the different idea that one of Watkins' scoops was about Carter Page and that has proven to be significant, then add it to the article. I don't understand the "I told you so" attitude of this thread. Magic1million (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ADDENDUM: And of course some things become encyclopedic over time. For example, something might be a local news story and not notable here, but then pick up national attention over time and become notable enough for encyclopedic preservation. Magic1million (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add back the scoop material as per your comment "one of Watkins' scoops was about Carter Page and that has proven to be significant, then add it to the article". XavierItzm (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the concerns expressed above. The fact that Watkins had a scoop about Carter Page had already been incorporated into the article prior to the most recent update. Maddow calling a scoop "jaw-dropping" does not merit preservation in the article, for the reasons already discussed. Similarly, the phrase "Watkins broke a notorious story about a Russian spy in 2013" is not a more helpful way to refer to the Carter Page scoop than what is already presented later in the article. In addition, it is not accurate. The article said that Carter Page met with a spy in 2013. However, 2013 is not the date of the article. To the degree that the reactions to the Carter Page story should be preserved, they should be incorporated where that story is already discussed. Magic1million (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Magic1million won't bear any mention of Rachel Maddow's assessment that Watkins got a "jaw-dropping scoop", no matter if both the New York Times and the Washington Post wholeheartedly agree with Maddow. Alright, for the time being, Maddow will stay expunged from the article. I'll add back both the NYT and the WP, though. XavierItzm (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness of See Also

Hi all - I wanted to open up a discussion about the See also section, which currently includes Journalistic scandal and Jayson Blair. I'm not sure that either are appropriate see also links here. Of the two, I can see the argument for the link to the article on journalistic scandals more clearly, given the situation with James Wolfe. However, I'm not sure that Jayson Blair is an appropriate see also link. On one hand, he was a journalist who achieved success early in his career and then was part of a scandal. However, his actions (plagiarism and fabrication) are wholly unlike anything Watkins has done. I am concerned that having Blair listed in the See Also might give the wrong impression about Watkins. Magic1million (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest any sort of journalistic scandal is appropriate related material. It is not as if Watkins hasn't made one. Just look at the WP:RS:
New York Times journalist Ali Watkins caught up in sex scandal
Michael Goodwin on Ali Watkins Scandal
New York Times reporter in leak scandal reassigned to new role in NYC
New York Times investigating reporter Ali Watkins amid leak scandal
the whole thing has still been a riveting scandal—a sort of real-life, real-time political thriller with enough intrigue and backdoor drama to make a juicy House of Cards episode
The New York Times wants to bury a reporting scandal -- and other examples of media madness
The Times responded to all of this by publishing a hulking, 3,000-word deep dive on the scandal
the brewing scandal rocking the New York Times
Certainly on Wikipedia one must go by the sources and if the sources call a spade, a spade, then a spade it is. Or, in this case, a scandal. Therefore, other journalist scandals are related matters. XavierItzm (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What you have there are a couple partisan opinion pieces, a gossip publication, etc. I would like to see consistent, long-term discussion of this reporter as related to a "scandal" before we include it. Furthermore, calling it out in a "See also" section gives it far too much prominence; if we do include a link to that article, it should be included inline in article prose. But again, I would like to see us avoid recentism and wait for some longer-term perspective before declaring Watkins as part of a "scandal." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nine News is the highest-rating news service in Australia. Not precisely "a gossip publication". Vanity Fair is far from "partisan" and its report is not an opinion piece. The New York Post's are straight news reports from a WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't "See also" every possible scandal with every other possible scandal. The Jayson Blair link is entirely unrelated and irrelevant. Moreover, links should be inline where possible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof abused this TP discussion, where the only discussion and agreement is about the pertinence of Jayson Blair, to nuke the entire see also section. Twice. XavierItzm (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no "abuse" about it; I have objected to your bold insertion of disputed negative material about this biographical subject, and the burden is now on you to gain consensus for its inclusion, as per WP:BRD and WP:BLP. I have not said it categorically does not belong, only that we should be cautious about labeling living people as part of a "scandal." I just perused the mainstream sources cited in the article currently; they do not characterize the issue as a "scandal." Not even Fox News. We can afford to wait and see what shakes out; if a substantial number of mainstream sources give this matter continuing coverage and begin to widely describe it as a "scandal," I would agree that it should be included somewhere in article prose. But that does not appear to be the case yet. Unless you are in a determined rush to negatively depict this article subject, I'm not sure why you would be so intent on this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Mischaracterization: "I have objected to your bold insertion of disputed negative material about this biographical subject". What are you on about? I did not insert the "See Also Section". Kelly did. Then there was a discussion about it, where there was only consensus on deleting the Jayson Blair component, yet you deleted the entirety of User:Kelly's contribution. I merely restored the part of Kelly's that was not related to Jayson Blair. This is far from "bold insertion of disputed negative material": it is a mischaracterization.XavierItzm (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A good example of what I'm talking about is Jim Jordan (American politician), a Congressional representative currently in the news because of various allegations reported in reliable sources. Our article currently omits discussion of that matter because it is highly derogatory, an editor has objected to the precise wording and a discussion is underway precisely how to fairly, accurately and with due weight talk about the matter in his biography. That is how it should work when we're talking about new, defamatory claims. Unlike simple, uncontroversial facts (such as that LeBron James intends to sign with the Los Angeles Lakers), negative claims about living people need to be treated with caution and sensitivity, particularly when the nature of the claim is unclear. Before we label Watkins as part of a "scandal," we ought to be sure there really is a scandal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added it back. Given the sources listed above, there's no issue with classifying it as a scandal. Kelly ^hi! 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And I've removed it; there is clearly no consensus here that it merits inclusion as a "See also." Moreover, if it is included, it should be linked in prose if supported by sources and not separately placed in its own (and not incidentally, more visible) section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete Reactions Paragraph?

I feel that the current second paragraph of the Wolfe controversy page could likely be deleted. I am not sure that it adds to the page, and it does seem to be overkill within the article. I am not sure that what this particular sampling of people have to say about how their feelings toward the situation merits inclusion in the article:

Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson said “I hate the whole situation more than I can say.”[39] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the case "bears a strong resemblance to the television drama House of Cards," of which it said Watkins was a fan.[40] In 2019, Erik Wemple of The Washington Post compared Watkins to Amanda Macias,[41] as did Stephen L. Miller of The Spectator.[42]

Unlike some other information that was definitely non-notable and/or misleadingly cited, which I felt comfortable deleting immediately, I wanted to take this here to discuss before deleting.Magic1million (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If the reaction of Jill Abramson, a blue-linked bio is not Wiki-worthy, what is? If the reaction of Erik Wemple, another blue-link is not, then, how do _you_ define whose reactions are noteworthy? Likewise, obvsly, the reactions of the editors at The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's oldest newspaper (1831) and The Spectator, which, published since 1828, is, shall we say, a teeny bit older than Watkins' latest employer.XavierItzm (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Jill Abramson and Erik Wemple are noteworthy. Same goes for the newspapers. The question is whether their reactions are noteworthy in this particular article. I do not see that they are. They are not particularly connected to the subject matter. And I think, in general, it is better to stick to the facts than an assortment of peoples' reactions to them. Otherwise we would risk including every blue-linked person's opinion on every topic. Magic1million (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the reactions are entirely on topic. Abramson is the emeritus editor of the NYT. Erik Wemple is the Washington Post's lead on media coverage. The reactions of some of the oldest newspapers in the world (founded 1831 and 1828) to current journalism practice at latecomer NYT are also not to be overlooked: furthermore, both Wemple and The Spectator establish context for the case.

It must also not be overlooked that these gold-plated references establish the notability of the section; for, otherwise, why should the Wikipedia include a mere journalist's reassignment? It is not as if people don't get reassigned every day. Ah, but you see, the reason this particular case merits Wikipedia inclusion is precisely because the two oldest newspapers in the world, and the NYT's editor emeritus, and Vanity Fair, and the Washington Post, all consider it noteworthy both by itself and by its context in the world of 2018.XavierItzm (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)