Talk:Dear White Staffers

Dear White Staffers has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 4, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Dear White Staffers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that two years after Instagram's Dear White Staffers started out as a small meme account, it was credited with kickstarting the unionization of U.S. congressional staff?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dear White Staffers.

Wikipedia

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Biography

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

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Sources

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Instagram's Dear White Staffers facilitates "vibe checks" on members of the United States Congress? This might make a good quirky hook.^(?)
- ALT1: ... that the "vibe checks" of Dear White Staffers are credited with kickstarting the unionization of U.S. congressional staff?
- Reviewed: List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War
- Comment: ALT hooks welcome, I'm not quite sure about these.

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 10:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

ALT2: ... that the creator of Dear White Staffers, one of few congressional aides of color, has been mistaken for a valet at events?
-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's definitely hooky – I'm not sure I love that, though, because I do want the hook to be about the account and not the creator. Can't quite figure out how to meld the two, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. The article was new enough at time of nomination (DYK nomination on 20 January, having been moved to the mainspace on the same day, and has not appeared on the Main Page) and is long enough (7773 characters of readable prose and is not a stub). The hooks are interesting, sourced, and formatted properly, though I think that a hook emphasising its origins as a meme account and linking that to its effect in the unions movement would be even more appealing. A quid pro quo was done. With regards to core content policies such as copyright, neutrality, and BLP, I did not detect any violations. However, there are some verifiability issues with the article. In addition, I have included suggestions that can make this article better – these are not DYK eligibility issues, but are given with the aim of (in addition to improving the encyclopaedia) helping with its GA nomination. I trust that you'll be able to classify to which set each comment belongs.
- Background and history: "worked for sitting senators and representatives" doesn't seem to be supported by the POLITICO sources.
- 2020–2022: "attributes a disproportionate amount of the blame in hiring disparities to Republicans" seems to imply that the blame being assigned is disproportionate to the statistics, when I think you're trying to say that the statistics themselves are skewed.
- The Rooney Rule not being in force for Republicans is not technically in the Independent source; the "Ground up and spit out" one covers it explicitly.
- The linking for the origins of the name can be improved: the article Dear White People is the movie, not the franchise. Something like "a reference to Dear White People, a film and later a Netflix series" would be more logical.
- 2022–present: The characterisation that the account retains "a focus on people of color" is frankly a little shaky; it doesn't seem to be explicitly said in the two sources cited.
  - What is your opinion on this? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coulda sworn I deleted it, but I've went ahead and done that now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is "a continued lack of staff diversity, with an increasingly low ability to influence public policy at all." seemingly in those two sources, from what I've read. They seem to be covered in The Independent and The Washington Post, respectively.
- "By the end of January" in the article ≠ "after Jan. 31" in the source.
  - See the previous paragraph in said source, I think :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should have made it clearer, but my comments are as the article progresses. I was referring to the second "By the end of January" near the end of the section, not the one at the start. You were right to use that phrase the first time (as the article says that's when the "mission of @dear_white_staffers was clear in the man's mind"), but for the follower count, it says "after Jan. 31". Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha. Changed that one to After the end of January. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reactions and impact: Advise sourcing "The account has attracted the interest and ire of representatives and their staffers, both junior and senior." to the other POLITICO source too, since that covers in explicitly (based on just the "Ground up and spit out" source, it doesn't mention people other than aides following it closely).
  - That's more a summary topic sentence than it is a ground-level piece of information, so I don't think a source there would be helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. I don't love it. Because the sentence is part of the paragraph, it's not clear that it's a topic sentence: it looks like it is sourced by the reference for the succeeding sentence, which is misleading. One possible solution is calling back to that reference again at the end of the subsequent sentence. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've copied both citations up top, does that work?
- "unfair" is not implied in the source: the source says "being anonymously maligned and they'll have a mess to clean up", which does not say whether it's true.
  - I usually take 'maligned' to mean 'slandered' or 'vilified', rather than "reasonably criticized". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems to be either. Subject to interpretation, I suppose, though I think one is the safer option. Up to you. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I'm gonna stick with this for now, but if it turns out to be a Thing, I'll reconsider :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As DYK eligibility requires additional work, I am marking the nomination with . Please address these issues before I can approve this nomination. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sdrqaz! Just took a whack at fixing the issues I haven't commented on :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left comments on four items. Please also let me know if you want to propose any other ALTs, given your misgivings over ALTs 0–2. I gave a suggestion above, but you're free to take it or ignore it – the currently-proposed hooks are in-policy. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sdrqaz: responded to all of 'em – to your suggestion: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - ALT3: ... that two years after Instagram's Dear White Staffers started out as a small meme account, it was credited with kickstarting the unionization of U.S. congressional staff?
    - Thank you for getting back to me and for your work on this article – all the best on the GAN. I believe that the idea behind ALT3 is more attractive, but it is longer than the other hooks (while still being in-line with the guidelines). The promoter will have to weigh up these factors when making their choice. Approved, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks so much, Sdrqaz! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dear White Staffers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammielh (talk · contribs) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up this review. Comments below. Sammielh (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sammielh! I've left replies wherever I didn't do as asked :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in a few places below but I'm happy to promote this to GA. Good work on the article! Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead and infobox

I would put when the account was created in the lead (e.g. "The account was created in ... primarily to post memes")
I don't have much experience with internet culture articles but would it be worth putting the actual Instagram handle in the lead?
- Probably not? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine, I was just thinking how some tv/movie articles include how the title is stylised. Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly too much detail for the lead, but I would be inclined to indicate who the account has received praise from (e.g. the national press)
- I'd say too much detail. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Optional but could be worth updating the followers in the infobox
Appropriate fair use image

Background, reactions

Person of color is linked in the body but not the lead
"Dear White Staffers recounted to Politico" I would possibly rephrase to distinguish the account manager from the account
"has been treated differently than white staffers by the Capitol Police"
I would amend "Staffers of color often feel that formal channels of complaint are not responsive to them for some negative experiences, such as frequent microaggressions" as I find it confusingly worded, it seems to imply that only some experiences are not being responded to which I think is different from the source
I would change "in the matter" as I don't think it's specific enough
The Bulwark is linked twice
There's some discrepancy over whether black is capitalised
I would consider nothing that the "Rooney rule" is not consistently followed, per the Politico source
I would link Capitol South station to Cap South (which is what I assume the post is referring to)
- I wouldn't be sure about that, but you're probably right. Haven't added to avoid OR, but I'll mull it over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not critical and I agree that it borders on OR, just thought I would mention. Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes should have a reference immediately following them
- I'll challenge you to provide a policy source on that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I originally tried to find the policy source for this when I mentioned it and wasn't able to (no idea who told me this), so happy to drop this point. Sammielh (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sammielh: I believe you're referring to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. While inline citations can be at the end of sentences, its also alright for them to be at the end of the paragraph. :3 F4U (they /it) 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to add in the years for the film and tv show of Dear White People for some context
- I'm not sure it's necessary, it's just a loose reference.
I would put "By the end of January 2022" as it's a new section
"Politico referred to the stories reposted by the account"
Are there any account statistics or coverage from 2023?
- No secondary stats that I'm aware of, no.

References

The Earwig results come back with 29%, which is primarily due to the quotes in the article, although it does flag the phrase "code of silence" which should probably be rephrased
I didn't see any issues with the spotchecks

Politico article from 2023

Here’s a May 2023 Politico article about Dear White Staffers that should help build out the article: [1] Thriley (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of account

@Theleekycauldron removed the paragraph sourced to the Washington Free Beacon and Jewish Insider about the identity of the account. Both sources are WP:NEWSORGS and are reliable sources. Further, it's not a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY to list the identity, which is of a public employee who has a very public profile and which is an "open secret on the Hill" per JInsider. Longhornsg (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg: What? No, The Washington Free Beacon is not a reliable source per RSP. JInsider doesn't print the name, because it's a somewhat more reputable publication. It is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY to use anyone's full name unless they are widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Both of those tests are emphatically not met here. Please revert your addition, as it is a cut-and-dry BLP violation. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a bit surprising to see WFB as GUNREL given one of the cites at RSP is to a RSP about Newsmax, and the other two are light on participation. I'll start a new RFC that will hopefully receive more participation. I'll remove the name here, but still think its worth including that JInsider had identified the account as a staffer in Congresswoman Lee's office. Longhornsg (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]