Talk:Jodi Dean

Original research

Selectively quoting primary material like a subject’s essay without citing secondary source coverage violates our policy on WP:Original research. Thank you for removing it. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite the specific section of WP:Original research that supports your claim that primary material must have secondary source coverage or it is considered original research? Because that page explicitly states that primary material is not just allowed, but in some cases is the best source. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents. There are multiple core and non-core policies that provide for the inclusion of primary sources in the scenario where they are used to reference the self-published statements of the subject of an article, including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. None of them to my knowledge contain criteria that states that a secondary source must also be provided to include the primary source, so I'd appreciate you pointing to the source of that claim. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As the section you cited notes, you should not put undue weight on primary content. This author has written thirteen books. Without a secondary source indicating significance, it is undue and original research for a WP editor to impose their personal interpretation of which of this author’s writings rise to significance to quote. This issue comes up constantly in writers’ bios; if citations to their books or articles are not sourced to secondary material like reviews or articles discussing their comments, the content is always removed.

Also I have to remind that WP:ONUS says, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Please do not readd again without consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You did not make the claim that this is undue weight -- and two sentences is hardly undue weight. If you're claiming that, fine we can discuss that here; but you cited your objection as being due to original research. There is no policy that states that without a secondary source indicating significance, a primary source is undue and original research. If you think there is, quote it here. There are multiple policies that state that primary sources are acceptable for inclusion when they are self-published by the subject of the article. You also did not indicate what portion you think is personal interpretation. Of course, none of this would have been at issue had you been more descriptive in your original edit summary, or literally any of your subsequent explanations, about the specifics of your objection.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I saw you had 20,000 edits and genuinely didn’t realize it needed to be explained that original research means imposing a personal interpretation: "original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Innisfree987 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please specify the portion that's "original analysis of the primary-source material"? I'm genuinely concerned that it's necessary to repeatedly ask an editor with twice as many edits as me to show their work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

How about this as an exercise: given the following statement and sources -- which parts, if any would you categorize as "original research?"

On 13 April 2024, Hobart and William Smith Colleges President Mark Gearan issued a statement announcing that Dean had been "relieved of classroom duties" following an essay she wrote for Verso Books, in which "she spoke about feeling exhilarated and energized by the paragliders on October 7". In a posting to the social media website X, Dean confirmed she had been relieved of teaching responsibilities.

The statement by the university president about her essay is a secondary source and therefore not original research; however it has other problems for use for that purpose, for example that it’s not independent nor presumably subject to editorial oversight. The rest of your proposed passage is a selection of primary information you find newsworthy but (despite my best searches in fervent hope we could put this to bed), we have no news outlet that’s agreed; that’s where the imposition of your own analysis runs afoul of WP:NOR, just as it would if you were picking quotes from her books without indication from reliably sourced reviews that they were important.

There are some very basic, routine facts that standard BLP practice does allow us to source to primary material on the basis of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", and that often includes employment. But it appears the subject is still employed and like I say, there appears no news outlet that thinks an investigation into her at her job is significant enough to cover. I would certainly feel differently if news coverage does appear so if you find any, please do say. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

At least four media outlets have picked up the story, see Chronicle of Higher Education, Democracy Now!, Middle East Eye, and Finger Lakes Daily News. Second, I'm still not seeing the basis for the claim of "imposition of your own analysis". There is not a word of independent analysis in that example.

• It is an objective fact statement that Mark Gearan is president of HWS. This is directly supported by the HWS reference.
• It is a factual statement that he issued a statement on 13 April 2024. This is directly supported by the HWS reference.
• It is an objective fact that the statement announced that Dean had been "relieved of classroom duties". This is a direct quote from the HWS reference.
• It is a fact that the statement attributes the reason explicitly to her Verso Books article. This is directly supported from the HWS reference.
• The portion about being "exhilarated" is a direct quote from the HWS reference. It's also supported from the subject's self-published (primary) source, where the quote is directly verifiable.
• It is a factual statement that X is a social media site. This is directly supported from the X posting reference.
• It is a factual statement that Dean posted to it, and that her post said "I've been relieved of teaching responsibilities." This is a direct quotation from the X posting reference.

So given that all of these things are either direct quotations, or directly supported by the given references, I'm not seeing where any of this is original research or my own independent analysis. The standard is straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge and that standard is completely met here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

With the addition of several additional secondary sources (no substantive change to the text, as the claims are 100% encompassed in the FLDN ref), this would be my proposed inclusion. Please let me know what, if any, objections you'd have to this iteration.

On 13 April 2024, Hobart and William Smith Colleges President Mark Gearan issued a statement announcing that Dean had been "relieved of classroom duties" following an essay she wrote for Verso Books, in which "she spoke about feeling exhilarated and energized by the paragliders on October 7". In a posting to the social media website X, Dean confirmed she had been relieved of teaching responsibilities.

Seeing as another user has had a less well-sourced version of this in all day, and there's now over a half dozen (mostly hard news media) sources that have somehow found an investigation into her job significant enough to cover, I'm moving forward with re-adding this text with the additional sources.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

References