Talk:Katie Rich

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ed3695. Peer reviewers: AmberedTime, LANA.Film.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Change From: He attends Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School

Change To: He attends Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School

ChadCatlett (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor, Tenebrae, claims, incorrectly, that correcting Rich's false claim of Barron Trump being homeschooled is SNYTH--which is incorrect. See here: Tenebrae's incorrect claim. Barron Trump is not homeschooled. That is simply not true.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I provided a citation to the Chicago Sun-Times that corrects her incorrect claim.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand. But it's WP:SYNTH in that you are analyzing the tweet and finding sources to support a thesis. The fact is that whether Barron is homeschooled or not is irrelevant: The tweet was considered offensive for being about a young boy, and not because it was inaccurate about biographical details. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point that she is inaccurate. But it is not SYNTH. I quoted the Chicago Sun-Times article directly. I did not put my opinion in the article at all. You are absolutely incorrect about that. The Chicago Sun-Times writer called out Rich's false claim and I repeated it almost word for word. You need to review the Chicago Sun-Times article. It states that Rich is flat out wrong about Barron being homeschooled. It is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the reliable source, the Chicago Sun-Times, not me.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read my post more carefully. It doesn't matter that you're citing a reliable source to support your thesis, because your thesis is irrelevant. Whether she was correct or not has no bearing at all on what make the tweet offensive to many people. You could find a cite saying, for example, that her grammar or spelling was wrong. But those are equally irrelevant. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Tenebrae claims: "Once that was reverted WP:BRD says not to edit-war but to take your concern to the talk page to try to reach consensus with other edit" But the problem here is that Tenebrae did NOT go to the talk page to reach consensus. He/she just reverted. Please do not engage in an edit war. Now, it is clear that vast majority of people have never heard of Katie Rich until she engaged in a Twitter attack on a 10 year boy. Her popularity is specifically tied to this one incident. It needs to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I know you're a very new editor here, and I can honestly say you don't really understand the policy at WP:EDITWAR. The first revert to a new edit is not edit-warring.

Rich was notable before the incident or she would not have had an article here. Her notability is as a writer and comedian. Woody Allen has undergone controversy regarding children as well, but like Rich, that's not what he already was notable for. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether I am new here or not is not relevant. The Woody Allen example is also not relevant. That is an apples to oranges comparison. Everyone knows that Allen was well known for decades before the scandal with Mia's daughter. That example has nothing to do with Katie Rich's situation. She was, before today, hardly known by anyone. The incident has made her much more well-known that she was before her Twitter attack on the President's youngest son. You have not given a good reason to keep the important notable information out of the lead paragraph.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's a reason: Without a consensus of other editors, it's edit-warring to restore a contentious edit. You're also confusing the difference between why she's notable and anything else for which she is well-known. The lead is a summary of why she's notable, period. She was notable two weeks ago for being a comedy writer and performer writing for SNL, putting her at the top tier of her profession. And that continues to be why she's notable now.

And I reason I noted you're a new editor is because Wikipedia tries to encourage civility and directs experienced editor not to bite the newbies. I'm sorry you find my attempt at being understanding and at making allowances for your inexperience to be something you consider "not relevant." Regardless, there is no consensus for the change you want to make. And that's also true of what appears to be your purely politically motivated attempt at changing a neutral subhead into something pejorative and inflammatory. If that's why you're on Wikipedia, then you are not here to responsibly contribute to this altruistic free encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you can't seem to focus on the issues with the article and that's all. You seem to lecturing and argumentative and your focus is me instead of the issue. I agree that she was notable two weeks ago before she attacked a 10 year old boy. I have never questioned her notability. However, notability is not the only issue to consider when adding information into the lede paragraph. Another issue to consider is whether a factual event is important enough in person's whole life to be mentioned in the intro. For example, Donald Trump was notable years and years ago as well-known billionaire and TV personality. Those two facts only were enough to establish notability. Under your incorrect reading of the what should be in the intro and what shouldn't be then there would be no reason to add Trump's election as President--since Trump met notability years ago. If your reading mistaken reading of what goes in the intro was correct then each and every article in Wikipedia would only have one aspect of their life mentioned in the opening paragraph. This particular incident is a large part of her life up to this point in time. She was working for SNL and now she has done something that has received national attention (a first for her in her life). It is an important event in her life. It is clearly one of the most important events in her life up to this time. It is clearly something that should be considered for the opening paragraph. You have not provided any reasoning on why this important event should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Notability does not decide this issue.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This type of issue is an ongoing one at Wikipedia - see WP:RECENT. Splashy news items tend to draw attention to specific articles, often resulting in undue emphasis on recent events. You are correct that the tweet incident has greatly increased Rich's notoriety for the time being. However, the key is to take the long view and try to determine how likely the event is to matter in the biography of the person in the long run. I would like to see how this incident is covered six months from now (or later), before determining if it needs to be in the lead. Take a look at the article for Sally Bercow for an example of how a more comparable situation has been handled in Wikipedia.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that reasonable response to the relevant issue that I raised without bringing up irrelevant arguments (e.g., notability) or making false personal attacks that are not based on facts or reality (e.g., my argument is a "purely politically motivated"). I will give it time. But if she is ultimately permanently let go from SNL and her career choices are limited by her unnecessary Twitter attack on a ten year old boy then the topic definitely needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

When an editor uses incendiary language, it suggests political motivation. It was in no way, shape or form an "attack." It was, purely factually, a joke. Whether the joke was appropriate or inappropriate is an issue for comedy historians. But calling it an "attack" is biased and non-neutral. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal interpretation of the word "attack". However, that personal interpretation does not change the fact that the issue that raised was and still is a relevant one. It also does not change the fact that you stated that my comment was "purely political" and offering your interpretation of the word attack does not change the fact that: (1) you do not know what my motivations are since you can't read my mind and (2) you should not be attempting to read my motivations at all. Also, offering your personal interpretation of the word attack does not change the fact that you attempt above to state that the first paragraph in the article is decided by notability, which is not true. And finally, offering your personal interpretation of the word attack does not change the fact that your claim that my raising a valid issue about the article was "purely political" is biased and non-neutral.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protest too much. I seem to have touched a nerve. I guess this incendiary subhead was by a die-hard liberal then?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You give yourself to much credit. There was nothing wrong with the subhead. It described her actions exactly. And once again you are focused on me and my beliefs, which you don't know and aren't none of your business. You just can't seem to focus on the topic of the article. I do know that you gave an incorrect explanation about what goes in the lede when you gave notability as only reason for something being placed in the lead paragraph. Either you don't understand the rules or you do understand the rules and you were intentionally attempting to mislead. Unlike you I don't pretend to understand your motivation.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The big question is whether this is a career killing moment or not, and we won't know that for a little while.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)