Talk:Lauren Windsor

Notability

Meets WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NAUTHOR:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • Works with Robert Creamer (political consultant); directs American Family Voices; cited in various major news sources; among others.
• The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • Yes, The Undercurrent and more.

Neutrality might be more debatable if you don't like her views, but she certainly is notable. Gaelic Tuberosa (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Substantial edits with WP:POV and WP:TONE issues

@PubliusJPublic: and @Omegatron: you've both been editing in a lot of very specific content about her journalism, some of which has potential POV issues ("Windsor was criticized for her methods, with some journalism ethics experts questioning the use of surreptitious recordings and deception in her reporting.") and some serious tone issues. I think we need to remember that a Political article posted an hour ago is probably WP:TOOSOON to be the primary citation for a large block of content. There's also some chopping up and editorially reassembling of the content going into this, which we should probably avoid. Can we talk about the changes here to avoid edit warring over them? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@PubliusJPublic Very selectively quoting Alito in here and the subpoena statement, which is completely out of context, are very clearly not WP:NPOV edits. I cannot revert further due to WP:3RR but this is definitely not the context or content of her reporting in full. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on your characterization of the edits. If anything, the most recent editing I've done is the most Wikipedia:NPOV of all of the edits. The cited article(s) (both Politico and NYT stories refer to the subject's released audio files) refers to very specific quotes that cannot be neutrally interpreted as "lamenting". Alito very clearly states that the Supreme Court cannot issue subpoenas because it is not a law enforcement body. I appreciate your POV and I understand that we may not be able to agree on our points of view, however, as you say, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons calls for factual Wikipedia:NPOV content. Further, numerous BLP articles include such content as they should when properly cited and sourced. PubliusJPublic (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You know what, you're correct here. There actually was a confusing flow of the sentence from one to another and I read the "lamenting" as linking to the Alito sentence. That said, those quotes are still WP:TMI for an article about the journalist in question, since they're about Alito (and the journalism). Either we can include material from Windsor's recordings, which would include far more inflammatory statements that have been glossed over here, or we should exclude it entirely and talk about her journalism specifically, which seems to be the more standard approach. We don't include transcripts of the Watergate tapes in Bob Woodward, for example. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I've left most of what you wrote standing and gone through and edited in citations and removed some of the uncited biographical material I couldn't verify. I've also split what you wrote into its own section and provided more context, I'm concerned that the selected quotes unintentionally portrayed the recordings and the reaction to them in a manner which was more scholarly and neutral than they actually were, per WP:RS, so including the fact that there was backlash, how those comments were interpreted, and mentioning Martha-Ann Bomgardner seemed appropriate here for the sake of WP:NPOV. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your fair review here and I think it makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to see that this was done right. PubliusJPublic (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tkaras1 I'm not really sure editorial commentary from the WSJ belongs here? I won't revert, but it feels like we're getting way past some scope creep. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I just didn't understand the rationale you cited for reverting in your edit summary. Yours, Tkaras1 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We've gone from an article about the person, to an article about a specific story she was involved with heavily laden with quotes, to including editorial commentary from a politically-opposed (though clearly WP:RS newspaper. It feels like the article is cascading in scope to be less about the person and more a low-grade battleground over the specifics of a story she reported on (which, admittedly, is a very key story in her notability). I definitely think the first cite you added criticizing her approach was a good one, I worry about the balance when we have multiple in sequence considering the scope of the article in the first place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Changes this article needs

There is an entire section devoted to Lauren targeting and surreptitiously recording Catholic SCOTUS Justices and their family members. There is one sentence regarding Lauren organizing a display of White Supremacist hate and falsely attributing it to her political enemies. Both efforts have plentiful articles in RS detailing them. This needs balance.

The intro includes statements that are either unsourced or sourced to her own organization: "She focuses primarily on Wall Street reform, money-in-politics corruption, and climate change." - no source "As the executive director of American Family Voices, she supports on pocketbook economic issues for the working and middle classes." - source, herself

"Windsor created the investigative website Project Veritas Exposed (PVE), which serves as a research hub for journalists, progressive movement activists, organizations, and campaigns." - the sourced article does not include any information about what Project Veritas Exposed is, let alone "a research hub for..." The source says she created PVE, that's all. The rest should be removed.

"She traveled around the country documenting protests and met her mentor, Robert Creamer," - What is the source for this "mentorship" and why does it matter? Do articles on living people typically detail their mentors?

"The Supreme court, and particularly Samuel Alito and Martha-Ann Bomgardner, have faced criticism following the release of the recordings." - Lauren herself "faced criticism" after she organized a white supremacist hate rally. Why is criticism of Samuel Alito and Martha-Ann Bomgardner more deserving of a mention on Lauren Windsor's article than criticism of Lauren Windsor? 204.144.209.73 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, two points on that. One: it’s a direct, broad, result of her reporting, as opposed to an editorial board’s perception of her reporting. Two: I’m not sure they do, but some editors here think that the details of the story belong here. We don’t have quotes of the Watergate Tapes on the journalists behind those, for example. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)