Talk:Felicia Sonmez: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:08, 27 August 2022

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.

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.

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Journalism Start‑class Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Women writers Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Start‑class 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure

The following article says she worked for the Post twice:

"in the early 2010s, left and rejoined,"
"whose second stint at the Post began in 2018"

Washington Post fires reporter in center of online battle -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist language

The article, as it currently stands, states, “The matter began when fellow Post reporter Dave Weigel retweeted a sexist joke, which Sonmez criticized in a tweet of her own.” I can’t access the NYT article, so I’m wondering if it’s WP voice starting Weigel’s joke is “sexist”, or if the source states the joke is sexist. Can anyone help if this language is used in the source? —-Kbabej (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "sexist" is used in the source. Added quote to the citation in the hope the issue is now resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip Cross Thanks! --Kbabej (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per MOS:RACIST: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So it's not just that a source states it but that it's widely used by sources, and even then it would need in text citation. Let's not forget that this is about a living person. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the NYT; see CNN ("sexist retweet"), The Guardian ("offensive joke"), WaPo ("sexist joke"), etc. If a plethora of RSP-greenlit outlets are willing to directly characterize it as sexist in their own voice, we should follow that lead. Re MOS:WTW, it's the tweet, not the person, being labeled, so the threshold is not quite the same. It's still high, but that's what all the citations are for. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E ) Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, per several references dated prior to June. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look at WP:NOTNEWS it states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." Also WP:EVENT gives a clear description of what qualifies as a notability. I'm not saying she wasn't in the news, but she was in the news for: getting in trouble with her employer for tweeting about the rape accusations against Kobe immediately after he died, suing her employer for barring her from reporting on sexual assault cases and getting fired by her employer for harassing colleagues and management on twitter. None of this is notable. Furthermore as per WP:DEPTH: "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." Essentially what we have is some tabloid journalism about an writer's battles with the WaPo. I mean forget the WP:10YT will anyone remember this is 10 days? Why not just redirect the page to the WaPo criticism section? Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I am still to see any arguments why this is notable. Elmenhorster (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it was me who was not getting it, I've just checked 10 random articles in the "American journalists" category at the bottom of this article. Sonmez stands out. How do I put it, to paraphrase Christoph Waltz, the difference in notability is like between a battleship and a waltz (not making any quality judgements here - difference in quantity of notability is quite enough). Elmenhorster (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come this article is still on?

Bearing in mind Wikipedia's advice to be editing in good faith, I went through the article's edit history looking for clues as to why this has not been deleted yet (something suggested within 2 weeks of it going live for clearly not being notable enough) and found it has attracted interest of two notorious mass-editors, namely Philip Cross and Ser Amantio di Nicolao (so notable you can Google them). I suspect there are reasons why this is on and will not be removed anytime soon that will become apparent with time... 211.244.121.120 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connected party?

Editor “Sdkb” on their profile page say they are a journalist and specialize in Wash DC. Sonmez meets those same characteristics. I’m just wondering where one draws the line considering someone, or not, a “connected party”? Just my two pinches of salt. 121.131.38.1 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. is fortunate to have more than one journalist for the entire city. I am not Sonmez and have no affiliation with her. Please be mindful of the WP:OUTING policy. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected article at R. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Hi all! Felicia here. I'm writing to request a few corrections to the page.

1) The page currently states:

"Felicia Sonmez was an American journalist."

Not sure why the past tense is being used here, but I'm still alive and I'm still a journalist!

2) The page currently states:

"She began her career as a foreign correspondent in Beijing. In 2010, she joined The Washington Post as a political reporter."

Actually, the order here should be reversed. I began my journalism career in Washington and later became a foreign correspondent in Beijing.

3) The page currently states:

"Sonmez was teaching English in Beijing when she began writing for Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun.[2]"

It would be more accurate to say I "began working for" the Yomiuri Shimbun. I worked for the paper (assisting its journalists) but did not write for them.

4) The page currently states:

"She later was a foreign correspondent in Beijing for Agence France-Presse and an editor for The Wall Street Journal.[1][3] She joined The Washington Post as a political reporter in 2010.[1]"

The chronology here should be reversed as well. I first joined the Washington Post in 2010 and later worked in Beijing as a foreign correspondent for AFP and then as an editor for WSJ. I rejoined the Post in Washington in 2018.

Many thanks! Felicia

Fsonmez (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References