Talk:Amy Siskind

The Daily Wire

let's talk about the reliability of "The Daily Wire" and the "controversy" they report about a deleted tweet. [1] does not seem emcyclopedic to me. Psyduck3 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Amy Siskind is an activist, and even though this article does not describe her as one, I think she fits the definition of a reporter. I believe it is very germane to discuss how she treats facts and evidence, especially since she is a prominent disctibutor and disseminator of news. It's very relevant to know what kind of standards she has for evidence. She tweeted two "facts" that she could not have possibly known to be either true or untrue. She simply made up information. She did NOT know the race of the perpetrators - she guessed. When that guess proved to be wrong, and not in line with her political agenda, she simply deleted the factually erroneous tweets (but not before someone was able to screenshot them). She even admits to doing to this on her own talk page: "I put up a tweet which had an error in it and was taken down within 30 minutes." So she does not even dispute that the main claim in the article is untrue. Because it is true, and she knows it's true. She simply doesn't like that she got caught and that she received some negative attention over it. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says public figures can just go and delete true things that they don't like about their bio? It doesn't make it any better when she gets a sympathetic WP editor to do the same. - - Hraefen ^Talk 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

here is a reliable source for "activist" [2]

you need to make an argument that the daily wire is reliable; do you think you can do that, rather than ad hominem? can you add to this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_241#The_Daily_Wire?

see also wp:RS, wp:UNDUE and Whataboutism -- Psyduck3 (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's not an ad hominem for me to point out that it's inappropriate for a notable person to be removing negative content from their own article. It's also not an ad hominem for me to suggest that you, as the original creator of this article, and someone who the subject reached out to personally for help, may not in fact be unbiased here.

I see no need for me to make an argument for TDW as a reliable source. The RFC that you pointed to was clearly unresolved, there are a lot of arguments on both sides. For what it's worth my opinion is that they are a legitimate albeit partisan website. So like any partisan site, use it with caution, pay attention to context. The relevant context in this situation right here is that the subject of the article admits that the main claim in the article is actually true! So again, do you have a factual disagreement with what is claimed in the TDW article? I don't think you actually do. I think the context here is very clear. The article is accurate. If you take issue with how it is worded, that's a different conversation. But you have raised no actual objection to the factual accuracy of the article itself, and the RFC you pointed to was inconclusive. - - Hraefen ^Talk 19:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

you might want to address my question of reliable source, rather than assert "truth" i.e. "Chris Hayes Reviews Michiko Kakutani's Book About Our Post-Truth Era". The New York Times. 2018-07-18. Retrieved 2018-07-29. -- Psyduck3 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I did actually address your question about reliable source. My opinion is that TDW can be a reliable source, you just need to pay attention to context. And there were numerous Wikipedia editors on that RfC who agree with me. There are also some who agree with you. So we're really not going to get anywhere in this conversation just trying to determine whether TDW is a reliable source or not. Opinions vary. It is also my opinion that on this specific topic when you take the context into account TDW is a reliable source. What they are saying is accurate. You are not saying it's inaccurate, Amy Siskind is not even saying it's inaccurate. It is accurate. In this instance this is a reliable source. - - Hraefen ^Talk 13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I see that you have now taken it upon yourself to just start rewriting things wholesale without giving any reason or edit summary. But you left the citation that points to TDW. So I guess then this means that you accept it as a source, but you don't like how the paragraph is worded. That's okay, totally worth debating, but you shouldn't just rewrite it with zero discussion. Your rewrite ("Siskind deleted a tweet that was mistaken.") is definitely not acceptable to me. It's not accurate and it gives the reader zero context about what actually happened. Siskind MADE UP INFORMATION. That is not a "mistake." That is fabrication. She was not MISTAKEN about the racial identity of the perpetrators, she cited no source, and she had no way of knowing that information - she MADE IT UP. You should try to rewrite it in a more comprehensive and honest way. I'll give you a day or two to try that before I take a stab at it. Let's not edit war this to death, please. - - Hraefen ^Talk 14:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist and sexist tweets

Her tweet on Dec 17, 2018: "I will not support white male candidates in the Dem primary."[3] Additionally, Amy Susskind demanded that the vlogger David Pakman, who criticized her for these tweets, is fired from his assistant professor position.[4] Yurivict (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I see this news getting some coverage in the media. Should probably be added under a "Controversies" section (other public figures have such sections on Wikipedia for smaller things and Siskind seems to be a constant re-offender). Mcrt007 (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a section dedicated to controversy should be avoided per WP:CRITS. Wikipedia is also not a place where we list all of someone's praises or criticism as it isn't a tabloid. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is an interesting issue. I agree with the general community disapproval of criticism sections, as they tend to break the narrative flow of the article, removing events from the chronological or topical context to which they should be associated. There is also, of course, the issue of perspective. A subject may say something which some people find fault with while others find it praiseworthy. As for the tweet itself, I generally favoring inclusion of everything newsworthy an article subject does. However, I recognize that we can not report every tweet and response by a public figure, particularly one whose basis of notability is tweeting. bd2412 T 22:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Her career is making Tweets so listing all of them that make the news - and there are many - would create basically a tabloid. We don't even list all of Trump's Tweets. I believe the same would go for criticism and praise of the subject. Listing what she is and what she does is fine. Also something that states she has been criticized would also be fine, but she's not a book herself so need for a cticial reception type article. I am going to pair some things back now and see how it looks. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I left the information about her supporting the MeToo movement for now. I think it is just like the rest of the line items that need to be removed so feel free to take it out if you see fit. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We the People March was just added. Wanted to make sure there was a blurb prior to someone trying to add the whole event to the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

PUMA/Republican support

There is barely any mention of the fact that she was more or less a Republican Party supporter for the better part of a decade, based largely on her anger toward the Democratic Party for nominating Obama over Clinton in 2008, which she saw as a rejection of second-wave feminism by the Democratic Party. For a long time, she has maintained a philosophy on the importance of electing women regardless of their actual political positions. It was only after 2015 that she essentially reinvented herself as a "Hashtag Resistance" Democrat. This can be source and is worth a few sentences in the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I see you added PUMA but the source doesn't support what you added. I also see no reason to change the order of the context. If you are saying it is chronological, that would not be possible as "received criticism" doesn't have a specific date to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The section in question makes no sense from eithr a subject matter or chronological point of view (just for starters, why is her pro-McCain stance in 2008 and her MeToo support from 2017 even in the same paragraph?), and reverting it was seems simply petulant, to be quite honest. I will find a better reference, but crticism of Siskind as part of the 2008 PUMA movment is very much part of the criticism for her support for McCain and Palin. In general, this article reads as largely a puff piece about Siskind and in that regard violates WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The article specifically states that "Siskind has drawn criticism from liberals for voting for John McCain over Barack Obama and for her defense of Sarah Palin", so is not a "puff piece". We need not include a laundry list of specific criticisms of a subject for the article to generally inform readers who the subject is and why they is notable. The primary source of this subject's notability appears to be her more recent activities, which should (and do) receive the most attention here. BD2412 T 16:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Assuming no sourcing exists on Siskind's earlier activities, I agree with BD2412. Inclusion of this material is fine as long as reliable sources support it (preferably from strong secondary sources). Does this material exist? Jlevi (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The closest thing is RationalWiki (which is, of course, a wiki, and therefore not a reliable source), which lists her on their "PUMA" page, but says "Amy Siskind is the founder of the website The New Agenda. Siskind is vehement that her movement is unconnected to PUMA", but lambastes her for being ambiguously connected to people who are, and for apparently sharing positions on issues. However, there is no reliable source, certainly not anything contemporaneous, that actually affiliates the subject with PUMA. It seems odd to have a neutrality tag on an article because the article does not include an apparently untrue assertion, for which no source can be found. BD2412 T 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, this article plays down Siskind's Republican background as incidental, when in fact that's what Siskind was primarily known for until she reinvented herself as a leading figure in "hashtag #Resistance" sometime around 2016. The odd claim that "The primary source of this subject's notability appears to be her more recent activities, which should (and do) receive the most attention here" smacks of WP:PRESENTISM.

There is also the fact that she's not only received criticism for her previous support for Palin, but more recently, her authenticity as a figure in "#Resistance" has been criticized as well. This is not only mentioned in the Sales article that's cited for the single sentence about her Republican background, but this article as well concerning the cancellation of one of her Seattle appearances based on these concerns. [5] So, yes, this content needs to be included in a balanced way. Playing down this topic leads to article bias.

I once again raise the problem that the section "The New Agenda and political activism" has organizational issues, and jumps back and forth in both chronology and subject matter. The fact that my attempts to improve the organizational structure of that section was met with across-the-board reverstion smacks of WP:OWN issues. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)