Talk:Donald G. McNeil Jr.

Untitled

May I ask that two changes be made to this page:

1. I don't know who wrote the original entry about me, but I see that the way my name is written as the title has been changed repeatedly, for reasons I don't understand. My full name is Donald Gerard McNeil Jr. I write under the byline Donald G. McNeil Jr. I always use the middle initial. I'd prefer that my name appeared as Donald G. McNeil Jr atop the page, but in any case, I don't use just "Donald McNeil Jr."

2. I would appreciate it if an editor would add a sentence saying something like: In 2012, during contract talks between the Times and the Newspaper Guild, he helped lead walkouts by journalists. The best reference is here: <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/donald-mcneil-new-york-times-contract_n_1950887.html (Reason: I think it's relevant to a biographical item, but it's certainly not going to be allowed on my NYT Times Topics page.)

3. The reference to my appearance in the documentary "Fire In the Blood" is correct, not vandalism. I added it myself before realizing that Wikipedia preferred that insertions be done by request, as I am doing here.

Thanks, —InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Donald G. McNeil Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldgmcneiljr (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Donald McNeil, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110108163619/http://www.rfkcenter.org/node/108 to http://www.rfkcenter.org/node/108

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald McNeil Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526072923/http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6118 to http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6118

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Challenge of edit

For reasons I don't understand, part of the edit I made is being called WP:UNDUE, a policy about neutrality. Explaining to the reader the purpose of NcNeil's trip does not alter the neutrality of the article, it gives the reader useful information. The trip was sponsored by the Times for educational purposes, that's important because NcNeil was representing his employer and not just on vacation. Why wouldn't you want the reader to know this, or that the Times conducted an investigation or that they apologized to the students on the trip? I do not understand @Sdkb:'s objection, so please explain.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

My objection is that, per WP:DUE, WP:CRITSECTION, etc., we shouldn't have such a large portion of McNeil's article be about this incident, when what he's primarily known for is his health reporting, not this incident. It should certainly be mentioned, but per WP:SUMMARY/WP:NOTNEWS/etc., we don't have to give every detail. I think even the current version is too long, and would only be appropriate if the rest of the article were much more substantial. If we can find a way to phrase it more concisely than we currently do and still mention that it was a Times-affiliated trip, fine, but I won't be sweating it if readers have to click through to the source to get that information. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The section really isn't all that long, its just a short article. Rather than delete useful information, why not expand the part of the article about his reporting?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thought. Instead of deleting supposedly negative information, I think the Wikipedia guidelines would recommend adding more balancing information. I think the fact that it was a Times-sponsored trip, and that the purpose of the trip was for the students to learn about community-based healthcare in Peru, is significant. It wasn't a pleasure cruise; it was a serious health policy investigation.

And we don't even know exactly why McNeil was fired. What did he say? This could be another Laurie Sheck case [1] (BTW, after being cleared of the original complaint, Sheck wasn't rehired for the next semester.) --Nbauman (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

More background on COVID-19 reporting

I think that the section on Career should be filled out in more detail -- he was one of the major reporters covering COVID-19, and he was the one assigned to interview Fauci after the end of the Trump presidency. Talk about WP:WEIGHT. Here's a good summary from the Daily Beast, which is more WP:NPOV than this Wikipedia entry, and would serve as one good source.

A longtime reporter at the Times, McNeil has won numerous awards for his hard-hitting and incisive reporting on infectious diseases, including his coverage of the Zika and Ebola outbreaks, along with the AIDS crisis and has served as a foreign correspondent reporting from Africa and Europe.

Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, McNeil has emerged as one of the paper’s breakout stars and one of the country’s most prominent journalistic voices on the pandemic. While many Americans were still seemingly unconcerned about the virus in early 2020, McNeil’s reporting and a key appearance on the popular Times podcast The Daily emphasized its severity and potential to become a deadly global pandemic. Earlier this week, the Times published a candid sit down with Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who opened up to McNeil about his difficult relationship with former President Donald Trump.

--Nbauman (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

For another good source, use the Google search "site:cjr.org donald mcneil" or <a href=”http://www.google.com/search?q=site:CJR.org+Donald+McNeil"> For example:

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/best-journalism-2020-pandemic-covid-19.php

LOOKING AHEAD

The Coronavirus in America: The Year Ahead

By Donald G. McNeil, Jr.

From the early days of the outbreak, McNeil Jr.’s prescient stories for The New York Times demystified and narrativized a virus that, to this day, continues to evade grasp. In a time of frenetic news cycles, such clear and careful writing served as a much-needed antidote to protracted uncertainty. (McNeil, Jr.’s recent story, about the toll covid-19 may yet take even as vaccinations and an administration change draw near, is another sobering account of what lies ahead of us.)

--Nbauman (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also Washington Post story added the following (which CJR also quoted):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/01/28/donald-mcneil-new-york-times-controversy/

New York Times’s star coronavirus reporter was disciplined for ‘repeating a racist slur’ to students

Jeremy Barr

Washington Post

Jan. 28, 2021

McNeil sounded defiant when reached for comment by The Post on Thursday afternoon. “Don’t believe everything you read,” he said in an email, with no further elaboration.

--Nbauman (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In summary: If you read those CJR articles, and follow their sources, you'll get a history of the reporting on COVID-19 -- and the reporting that warned us about emerging infectious diseases, as far back as 2009. You'll get an authoritative explanation of how science journalism works, and how it fails. You'll see that as reflected in the work of one of the most-praised journalists writing on the topic. And these are all WP:RS that you can incorporate into a WP article. --Nbauman (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Christiane Amanpour interview controversy

Here are a couple of the many stories about McNeill's controversial interview with Christiane Anapour.

Summarizing the WP:RS: McNeil was a journalist who understood the science, and had interviewed the world's top scientists. He saw that the deaths had passed 80,000, were increasing exponentially, and the national leaders in charge of the epidemic -- Trump, Pence, Redfield, and the governors -- were incompetent and leading us to more deaths. He felt that this was a crisis, and he had an obligation as a journalist to name names and tell it as he saw it. The New York Times admonished him because he "went too far in expressing his personal views."

CJR gives a good summary, and Froomkin gives some good insights.

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/experts-weigh-in-on-facebooks-new-oversight-board.php
Experts weigh in on Facebook’s new Oversight Board
By Mathew Ingram
Columbia Journalism Review
MAY 14, 2020

New York Times health reporter Donald McNeil was admonished by his employer for comments he made about the Centers for Disease Control during an interview with Christiane Amanpour, but media critic Dan Froomkin says McNeil “deserves accolades, not a scolding.” McNeil said the CDC was a great agency but that director Robert Redfield should resign, and the Times released a statement saying McNeil “went too far in expressing his personal views. His editors have discussed the issue with him to reiterate that his job is to report the facts and not to offer his own opinions.” Froomkin said McNeil “did exactly what more journalists desperately need to be doing right now.”

https://presswatchers.org/2020/05/new-york-times-health-reporter-donald-mcneil-is-a-hero-and-a-role-model/
New York Times health reporter Donald McNeil deserves accolades, not a scolding
By Dan Froomkin
May 13, 2020

McNeil didn’t mince words. He didn’t attribute his own informed views to sources. He didn’t engage in both-sides-ism.

In my view, he did exactly what more journalists desperately need to be doing right now. This is no time for complacency in news coverage. Journalists should use every opportunity at their disposal to sound the alarm about the extraordinary threat to the nation posed by the federal government’s continued failure to effectively respond to the coronavirus pandemic.

Has the New York Times commended him? Quite the opposite: The paper’s management publicly scolded McNeil for what he’s done.

--Nbauman (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are current, working links to the video and transcript.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/05/12/amanpour-donald-g-mcneil-jr-coronavirus.cnn

McNeil: Senate hearing was 'terrifying'

CNN

Christiane speaks with New York Times health and science reporter Donald G. McNeil, Jr. about Anthony Fauci's Senate appearance and the U.S. response to coronavirus.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2005/12/ampr.02.html

Transcripts

Aired May 12, 2020

CNN'S AMANPOUR

Medical Data Reporting in Age of Coronavirus; Anthony Fauci Testifies Before Senate; Opening Too Quickly Faces Serious Consequences; Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL), is Interviewed About Reopening of U.S. Economy; Lifting Travel Ban on Iceland; Interview With Icelandic Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir.

--Nbauman (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Science Journalism’s Crystal Ball

Here's a story in CJR that explains how science journalists are the first to make sense of confusing medical stories, and to separate facts from pseudoscience -- using McNeil as an example.

https://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/science_journalisms_crystal_ba.php
Science Journalism’s Crystal Ball
By Cristine Russell
Columbia Journalism Review
MAY 7, 2009

In covering a crisis, it is crucial to quickly separate reliable information from speculation and hype—or, in the case of the fast-moving swine flu story, an epidemic from a pandemic. It’s easier, of course, if you have strong science and medical reporters on board.

From the first days of this latest public health emergency, the specialty reporters were often the ones who helped inform the frightened public about the emerging details of the story, the potential risks of the novel influenza A(H1N1) virus, the potential for a pandemic, and what individuals could do to protect themselves. Experienced health and medical reporters often provided the best perspective in front-page stories, as well as the 24/7 online updates and backgrounders that went behind the news.

At The New York Times ... Veteran reporters like Donald G. McNeil Jr., a truly global science and health reporter “specializing in plagues and pestilences”...

--Nbauman (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the context of the slur

CNN story linked to a Twitter thread, which gives the details. There are WP:RS issues here. The CNN story is a WP:RS, but the Twitter thread, which answers many of the questions, may not be. I expect that it will soon appear in a WP:RS.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/05/media/andy-mills-donald-mcneil-new-york-times/index.html
New York Times parts way with two journalists over separate controversies
By Kerry Flynn
CNN Business
Feb. 5, 2021

McNeil admitted to using a racial slur in a note to staff on Friday. He wrote that he used a racial slur in conversation with a student who asked about whether a classmate or hers should have used the word.

https://twitter.com/marcatracy/status/1357806202277797889
marc tracy @marcatracy
Donald McNeil has left the company, say Dean and Joe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtflijNWQAQcUeG?format=png&name=4096x4096

On a 2019 New York Times trip to Peru for high school students, I was asked at dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur.

To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself.

I should not have done that. Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended.

I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinary bad judgment. For that I apologize.

... Donald G. McNeil Jr.

--Nbauman (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a WP:RS for the Twitter thread.

https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-jr-ousted-after-using-n-word-with-students/

NY Times Reporter Donald McNeil Jr Ousted After Using N-Word With Students

The paper said last week it had “disciplined” the veteran science reporter over 2019 interactions with high school students

J. Clara Chan

February 5, 2021

“I was asked at a dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself,” McNeil said in his note to the staff. “I should not have done that. Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinarily bad judgment. For that I apologize.”

--Nbauman (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Awards with black journalists

I noticed in the Awards section that McNeil got two awards for stories in which he shared the byline with black journalists -- Rachel Swarns and Celia W. Dugger. One award was from the National Association of Black Journalists.

This reflects a common pattern in which a senior, more established journalist will team up with a younger journalist to help her advance her career. It was probably easier for these younger journalists to get the award with McNeil's name on the application.

So what I see here is a white reporter who is using his position to help black reporters get ahead.

This puts the episode in Peru in a different context. He wasn't insensitively and gratuitously using racist language. He was responding to a question from a student about racial language -- trying to help her and the other students figure out how to handle racist language.

The purpose of the discussion was to help black students advance in journalism, just as he's helped other black journalists advance in journalism. Instead, his words were used out of context (by Times staff) to blame him for an offense that isn't clear. So he was fired for helping black students get more opportunities.

At least, that's one interpretation. I think we should give the facts that make the reader aware of that possibility. --Nbauman (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to say this without a lot of OR, to be completely honest. In the absence of sources that actual say this (I presume it's easy to source your first two sentences--it's everything else I refer to), I'm do not see how this follows WP:V. I also think your final conclusion ("he was fired for helping black students get more opportunities") is completely at odds with the descriptions and quotes in the Daily Beast report. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft lead

I wrote a draft lead for the story. I started with the original lead, and expanded it mostly from Columbia Journalism Review, other journalism critics, and the links in the article. Everything in this lead, including the decision on which particular topics to emphasize, is based on what I read in WP:RS. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; this lead is actually an outline of what the article would look like when we get finished. I (and hopefully others) would fill in the rest of the article following the lead.

Notice that this lead tells a story -- with a beginning, a middle and an end. McNeil started on the Times in 1976, he was one of the first to recognize the importance of emerging infectious diseases, he was one of the few journalists who could understand the science and explain it, he told the truth as he saw it even when it was controversial and unpopular, and the Times fired him at the end for reasons that are also controversial.

I used Carl Zimmer as a model.

I would appreciate any response, keeping WP:MOS, MOS:BLP, and MOS:OPENPARABIO in mind.

What are the most important points to make in the article -- based on what the WP:RSs are saying?

I think the central point the WP:RSs repeat is that McNeil understood the science, explained it, recognized the danger when others didn't, and was willing to warn the country even though it was controversial and unpopular. When he warned Amanpour on 12 May that the epidemic was out of control, and we urgently needed testing and masks, there were 85,000 deaths. Now there are 460,000 deaths (equal to WWII). If you understood the science, McNeil's reporting was terrifying. And he was right.

Donald Gerard McNeil Jr.

Donald Gerard McNeil Jr. (born February 1, 1954) is an American journalist, who spent most of his career at the New York Times, starting in 1976, covering science, most prominently COVID-19.

The Columbia Journalism Review called him one of a small group of science and health reporters who recognized early on the significance of emerging infectious diseases, such as influenza A(H1N1) virus, Zika, Ebola, and HIV/AIDS, and who became one of the "most prominent journalistic voices" on COVID-19. He was praised for his ability to understand complicated science and explain it to the general public, and for telling unpleasant, controversial truths. In a May 2020 TV interview, he warned of the U.S.'s failure to control the COVID-19 epidemic, saying, "it's the President's fault. It is not China's fault," and blamed Trump Administration officials by name, for which he was admonished by the Times for expressing his personal views. After President Donald Trump left office, McNeil interviewed Anthony Fauci about his difficult relationship with Trump.

In 2012, during contract talks between the Times and the Newspaper Guild, he helped lead walkouts by journalists. In 2021, he was asked to leave the Times because of his answers to a high school student's question about the use of racial epithets. (200 words, 1300 characters)

--Nbauman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would note just before anything else that per MOS:LEADNO material of this detail generally should be written into the body of the article first. Once there, we can summarize and fill the lead, etc. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Make lede more specific

The lede states: “He left The New York Times in 2021 following public reports of making racist and sexist remarks during a 2019 trip to Peru with high school students.” While the Daily Beast article that broke the story referred to “racist and sexist remarks,” neither that article nor any of the follow-up coverage described any specific sexist remarks. With respect to racist remarks, he is alleged to have said (and has not denied saying) that he did not “believe in white privilege.” Also he was accused of being disrespectful to Black students, but no specific incidents were described. The heart of the accusation, the focus of the Times staff letter, and the headline of all the coverage was about his use of the N-word. Our lede should be clear about that: “He left The New York Times in 2021 following public reports of using the N-word during a 2019 trip to Peru with high school students.” 100.40.76.131 (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey 100., while I don't mind being more specific, "using the N-word" is likely too specific, since that does not appear (see, e.g., the VF piece) to be the only reason he left. I have no preference either way on including the language "using the N-word" in the lede, but it is better to first start with a broader description of his behavior. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Baquet backtracks on "racist language"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/11/nyt-standard-racist-language-donald-mcneil/
Opinion: New York Times bails on intent-neutral standard when discussing epithets
Opinion by Erik Wemple
Washington Post
Feb. 11, 2021
New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet on Thursday rolled back a controversial standard regarding the use of racial epithets at the newspaper. In a staff meeting, Baquet retracted the guidance that the paper does not “tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” He explained that the memo with the standard was written on “deadline” and that critics “rightly saw this as a threat to our journalism,” said sources present at the meeting.

Context for the reversal comes from the high-profile departure Friday of longtime science reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. A story last month in the Daily Beast reported that McNeil had drawn a number of complaints stemming from a Times-sponsored educational trip to Peru with students in 2019. One of them pertained to McNeil’s use of the n-word at a dinner during a discussion of racist language. In a memo apprising staffers of McNeil’s resignation, Baquet and Times Managing Editor Joe Kahn included the intent-neutral standard quoted above. --Nbauman (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of the n-word

The article uses the actual word rather than the term 'n-word'. Can the person that typed that edit confirm their racial identity? We need to ensure they're not white. Thx. 2A00:23C5:421C:5F00:383C:E3FF:5C4C:D445 (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That is standard Wikipedia practice per WP:BOWDLERIZE. The article is written in Wikipedias voice, not the voice of any specific editor. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That link states editors shouldn't write N*****, not that they shouldn't write N-Word. The article was typed by a person, if that person happens to be white and they write the actual word instead of the N-Word, then that is racism. It's ironic editors here don't understand that giving the context here in which it's being written! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:421C:5F00:383C:E3FF:5C4C:D445 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a thoroughly bizarre and unworkable idea to judge the encyclopedic content by trying to find out the skin color of the editor who wrote it. St.nerol (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this comment was intended as satire. 100.40.76.131 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of recent edits

I've been reverting a lot of additions on this page in the last 24 hours, so I want to invite other opinions. Yesterday McNeil posted an extensive essay on Medium explaining his side of the story. Since then some IPs/newer editors have been trying to argue that the DB is a tabloid and inserting this "quotation" defense of his comments. I think the lede should be as stripped down as possible (I would even remove the "including use of..." clause as unnecessary specificity) but I generally think the current lede is fairly balanced and representative of the content in the body. I also added a line about his essay into the body, but I don't know how much more weight to give that, as it's obviously just his retelling. If anyone has thoughts, I'm all ears--I don't have a ton of experience with WP:BLP. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok so in this edit, "racist" becomes "racially offensive", the "in quotation" defense is added back, DB becomes a "tabloid", a sourced line about McNeil "negotiat[ing] his resignation" is removed, and the complaints about McNeil's workplace conduct (sourced to both the VF piece and also mentioned in McNeil's own essay) become "unverified". I think this is pretty clear POV-pushing. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Heron Son of Periander tagging you in case you haven't seen this. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This statement from the lede appears to me to be false: He resigned under pressure from The New York Times in 2021 following public reports of making racially offensive remarks. What was reported was that high-school students accused him of making what they considered racially offensive remarks. As far as I'm aware, there are no reliable sources reporting that he actually made such remarks. It must be clear in the lede that these are unverified accusations, it must be clear who made them, and it must be clear that McNeil has responded to the accusations in detail. But as it is, the lede appears to me to simply make a false claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(First quick point--I just removed the word "public" per your suggestion, as the reports from the students are not public.) When you say "such remarks" I'm not fully sure which remarks you're referring to. If you mean the n-word itself, then he obviously admits that he used it in the context of a certain conversation, etc. If you mean "racially offensive remarks", then the NYT has said that themselves. And this assumes that the DB is unreliable, which is a whole separate question. Am I misunderstanding you? Alyo (chat·edits) 23:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

McNeil disputes the claim that he made racially offensive remarks. When you say that the NYT has said that themselves, what exactly have they said, and can you quote it? I don't see where in the linked article the NY Times reports that McNeil made racially offensive remarks. The article is admittedly a bit confusing, as the Times is reporting on itself, and quotes itself as if it were quoting a third party. That being said, more generally, I'd view the NY Times as a party to this dispute. Their claims may merit inclusion, with clear in-line attribution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So in that "email to Times staff" Dean Baquet says that McNeil "made offensive remarks". That's part of the sourcing on the DB piece then saying "racist comments". I understand if that is not enough under BLP to say "he made racially offensive remarks" in WP's voice, but I suppose I don't understand how "reports of making racially offensive remarks" would be incorrect given the coverage? (To be clear, I think the rewrite you did is perfectly fine, I'm just trying to understand how to apply BLP.) Alyo (chat·edits) 23:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dean Baquet claiming something in an email to staff is not the same as the NY Times reporting something. Dean Baquet's claim in his email is just that - a claim made by an individual, which may be correct or incorrect. But beyond that, even if the Times were to report that McNeil had made offensive remarks, I would still attribute that claim as an opinion, because the Times is heavily involved in this story. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The Times is generally reliable in questions of fact, but this is a case where the giant conflict of interest they have mean we should probably avoid taking their statements at face value. I think it should be included in the article, just not treated as conclusive. Heron Son of Periander (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Request by subject of page for addition of Pulitzer Prize

Hello -- I'm Donald G. McNeil Jr., the subject of this page.

I am writing to request that Wikipedia add a reference to my role in The New York Times winning the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service on 11 June 2021.

The Pulitzer board's description of the "Winning Work" of The New York Times is here: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/new-york-times-6

(Background: in applying for the public service medal, a press organization can submit up to 15 articles or their equivalents. If you look at the list of 15 submissions, two of them are by me: The Feb. 2 entry "Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say" and the Feb. 27 entry "The Daily: The Coronavirus Goes Global". No other one-byline articles were submitted.)

In its June 11 article by Katie Robertson covering the prizes, the Times itself acknowledged that I had a role in their win: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/business/media/pulitzer-prizes.html

(See paragraph 16. Also see the comments by readers, some of which are about me. All comments on Times articles are moderated by Times employees before posting.)

In its analysis of the 2021 Pulitzers, poynter.org, which covers media issues, also described my role: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/a-special-poynter-report-looking-at-this-years-pulitzer-prizes/

Dean Baquet mentioned my role in his remarks at the ceremony: https://www.nytco.com/press/2021-pulitzer-prize-remarks-from-dean-baquet/

Celia Dugger, the science news editor and my former boss, also mentioned my role in her remarks at the ceremony: https://timesevents.nytimes.com/2021celebration. (see at minute 35) (I'm not sure how long this link will be live)

Fox News also wrote an article about what the Times did to make sure that it did not lose a Pulitzer because of the controversy surrounding me: https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-donald-mcneil-jr-pulitzer-prize

(Background: on June 11, I got requests for comment on the Pulitzer win from Katie Robertson at the Times, Erik Wemple at the WashPost and Brian Flood of Fox. I sent all three of them the same statement. Brian Flood wrote a whole story based on it. Erik Wemple did nothing with it. Because I said in my statement that "even as it celebrates my work, the Times is again libeling me," Katie Robertson told me she would consult an editor. About two hours later, the way she referred to me in her article was changed. Her original wording was "McNeil...left the newspaper earlier this year after he was criticized for using a racial slur while taking part in a Times-sponsored student trip to Peru in 2019." It was changed to: "McNeil... left the newspaper earlier this year after he was criticized for repeating a racial slur during a discussion of the word while he was taking part in a Times-sponsored student trip to Peru in 2019."

Thanks very much.

Donaldgmcneiljr (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Donald G McNeil Jr.

MelanieN I see you've already left a comment at nMcNeil's talk page, but I'm inclined to add something based in particular on the Poynter piece. Thoughts? Alyo (chat·edits) 15:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alyo and Donaldgmcneiljr: We already have a lot in the article praising his coverage of Covid, such as this: His early coverage and acclaimed writing made him one of the prominent journalists covering COVID-19.[11][10][12] But the Pulitzer committee did not choose to single him out by name, so we can't say he won a Pulitzer. But yes, he was certainly part of the team that contributed to the NYT's Pulitzer on the subject. So how about this: we could say something like "He was the author of two of the fifteen articles that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the Times." The sources could be the mention by the Times [2] and the particular call-out by Poynter [3]. However, we cannot list the Pulitzer under awards he has won. And we shouldn't include any coverage of what he himself, or the Times, said about the award that connects it to the controversy or the resignation. Let the award mention stand alone. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Added. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Source

I removed the following source from External links per WP:ELNO #1. I leave it here for potential future article development. The bibliographic data is somewhat ambiguous, undated, but appears to be an alumni magazine of Convent & Stuart Hall. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Donald G. McNeil Jr. SHB '67: Crusading Journalist, Safari Ranger, Bungee Jumper. The Bulletin (date undetermined). p. 56

Thank you for making this note, this is the sort of source that most likely is not appropriate for a WP:BLP but might be at some point when this is no longer a BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: what McNeil has been doing since 2021. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)