Talk:Jen O'Malley Dillon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critical Reception[edit]

Jen O'Malley Dillon gave an interview for Glamour Magazine (2020) discussing the Biden campaign, motherhood, and politics. Opposition party members, especially Mitch McConnell did not appreciate one of her comments:"You think you can work with Republicans? I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of fuckers. Mitch McConnell is terrible." However Kate Bedingfield, designated to become White House Communications Director in the Biden administration, has come to her defense via twitter.[1] 77.170.179.207 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-spokeswoman-defends-incoming-deputy-chief-of-staff-s-spicy-language-in-glamour-interview/ar-BB1bZm6t?c=11419836265968585248%3fmkt%2c16705612570450310589&mkt=en-us

NPOV[edit]

KidAd, putting aside your nonsensical claim that Fox News is not reliable, please explained to me how an edit adding a widely-reported quote is something that should be removed from the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My "nonsensical claim" that Fox News is not reliable is supported by WP:RSP, which states There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science and There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Your inclusion of a "widely-reported" quote violates WP:NPOV because it was not written neutrally. You and several newly-created IPs insisted on edit-warring material that clearly violated WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE. Before the page was protected, I believe the wording was While praising Biden’s calls for “unity,” she has stated that Republicans are “a bunch of fuckers.” That certainly qualifies as WP:SYNTH, as the quote is already being manipulated. The full quote reads: I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of f---ers. Mitch McConnell is terrible...But this sense that you couldn't wish for that, you couldn't wish for this bipartisan ideal? [Biden] rejected that" and "set out with this idea that unity was possible. KidAd talk 17:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, to synthesize is to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources directly state that she was praising Biden's calls for unity at the same time that she called Republicans "a bunch of fuckers." Her making that comment while also praising Biden's calls for unity both took place in the quote that you provided. I'm fine with including the full quote for context, but there's nothinig wrong with the content that was added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: Just because something verifiably happened doesn't mean it needs to be included in a Wikipedia article. This is part of what WP:NPOV is about. Is it critically important to include the "bunch of fuckers" quote in the article? Does that quote coincide with a critical turning point in her career? Did that quote have a significant effect on the Biden campaign? Was that quote widely reported on, because of the significant role it played in American politics? Or, was it simply reported in a bunch of clickbait articles because it included the shock word "fuckers"? In other words, is it worth including in the article because it's an important and significant quote, or are you simply trying to include it to paint her as a bad person who uses naughty words? I really don't think it's terribly surprising to learn that most Democratic politicians have negative opinions about most Republican politicians, and vice versa. The specific words that politicians choose to describe their political opponents aren't particularly enlightening, in my opinion, even if they include naughty words.
There are even sources that point out that this is a non-event being intentionally blown out of proportion: see here. This "fuckers" quote can very easily be pulled out of context to imply that Dillon hates Republicans and is unwilling or unable to work with them in a bipartisan way, when in fact, the very point she was trying to make is that Biden (and his administration) specifically intend to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, Wikipedia includes content that is widely reported on in reliable sources. Editors' personal opinions about the noteworthiness of content are secondary to that content's coverage in reliable sources. Dillon's statement has been covered in Politico, The Washington Post, Fox News, Newsweek, and The Hill, to name some. While the quote had no effect on the Biden campaign, it may have an impact on Biden's ability to work with Republicans. It may indeed prove a turning point in Dillon's career. I venture to say that many people have only heard of her because of ths quote. While it is not surprising that a Democratic politician would have a critical view of Republicans, it is noteworthy that one might describe them with such language while simultaneously calling for unity and bipartisanship. As for sources which say that the quote has been pulled out of proportion, there are also many which see it as significant.
Your suggestion that I am trying to include it to "paint her as a bad person" is a violation of WP:AGF. But because it has been made, I feel it is fair to question your own motivations. Wikipedia's articles on prominent Republican politicians read like hit pieces. They routinely take things that they have said and label them as false, or include material which would portray them as hypocrites. I do not see any reason that you would have for opposing the inclusion of this material other than that it would reflect badly on a Democrat for a change. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've made an assumption of bad faith, especially in light of the fact that you've just explicitly stated that you believe Wikipedia treats right-wing politicians unfairly, and you intend to right those wrongs by editing articles to ensure that left-wing politicians look equally bad too (which is what your recent edits to the article quite clearly appear to do). Despite what you might think, I don't have any skin in the game here. I don't hang out at political articles, or even edit them much at all. I found this article because of a protection request due to disruptive editing. I'm simply stating how things look to a neutral observer. Whether or not this quote "may have an impact on Biden's ability to work with Republicans" in the future is WP:CRYSTAL. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New content cannot be rejected on the basis that there is a possibility that it may not affect a certain thing in the future. As I've said already, many people probably only know of Dillon from this comment. Its exclusion from the article is a clear case of political partisanship. I think you know that. You just don't care. Display name 99 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find a reliable source that says that Dillon's favorite color is purple and she has a dog named Spot, it wouldn't be relevant to add those sourced facts to the article unless there was some way to demonstrate that her favorite color or her dog's name has some significant bearing on her life or her career. Similarly, there are probably millions of words of quotes from Dillon that could be attributed to reliable sources, but I see no reason why this is the one quote that absolutely has to be included, without which the article would be incomplete. If it becomes apparent that this quote incident is (or becomes) significant for some reason, then it should be added. Until then, we can't simply say that it might become significant in the future, or that many people probably know Dillon from this comment. This is all conjecture; these are just your personal opinions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, if Donald Trump or some other Republican had called Democrats "a bunch of fuckers," do you think that there'd be any discussion about whether or not that comment should go in their biography? Anyhow, see the RfC below. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: You need to put aside your crusade to even the score between Democrats and Republicans on Wikipedia. That's not what we're here for. We're here to write neutral articles about notable topics. And when it comes to biographies of living people, we need to be especially careful about what we include, because what we write can impact the subject's life in a profound way. You clearly have right-wing political views, and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you can't put your personal views aside and write neutrally about a topic, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you should be editing articles on such topics at all. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, Wikipedia editors on political articles are not here to write neutral articles. That's the only explanation for heavily critical articles on conservatives and opposition for the inclusion of a well-covered comment by a Democrat that simply happens to make that Democrat look bad. Display name 99 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99 You've just made a massive assumption of bad faith about every editor who edits political articles, which is a lot of editors. While this conspiracy theory that all WP editors are secretly pushing left-wing views might be the only possible explanation that you can conceive of, that doesn't mean it's the only possible explanation. Have you considered whether your own personal bias is skewing your perception of what is "fair" coverage of politicians that you support and politicians that you don't support? Could you ever see yourself adding positive content to a Democratic politician's article? Could you ever see yourself adding negative content to a Republican politician's article? If the answer to both of those questions is "no", then I think you have some soul-searching to do regarding why you contribute to WP at all. WP is not a partisan place, and does not tolerate editors with a battleground mentality. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read any article on an elected Republican and it should be clear that Wikipedia is a partisan place. Display name 99 (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read many, and I don't agree. Even if it were true, your attitude is likely to make Wikipedia a more partisan place, not less. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Should the article include Jen O'Malley Dillon's recent comment about Republicans as written here, or in some other form? Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes-Of course this comment should be included in the article. Dillon's statement has been widely reported on in reliable sources and has received more coverage than anything else she has ever said or perhaps even done. It is clearly relevant to how she is perceived. If a Republican had said something like this about Democrats, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The content previously included in the article was in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE. KidAd talk 01:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I don't think that it has been demonstrated that this particular quote has had a significant effect on Dillon's life, Dillon's career, or the Biden campaign, or the Biden administration. The quote is getting some tabloid press in recent days because it's an easy quote to exploit and blow out of proportion to make someone look bad. In the grand scheme of things, this quote will almost certainly be forgotten in a week or two, and will have no substantive effect on anything. If it turns out that is does eventually have some kind of substantive effect (i.e. if she loses her job because of it, or if becomes part of some kind of larger scandal), then it absolutely must be included in the article. At the moment, this is simply run-of-the-mill clickbait news. I don't agree that we should add this quote to a BLP before it has been demonstrated to be a significant or pivotal quote (especially in the out-of-context and non-neutral way it was added with seemingly sarcastic quotes around "unity"). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as written. I'm on the fence about whether the "fuckers" comment merits inclusion or should be omitted as insufficiently noteworthy. If it's included, however, then it certainly shouldn't be as proposed. There shouldn't be scare quotes around "unity," and more importantly, it fails verification, as none of the cited sources include any criticism of Dillon's comment. Overall it comes off as pretty non-neutral wording. R2 (bleep) 06:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, changes can be made or not I believe the clear issue here as seen in the thread with Scottywong, is some cannot acknowledge that a vast majority of the country has only heard Jen O Malley Dillon's name in this exact context, thereby omitting this would cause those who look on her wikipedia to see that it is effectively censored or at a minimum biased as to what to include. Furthermore the main stream press has reported on this as previously discussed, and the idea that this is not relevant as its simply some naughty language is ridiculous. Any politician using foul language, especially in reference to a large group of people, gets air time and the sentiment reflects on them and their affiliates often long into the future. I understand why you don't want to include it but then it is correct that bias/censorship/politically selective inclusion is at work here. If you want to reword things be my guest(I wrote it) but omission is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.179.207 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply stating that the "vast majority of the country has only heard Jen O Malley Dillon's name in this exact context" doesn't make it true. In my opinion, it's far more likely that the country has heard of her because she's been tapped to be a top aide in the next presidential administration. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, but I never heard of her before this happened. Simply assuming that the vast majority of people who have heard of her have done so because they are intimately connected with who Joe Biden's aides are does not make it true. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal experience with Dillon has no bearing on anyone else's experience. Just because you came to hear about her because of this quote doesn't mean that the "vast majority of the country" did so as well. Does this really need to be explained to you? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud she was Biden's campaign manager. She's been the political news all year. R2 (bleep) 01:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, you seem to have missed the part where I said "I can only speak for myself." For both of you, I think that this statement has received more press coverage than anything that Dillon ever said or did while she was his campaign manager. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with changes-- Firstly, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so the fact that the edit included profanity shouldn't necessarily be removed just because it included profanity. Secondly, even though OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a not a spectacular argument, we have an entire sub-section dedicated to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "verbal assault" after a Republican called her a "fucking bitch." In a matter that received a similar amount of coverage to this incident, Rashida Tlaib's "impeach the motherfucker" statement is neutrally-written in her article. It's difficult to argue that those two statement had much impact on those representative's careers, but, nevertheless, it's still included in their articles. Thirdly, for UNDUE/DUE concerns, if, say, Dillion made that statement a couple of years ago, and the statement was only recently uncovered, then there would be a solid argument that including such a statement would be UNDUE. However, as established by RSs, [1] a major message/mission of the Biden campaign was, indeed, re-establishing "unity" between Republicans & Democrats. As stated in the cited Axios article: "Biden campaigned for the presidency by promising to "restore the soul of America" and not to question the motives of political opponents, whom he insists aren't enemies. Fighting words from a high-level staffer could give Republicans ammunition to cast doubt on Biden's sincerity." The article also notes that Dillion's comments has created some division within the Biden campaign. In essence, Dillion's comment contradicted one of the main goals of the Biden campaign, so the comment is clearly DUE for inclusion (in one way or another). Fourthly, the proposed text is a bit too SYNTH-y, and there are some MOS:WEASEL concerns. The text should be something along the lines of: "In an interview with Glamour Magazine, O'Malley Dillion referred to Republican lawmakers as "a bunch of fuckers," however she praised President-Elect Biden for his ability to create a sense of unity." Fifthly, I strongly urge the OP to cease with the bad-faith arguments and accusations. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:NOTNEWS and possibly WP:NOTGOSSIP. It is clearly in the vested interests of certain media outlets to make as much hay as possible about this but there is a fundamental difference between a relatively-obscure staff member venting and consistent and repeated attacks against sitting officials, as in the AOC and Tlaib cases. WP:OTHERSTUFF means the those false equivalencies do not need to be catered to, anyway. This "incident" (which already gives it too much importance) has already faded from the 24-hour news cycle mere days later and the likelihood that it will have any lasting impact on the article subject or anything else is minimal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many media sources have an interest in making hay out of certain events. That doesn't mean that they can't be included as long as the writing is neutral. If she's an obscure staff member, when something that she says or does gets a lot of attention, that's all the more reason to include it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. That's not what WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP mean. "A lot of attention" is not a part of any inclusion standard and even if something gets a lot of attention there can be good reasons to exclude it. As in this case, information that tends to reflect non-neutrally on a BLP subject and is unlikely to have lasting impact is not neutral even if neutrally sourced. Even unimpeachable sourcing does not guarantee inclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's not how these polcies work. The stories surrounding Dillon's statement do not constitute what for her would be "routine news reports," which is the language that is used in the second section of the NOTNEWS policy. A routine news report about Dillon would be her feedback about Biden's perfromance at a debate or a comment about what her role will be in a Biden administration. Comments such as these which are repeated in news sources with little to no commentary about the quotes, and which do not garner any major attention by themselves, should not be mentioned. By contrast, statements which are controversial, and where articles are written about the statements themselves rather than what the statements were about, which is the case here, not always but very often or usually do merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I can find nothing in the NOTGOSSIP policy which applies here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with more neutral phrasing - Clearly verifiable. Not sure why we wouldn't include it. User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's proposed wording looks decent. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with better wording. I think this discussion would benefit from less crying out loud and more calm presentation of reliable secondary sources. The New Republic is good for analysis of why the claim was criticized, while this The Hill article covers Rubio and AOC's responses. The Independent, Fox News and The Hill (2) provide more evidence of due weight being met. Content should be kept short and to the point but yes, this comment received coverage which contrasted it with Biden's "unity" message and that's due information. — Bilorv (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternative wording[edit]

KidAd, Scottywong, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Ahrtoodeetoo, Eggishorn, NickCT, and Bilorv, I think that the results of this RfC lean towards inclusion of the material with adjusted language. I propose something like this:

Dillon garnered attention for a comment that she made in December regarding Biden’s advocacy of bipartisanship. "In the primary, people would mock him, like, ‘You think you can work with Republicans?’” she said. “I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of fuckers. Mitch McConnell is terrible. But this sense that you couldn't wish for that, you couldn’t wish for this bipartisan ideal? He rejected that." The language that Dillon used to refer to Republicans attracted disapproval, with critics arguing that it contradicted Biden’s message of restoring unity to the country and his insistence that he did not see Republicans as enemies. Dillon later walked back her comments, saying that she could have chosen her words better. Display name 99 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard to write something well and easy to criticize it, but that won't stop me. I don't believe we should quote Dillon in full because it's just too lengthy (I didn't see anyone bring up that she called McConnell "terrible", for instance, so there's no need for that sentence). I don't like "later walked back"—simply "Dillon later said that she could have chosen her words better" conveys the information without the attitude. I also want Rubio and AOC to be mentioned, as briefly as possible such that we can convey something meaningful about their perspectives, and is it possible to name some (journalist) critics rather than alluding to them anonymously? — Bilorv (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, I'd be willing to shorten the quote to something like this: "In the primary, people would mock him, like, 'You think you can work with Republicans?' she said. “I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of fuckers...But this sense that you couldn't wish for that, you couldn’t wish for this bipartisan ideal?" I'm fine with not saying that she "walked back" her comments, although I will point out that a Politico article here uses such language in its title. I'm not sure what Rubio or AOC have to do with anything. Certainly they're each of less importance than McConnell. The whole point of the quote is about Biden compromising with Republicans, and with McConnell as Senate Majority Leader (depending on how things turn out in Georgia), he is going to be critical to that. Hence, he's of far more relevance than Rubio or AOC, and if anything about them should be included, Dillon's characterization of McConnell should remain. I think that anonymously citing critics gets the point across, but if somebody else wants to add perspectives from one or two individual journalists, I would not be opposed to it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my other comment for the relevance of Rubio and AOC. I don't like anonymous citing of critics because one's own opinion naturally seeps into wording choices when summarising anonymous "critics", but naming real people commits you to representing them fairly and makes you write a lot more attentively to their expressed opinions. It also matters who criticism is by—there is no neutral person when it comes to politics. — Bilorv (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article in The Hill about Rubio and AOC. I'd be willing to include the response from Rubio but not AOC's reply. The statement from AOC in that article is a hit on Rubio and has nothing to do with Dillon. If we're going to include the responses from some leading officeholders, that's fine, but we can't also include journalists. If we start quoting 3-4 different people, it becomes excessive and undue. So would you rather quote journalists or would you rather have Rubio and maybe one other politician, likely one on the other side of the aisle for balance? If you want to include a quote from a journalist, I suggest you choose which one seeing as it is your idea. Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat inappropriate for the person who started the RfC to announce the result of the RfC, especially when that person has displayed significant bias with respect to the subject of the article. Of course, you're free to develop alternative wordings (and it might actually be helpful to have those handy in case the RfC is eventually closed with consensus to include this event in the article), but I disagree that the RfC is "leaning" in any particular direction; it seems rather split down the middle to me. In either case, it'll be up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC when the time is right. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, once again, you have not read what I wrote. I did not "announce" the result of the RfC. I simply stated my interpretation of where the results trended. This is different from announcing the results, which is typically followed by a closure. That is conclusive. This rather is an attempt to reach a consensus in light of how the RfC results have gone. There is nothing wrong with doing so, and your implication that there is makes your criticisms of me for not assuming good faith seem rather hypocritical.
It is absolutely correct to say that the RfC results are leaning in a certain way. There have been nine votes. There have The results are 5-3 in favor of including the material in some form, with a ninth person declining to say whether the material should be included but only saying that it should be revised. That isn't a strong consensus, but it does slightly favor including the material. Finally, it does not have to be up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC. Participants may do so when they feel that a resolution has been reached. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.axios.com/jen-omalley-dillon-glamour-biden-republicans-6f28d328-30a9-4b50-b56d-ab91a682f11f.html

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jen_O%27Malley_Dillon&oldid=1215506397"