Talk:Pamela Paul

TERF

Her op-ed and the response to it should be documented. Here's a link to the LA Times coverage of her NYT op-ed. I don't have a link to the op-ed. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2022-07-07/pamela-paul-criticized-for-anti-trans-opinion-about-the-word-woman LordApofisu (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to mention reception of Paul's article, then you must do so without bias. The LA Times coverage represented only certain views; others exist and were reported in other outlets. I have cited another of these outlets (NBC News) in my additions to the 'Career' section today to capture the full range of opinions toward Paul's article. If you're going to report the views around something, don't just report (ie. amplify) *some* of them! That's pretty much the textbook definition of bias. Zedembee (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it a violation of NPOV to only include accurate information, or must people making false claims in support of the subject of an article also be given equal or greater space? 2600:8801:CA01:A827:3C8C:5127:CA10:9E12 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler was praised for his innovative economic reforms, nationalization of industry, renovation of the education and military sectors, a care for the general welfare of animals, and much-lauded oration skills. However, some critics have deemed remarks made in his speeches to be hostile towards Jewish people." would be considered an unbiased statement according to you. 🤡 Spymaster Cosades (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that writing an article in support of JK Rowling is the equivalent of the Holocaust? Saruhon (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

… I mean I dont think spymaster is making an Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, but is pointing out that real criticism and reception of Pamela’s arguments deserves context.

The hitler example is the most extreme, but it represents that there is wide spread consensus that his criticism is his legacy, and not putting it in part of some context is important.

Pamela’s criticism is not her only legacy, but its clearly a huge part of putting her in context. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone and tried to add a section around her transgender pieces. From my perspective, it seems that much of her work relies on debunked science, retracted journal articles, TERF-y rhetoric, or worse, but I've tried to keep it NPOV by stating that this viewpoint is held only by LGBTQ+ establishments and progressives, and included the NYTimes response around open dialgoue and debate. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your additions are one-sided. Rather than remove them, I have added sources on the other side. There is a larger problem that we have a columnist who has written on literally hundreds of topics over decades, and nearly half her wikipedia page is now about a single topic.

It's too much work for me tonight, but somebody should build out the discussion of other topics she had written about, to return some kind of balance to this page. Uucp (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit, along with other recent changes, appears to establish a false balance by providing WP:UNDUE weight. Balance is about proportional coverage of reliable sources, not symmetrical coverage of perspectives. A cursory search reveals various articles from major sources criticizing Paul's coverage. Trivial mentions on social media are certainly not adequate citations for a subject covered extensively by reliable sources. Ertal72 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think Jonathan Chait, David French, Julie Bindel et al are not notable, then you should fight it out on their wikipedia pages. Each one of them is far more significant than the Erin Reed whose citation you cheerfully leave in place, presumably because you agree with her. Deleting things you disagree with and pretending that's "restoring balance" is a lowbrow way to push POV. Uucp (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in this edit war. I will restore a source that was deleted without explanation and leave the rest.

My edits you reverted removed a list of social media posts (mainly Twitter) and one other source. The Twitter posts are from credible journalists, but this does not make them sufficiently significant. Per WP:RSPTWITTER: "Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight". This issue of WP:UNDUE surely applies when a subject has seen significant coverage in full articles from reliable sources.

The other source was a brief opinion article from an organization called LGBT Courage Coalition; it is hosted on a Substack blog and has no listed author. The group is expressly partisan, and the article contains no factual claims of evidence to support its opinion. This certainly doesn't exclude it as a source, but it does mean that the significance and independence are quite important.

The organization is not significant, as they have not received significant coverage from reliable sources. It is also not independent from the subject, as the blog mentions the direct involvement of a leading member of their organization in the article. I hope you or another editor will remove the blog post as a source.

67.189.156.33 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) (Ertal, not logged in)

wtf, you’re literally citing twitter posts. thats not a reliable source User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

thefp is rated by many organizations as one that leans right and has argued that gender affirming care has no basis in science.

The vast scientific consensus remains that gender affirming care has significantly positive outcomes for trans youth. Both-sidesing the argument obfuscates the truth. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

k reading more about thefp, its not quite so right leaning as i originally thought. still both siding the argument is disingenuous User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

TheFP was explicitly created to go against mainstream journalistic opinion, i.e. the stuff Wikipedia centres NPOV on. It's definitely not any sort of solid RS and its opinions would likely be WP:UNDUE. There's a lot of weird pumping of Paul's position in this article (until I removed it just now) - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah, im trying my best to see these other editors pov, especially with all these sources coming out of nowhere… I know there is a somewhat limited list of wikipedia reliable source rating these and didn’t see thefreep or whatever on there. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

reciting the works she has done is not notable on its own

we should not be citing every source she has written. sources need to be independent of the original as per WP:INDY

we know she is a writer. unless if her writing has garnered attention, i am not comfortable going over ever article series she has done User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is correct. WP:NOTRESUME content is not relevant unless it's been discussed in RSes - and that doesn't mean fringe opinion sites and substack blogs. I just removed a pile of the article lists - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I’d also argue its attempting WP:COATRACK on the part where she was criticized for coverage of transgender healthcare, by deliberately putting in every other article she had written. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing sources

The last sentence of her career is really hard to verify. I removed some of it (there was literally sources that do not mention pamela at all), and put failed verification on the parts that I cannot find.

FE noticias financieros is weird… like is this citing the english version? Or the spanish version? In which case, did someone translate the title? I cannot find this article for the life of me. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

YouTube Links

@Saruhon using youtube links is not necessarily always wrong, but it isn’t the greatest as per Wikipedia:Video links Also citing the youtube link of the show as proof that it is WP:NOTE is not enough. You need a properly external source to cite this. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Let’s try to look for another link for Pamela paul being on those shows, but I’d rather find a page stating this rather than trying to use a non-independent youtube link as proof. I think in general, unless if the YouTube links to a channel that is actually run by a news organization, YouTube links aren’t usually considered great.

Also, I removed the substack link. Personal blogs are not appropriate as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources?.

I strongly suggest looking at WP:RSPSS. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

also every one of these youtube links is a copyright violation as per WP:COPYRIGHT

you cannot use videos as links that are uploaded to youtube without the original shows consent. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the YouTube links and replaced with citation needed templates as per WP:COPYRIGHT. I am under the assumption that wikipedia really hates using youtube links to copyrighted work (unless its the actual channel that owns the content).

we also need to get rid of the twitter links and get better sourcing too. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring

We need to stop having edit wars and chat on here before we do these reverts. I’m putting a request for more protection. I also think we need to stop putting in tweets as sources of praise for pamela as per Wikipedia:TWITTER

Objectively, she is a NYTimes opinion author who wrote a book and has been notable recently for causing controversy due to allegations of transphobia. The effort to dig up and put unreliable sources as forms of WP:COATRACK and worse need to stop. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle

I undid your revert. From my understanding, you cannot use YouTube links unless if it is from the actual channel as per WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:YOUTUBE. Specifically: "Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations."

I also removed the Substack. It clearly is not a reliable source as per WP:BLOG. I did not remove the claim.

I neither removed the actual claim, I just removed the reference to copyright material and the self-published blog. Also, I've been putting up a discussion on here. I waited five days before removing those links to hear any response. I would appreciate a discussion before reverting. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that I did not touch the twitter links either, but we should clean those up too. If we want to keep all of these claims, we should work together on finding a good source for these.

I only removed the most egregious ones so far. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone and removed one of the tweets by FAIR and replaced it with a press release from the FAIR website with it correctly attributed, as per the recommendation on the list WP:RSP User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

replaced the YouTube links with a link to her publicist... I still don't like it, as its clearly not an independent source, but willing to compromise and include this source, as long as we include that we need a better source. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of far-right extremism

In July 2022, investigative reporter David Neiwert claimed that Paul was instrumental in preventing any book reviews that examined or criticized far right extremism. This seems to be part of a larger pattern connected to people at the NYT to downplay and ignore the rise of the far right in the US. It’s not exactly clear why they did this, but one explanation is that they were appealing to far right extremists who might support their paper or advertisers, but that doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t think Paul was the first or only person accused of this, as I’ve seen similar accusations laid at the feet of others such as Maggie Haberman, who when confronted with similar questions by Terry Gross (if I recall), gave an incredibly vague, dismissive response. So the answer is, we don’t know why they did this, but if there are other sources about the collective response of the NYT to the far right over time, it should be discussed in relation to Paul. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

if you find a reliable source then sure we can include this.

this page is a bit contentious as is pamela paul, so make sure source follows WP:BLP. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Amber A'Lee Frost implies that the reason is because the NYT makes money from the far right. She cites the FT.[1]. Haven’t seen anyone connect this directly to Paul yet, but there does seem to be a systemic issue at work here. The idea that the media makes money from covering, but not criticizing the far right is well established. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)