Talk:Chanel Rion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vanity Fair article

Is this Vanity Fair article something we should be using for statements of facts about a BLP? Headlines like Trump, Batshit Reporter Claim “Left-Wing Media” Is in Cahoots With Communists, ISIS on Coronavirus Coverage does not inspire confidence and the whole article is filled with such hyperbolic statements. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Change "Education: Harvard University (BA)" to "Education: Harvard University (ALB)"

She received an ALB from Harvard Extension School (HES) which is not the same as a BA degree.

Source. https://www.linkedin.com/in/chanel-rion-19320490/ 2601:647:5A00:59F0:C1CF:C00D:E468:7B7F (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LinkedIn profiles are generally not considered reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Education

Special:Diff/949521653 changed infobox from "education: Harvard University" to "alma mater: Harvard University (BA)". Subsequent edits have switched back and forth between the "education" and "alma mater" labels but have not addressed the "BA" degree claim.

Her own LinkedIn profile lists her degree as "ALB - GSAS". The Bachelor of Liberal Arts (ALB) degree is obtained via the Harvard Extension School, and is distinct from the BA (or AB) degree offered by Harvard College. The difference is enough that Harvard provides specific guidelines for the appropriate way to cite the degree on a resume, at the very end of this page.

Special:Diff/948637385 shows an attempt to specify the degree and division of Harvard, which appears to be accurate, but that edit was rolled back amidst other vandalism.

I do not know if her LinkedIn profile meets the verifiability standard. I would suggest at minimum that 1) there is no evidence to support the "BA" mentioned in the infobox, and 2) it's unlikely that her LinkedIn profile would falsely claim this specific degree.

Please note: I'm new here, trying to follow etiquette as I understand it so far.

Metabeagle (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

While writing this, somebody else proposed similar change but with less explanation. I don't know how this is normally handled, but consider this support/context for that one. Metabeagle (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the BA degree (since, as you mentioned, there is no supporting evidence for it). Martey (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The section on education needs a source other than Heavy.com (not a RS). Based on this ALB information, it should also, accurately, list Harvard Extension School. See, for example, A. Breeze Harper.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Heavy is not ideal, but it is also not a contencious fact so that with the primary source should be okay per WP:ABOUTSELF. PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection

Missvain Please remove the admin protection. I do not think it is appropriate for you to protect an article you created then continue to edit it on your own. PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I'm fine with that. I really want people to be civil and to make appropriate neutral edits. There was a hearty uptick in edits that didn't seem to assume good faith and that appeared politically motivated. Let's just hope folks keep it civil and don't make changes based on emotion. Missvain (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, it is kind of how I found the article. Saw her on the news and figured who the heck is this?! I will try to keep an eye out as well. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I know right? I did the same thing and was like "How is there not a Wikipedia article about this one..." and couldn't resist. I kind of knew I was getting myself into a landmine. Thanks for keeping a watch on "her" with me! Missvain (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Contentious Details

Several publications reveal details that dispute some of the BLP-related information on Rion's website [1] and [2]. This suggests contentious information and the need for WP:RS, rather than reliance on WP:ABOUTSELF.

Some of the contentious claims include whether Rion lived in Missouri as a child, details around Rion's studies, and Rion's father's name.

I provide this purely to point out that there is a lack of WP:RS here. With regard to using Heavy.com as a source, WP:RSP says, "There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead." Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dailymail and anything with wordpress are not reliable. So in this situation the claims supported by Heavy are not contentious claims because no RS are disputing them at this point. As such I think the information and sources you deleted here should be restored and tags removed. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng WP:CONTROVERSY does not specifically require two competing RS for something to be contentious. But in this case, the Dailyi Mail article is the best source of information (notably better-researched than Heavy.com), and WP:RSP suggests allowing Daily Mail in "WP:ABOUTSELF fashion." There is clearly contentious material in this article requiring WP:V beyond what's on Rion's website. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dailymail is inappropriate here, they are not being used in a aboutself fashion. That only applies to Dailymail having information about Dailymail. With regard to RS being needed for it to be contentious, think of it this way. If RS do not dispute it and only non-RS do then it is fringe and discarded. PackMecEng (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we cannot use the Daily Mail and Heavy.com is something that can be used sparingly. Nothing is contentious or controversial about what is in her article. I just do not feel comfortable publishing her middle name, and other personal details like that, because of BLP. I write about porn stars, I really don't know why this article has to be so hard to monitor, LOL. Missvain (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting using Rion's middle name. The suggestion (see below) is to use her birth name (and legal name until very recently). It's common practice with BLP and not a BLP privacy issue. To remedy it, I suggest using [3] as the citation for the time being. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Birth Name

There are a dearth of RS discussing Rion's birth name. A Daily Mail article [4] does a good job of documenting that it is Chanel Dayn-Ryan. WP:RSP seems to allow this information "in an about-self fashion." WP:PRIMARY seems to allow for this, as well. Use of "Chanel Ryan" is not WP:V. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not how about self works and Daily Mail is not usable for that. PackMecEng (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, we can't cite the Daily Meal, it's considered an unreliable source in the world of Wikipedia. And her website is an unreliable source. Missvain (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"*generally* unreliable. An alternative RS, however, until others inevitably print this information, is: [5] There are others. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

For the Daily Mail stuff please check out WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2. There was a rather large community discussion on the topic. I am not really familiar with hindi2news personally, perhaps ask WP:RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I posted the question there. Samp4ngeles (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:AFD

I appreciate the work that has gone into this article the last couple weeks but intend to recommend this article for deletion and would appreciate others' thoughts. After looking for sources on Rion, her notability appears temporary and not WP:SUSTAINED. Little is verifiable, with very weak WP:RS. There are many White House correspondents who do not have Wikipedia articles. The limited areas of notability are generally already in the One America News Network article but could potentially be supplemented. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Calling a journalist a "conspiracy theorist" is not NPOV

I see my removal of that description was reverted. I won't get into edit wars, but I think it's worth pointing out that many writers like Seth Abramson, David Corn, and Michael Isikoff have promoted "conspiracy theories" but are not described that way. PapayaSF (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

But in this case, the evidence for 'conspiracy theorist' is much more clear-cut than for her being in a meaningful sense a journalist. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected: "parody" => "promote"

Text presently states her 'toons "often parody political conspiracies". This does not seem to accurately reflect the given sources (much less reality). "Seth Rich Conspiracy Theorist." "Chanel Rion, a One America News host who dabbles in bizarre conspiracy theories." "... a cartoon promoting the baseless conspiracy theory..." "Rion, who once accused Democrats of participating in ritual cannibalism."

I suggest "promote", or if it's somehow necessary to hedge a little bit more than that (which IMO it is not), "portray". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Differing interpretations of the same source must be worked out with other editors in a separate section on this talk page before an edit request can be made. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As the suggested change was surely not "likely to be controversial" as it simply uses the wording of the existing sources without interpretation, and the page is only semi-protected, I'd have thought this would be covered by the most minimal application of boldness. But procedural point noted. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that promote is better. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, and indeed for the change made. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

The introduction reads as "Chanel Rion (born Chanel Nmi Dayn-Ryan) is an American journalist, political cartoonist, and children’s book author. She is the chief White House correspondent for One America News Network (OAN)." Outside the US she became known for currying favor with Trump, and not for being a journalist:

• Neue Zürcher Zeitung titling Impostor and Trump's dearest correspondent
• Spiegel Online is describing it is her first employment as journalist and points out to her self-description as "President Trump's most stalwart graphic warrior against leftism".

How can someone describing themselves as warrior, with nearly zero experience in journalism be called journalist without any further notes? I think the introduction needs to be rebalanced. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Go for it! I think it's fine - but, I wrote it and did not find those sources when I started the article months ago. I'm a journalist, American and a liberal for the record, so I thought I represented her appropriately in my initial publishing of the article, based on the sources available at that time, but, I also know many others have contributed since and I'm sure other sources have been published. I welcome other voices and non-American contributors. I look forward to seeing your edits! (Per WP:SOFIXIT :) ) Missvain (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Her utter lack of experience and brazen pro-Trump agenda-pushing for a brazen pro-Trump conspiracy theory channel qualifies her to be characterized as no more than a “media personality.” She is more accurately characterized as a “media personality.”[6][7] soibangla (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in debating if she's a journalist or not. I am a journalist and a member of the National Press Club. While I disagree with the quality of her journalism and the outlet she works for, she is a journalist, at least at this time in her life. It doesn't matter what your degree or experience has been. She's in the pool at the White House. She goes there, listens, asks questions, and goes back and either reports live on TV or writes about it for OAN. I think Tucker Carlson is a hack, but, he's still considered a journalist. This is not about what we think of her work, it's about getting the basic encyclopedic information out there, based on reliable secondary sources, and letting the reader decide. Missvain (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not characterize this as the work of a "journalist" who goes there, listens, asks questions, and goes back and either reports live on TV or writes about it:

“On that note,” Rion went on, “major left-wing news media — even in this room — have teamed up with Chinese Communist Party narratives and they’re claiming you’re racist for making these claims about ‘Chinese virus.’ Is it alarming that major media players, just to oppose you, are consistently siding with foreign state propaganda, Islamic radicals and Latin gangs and cartels? And they work right here at the White House with direct access to you and your team?”[[8]]

nor this:

In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the OANN chief White House correspondent Chanel Rion promoted a conspiracy theory that the virus originated in a North Carolina lab, citing information from a "citizen investigator and a monitored source amongst a certain set of the DC intelligence community" who was actually a Twitter conspiracy theorist. As she cited this individual during a televised report from the White House grounds, an image was displayed of actor Keir Dullea in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. She also asserted that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was the White House's leading expert on infectious diseases, had funded the creation of the coronavirus.[[9]]

soibangla (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, trust me, I do. But, alas, I'm not here to judge what the world calls her, even if we disagree. I wish we could write "media personality playing the role of a journalist on TV" but that's probably not the best thing to do. Here's an idea - her own website (ouch) describes her as an "American author, political illustrator, and White House Political Correspondent for One America News Network." What if we describe her in the lede as just that "Chanel Rion (born Chanel Nmi Dayn-Ryan)[1] is a White House correspondent, author and political illustrator from the United States." What do y'all think of that? @Soibangla: @Amtiss: We can also rename the "Journalism" section as "White House Correspondent". Missvain (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I think renaming the section would be ok. I'm not sure, if it is standard to keep the introduction of an article short, but if it is common to go more into detail, I'd stick to reason I started this discussion, i.e. to rebalance the intro. (At the moment, I don't have an eloquent phrasing for this person... I know a suggestion would be nice, so we'd have something specific to discuss.)--Amtiss, SNAFU ? 21:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and updated the lead and the section. You can read more about the manual of style for leads here. It can be expanded if one wishes. I'm not going to do it at this point, but, anyone is welcome if they'd like to neutrally expound on her career. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I edited the latter section to "OAN White House correspondent", because as I said in my edit summary, "being White House correspondent for OAN and a White House correspondent in any normal sense seem notably different". (That's the only such role she's had, after all. Or seems reasonably foreseeable that she ever would have, give or take similar... outlets opening up.) It was almost immediately reverted though, without any edit summary -- and indeed marked as a minor edit -- by a user doing a batch of such, seemingly generally reverting vandalism. At any rate, this would seem like an opportune moment to pause and wonder aloud if this is a positive change, or not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've restored a similar edit, lacking any input on why the previous one might have been undone. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A White House correspondent for One America News Network, or _the_ White House correspondent?

Once again in the cause of maximum revert caution, I'm floating here a recent edit describing her as a WH correspondent at the time of her appointment. My impression is that at that time, she was indeed the only one; her later promotion to 'chief' such coincides with the appointment of Jenn Pellegrino to work weekends. (It's not quite the stuff of The Daily Show gags about titles, though it's skating perilously close.) I don't have a clearcut statement to that effect, though, so this is something of a case of absence of evidence otherwise. But my inclination is to go with 'the', as before. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it :-) Agreed! Fixer23 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Birth name

The current version of this article states:

Chanel Rion was born Chanel Nmi-Dayn Ryan

Shouldn't it be Chanel Nmi Dayn-Ryan (with hyphen between the third and fourth names, not the second and third names), though ??? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Check again. Generalrelative (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)