Talk:Joy Reid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Are two factual errors on Twitter worth including in this article?

Earlier today I tidied up the final paragraph under Career that now begins: "In 2017, Reid made a pair of factual errors on Twitter…" However, I did not introduce this material and am skeptical that it rises to being worthy of inclusion in a WP:BLP. Rather, it strikes me as trivial. Please, would other editors weigh in? Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Initially I thought this could be included if done in correspondence with DUEWEIGHT, but the more I think about it, the less I think it'd likely to merit inclusion if the entry were properly expanded such that one bad tweet (where "bad" means "has geography errors" not, I don't know, "confesses to a felony") could be covered in appropriately small proportion to the rest of the entry. Right now her current television show has only a single sentence; likewise her book. These as well as other topics in her career could and should be expanded upon considerably, in accordance of course with WP:NPOV, i.e. reflecting whatever coverage is out there, positive, negative and otherwise. I think if this were done, it'd be very unlikely that a single tweet's geography mistakes would rate as important enough to include. As the entry stands, it's substantially overrepresented in this account of her life (even after tidying--thank you KalHolmann). I think delete. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The views of "tiny minorities" should not be cited at all. Unless the article can cite at least several WP:RS discussing her error, it doesn't meet the Wikipedia standard for inclusion and should be deleted (even without considering WP:BLP).

Similarly, Reid's support of Louise Mensch is not supported by multiple WP:RS (among other problems) and therefore doesn't belong in the article. I am deleting it. --Nbauman (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Joy vs. Bernie & Jane

Since edits reporting the feud between Joy-Ann Reid‎ versus U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders, have been repeatedly reverted for being "poorly sourced," I offer the following.

• International Business Times: "Jane Sanders Slams Joy-Ann Reid For Questioning Bernie Sanders' Attitude Toward Women"
• Paste (magazine): "Jane Sanders Just Burned MSNBC's Joy Reid On Twitter"
• The Daily Wire: "Jane Sanders BLASTS MSNBC Host Joy Ann Reid Over Twitter Rant"

KalHolmann (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to add every time Reid is mentioned by a publication. We are giving undue weight to controversies at the moment. There should not be a "Controversy" heading in this article. Also, if editors want to add exceedingly minor controversies, then every minor accomplishment should also be added. The article is currently too sparse to support adding every criticism published about Reid. Knope7 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy headline fits. It isn't a smear against her, she's just a controversial pundit. It's what she is known for, and sometimes it results in these incidents. Getting called out by a prominent politician's wife is a notable controversy. Reid is not known for issuing apologies either, so if we are to judge what is and what is not worth including based on every time she apologizes we will miss a whole lot. (She doesn't make corrections often either) 2604:2000:F0CD:9300:58BC:3B:B35E:45B3 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Anonymous Editor

Please read both WP:CRITS, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. Those should explain that 1) Controversy sections are disfavored, 2) Biographies of living persons require extra sensitivity, and 3) Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Reid is a respected political commentator. That some people disagree with her or dislike her does not mean we should ignore Wikipedia's policies. Knope7 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy sections are disfavored? Ok. But controversy in this case is neutral. She's a respected political commentator, but that alone should not prevent Wikipedia from including the things that she has actually done, right? Would a section titled "Homophobic Blog Posts" be more acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F0CD:9300:58BC:3B:B35E:45B3 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you will read the policy links I provided. A "Controversy" is not neutral. It is a section devoted to something negative. We can include negative information, but it should be integrated and proportional. This article has one long career section. A short twitter argument which has not been widely reported on does not deserve its own section. Knope7 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article now protected

The article is now fully protected against editing for 5 days, due to a complaint of edit warring filed at WP:AN3. Please use this time to try to get agreement about the disputed material. A WP:Request for comment is one way to resolve such disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Partisan edits by Bernie Supporters

Hi there, I reverted edits in a highly subjective 'controversy' section. I don't think this is a controversy that desereves to be included in a wikipedia entry. This has only been picked up by 6 sources. 4 of which are highly partisan including a Daily caller and washington examiner Gati123 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Gati123, please explain your section title. How did you ascertain that these are "Partisan edits by Bernie Supporters"? KalHolmann (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition to article, The section reads like an attack on the subject, A negative tweet about a politician doesn't deserve to be included, Also the sources are biased opinion pieces and unreliable secondary sources, I'm removing it until you find more primary and netural sources. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Jaydogg1994, thank you for taking the time to actually explain your removal. You are the first editor to do so. KalHolmann (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Jaydogg1994, in the past 24 hours, additional sources have surfaced:

• Mediaite: MSNBC Host Joy Reid Wrote Numerous Anti-Gay Articles on Her Old Blog
• TheWrap: MSNBC’s Joy Reid Apologizes for Past Comments About Gays: 'Disappointed in Myself'

The latter includes the full text of Joy-Ann Reid's lengthy apology for her controversial blog posts about Charlie Crist.

This appears to be a breaking story, with Joy-Ann Reid tweeting two hours ago: "#AdmittingYoureWrongIs essential. More soon."

I will continue updating this discussion as developments warrant, or until another editor restores or replaces the Controversy section you removed. KalHolmann (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Jaydogg1994, another source:

• NBC News: MSNBC's Joy Reid apologizes for 'insensitive' LGBT blog posts
• Facebook: Noting that NBC provided only excerpts, Joy-Ann Reid here posts her statement in full

If, at some point, you feel these sources are sufficient to restore the Controversy section you removed, please advise. KalHolmann (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the section and added information about Reid's apology. As NBC News is a major national news source covering this, I think that this is noteworthy. Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy sections are disfavored. Material should be integrated, where possible. I would support a sentence or two about the old blog posts which have been called homophobic as those have received significant coverage, but again, that should be integrated. Knope7 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the Sanders sourcing, I do not support it's inclusion. We should not include every twitter spat, especially since this article is undeveloped as it is. It is undue weight at this point in time.

It might make sense in the context of her historical support for Sanders (having previously vocally supported him before the 2016 election). I'm not sure a section listing every politician she had an opinion on would really make sense in the context of this wikipedia entry. Jonathan Williams (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Knope7 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Jaydogg1994, the edit summary for your latest removal of the Controversy section states, "This is part of a targeted smear campaign trying to get her fired." Please provide a source for your outrageous claim. KalHolmann (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's outrageous is that you keep adding smears to the article despite being warned twice for edit warring 1) by Dyrnych and 2) by My very best wishes, You clearly have a bias against the subject and are posting this to defame. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I support adding the bit about the anti-gay blog posts, it has received enough coverage from legitimate sources and she has apologized. I do not support the creation of a controversy section though, those are discouraged per WP:CSECTION. The material can easily be added to the "Career" section.LM2000 (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe we should tag the section with a cleanup message until consensus is reached on the talk page. I'm avoiding running afoul of WP:3RR so unfortunately I cannot. Jonathan Williams (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I included a page scope template, but did not revert the section. Jonathan Williams (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy is not a partisan inclusion. It is accurate. She has stirred controversy on multiple occasions. It isn't "including every twitter dispute" or whatever. It's including incidents where she drew larger amounts of backlash than usual. Getting called out by a prominent politician's wife (whose last name isn't Trump) isn't something that happens to journalists very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F0CD:9300:58BC:3B:B35E:45B3 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wraith20 The Crist edit is a partisan issue, posts in a old blog joking about an anti-LGBT politician being in the closet isn't homophobic, it's insensitive, it hasn't resulted in Joy Reid's firing or removal. If Joy Reid's old blog posts from a Twitter user is being mentioned in the article then Bernie Sanders's rape fantasy essays should be mentioned, since it was in response to a tweet in which she mentioned Bernie Sanders writing rape essays and telling Jane Sanders to not stand next to him. Wraith20 (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Christ issue has been more widely covered. That a twitter user uncovered the blog posts is incidental and not the reason for their inclusion. The reason is that the content of the blog posts is objectionable. The twitter spat with Jane Sanders did not receive as much attention. If anything, I think you have made a case to include neither incident. Knope7 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Tweets about Chelsea Manning

The article presently includes this sentence, added by an IP user:

"In late July 2017, Reid sent out a series of tweets suggesting transgender whistleblower Chelsea Manning might not have leaked classified documents had the government paid for her gender-reassignment surgery."

In contrast to the widely reported Sanders and Crist stories, the Manning incident generated no coverage beyond a single source, an opinion column by Colin Kalmbacher at Mediaite.

I wonder whether Reid's 4-month-old tweets about Manning rise to the level of inclusion in Wikipedia. They seem to have had no discernible impact on Reid's career. KalHolmann (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Never mind. The Grim Reaper has done his usual number, peremptorily removing the content without bothering to discuss it here at Talk. Ain't Wikipedia grand? KalHolmann (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to explain anything to you, You are obviously biased against the subject and you keep adding poorly sourced attack information despite being warned for edit warring and violating WP:3RR and Neutral PoV. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Those tweets drew backlash at the time and have become more relevant recently in light of her blog posts.2604:2000:F0CD:9300:58BC:3B:B35E:45B3 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I offer my blog post on this topic not as a source to be cited but solely for informational purposes. Editors who rely on Colin Kalmbacher's biased, hypocritical opinion piece at Mediaite should understand how unfair it is to Joy-Ann Reid. KalHolmann (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy sections are not disfavored

Wikipedia:Criticism#"Controversy"_section is part of Wikipedia:Criticism.

Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and editors who disagree do not have to follow it. To quote:

This page is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

I personally think that a Criticism section would be a good way of organizing some of the ideas in this article.

--Nbauman (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, please be specific. Which ideas in this article (as it now stands) would you group under a Controversy or Criticism heading? KalHolmann (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For example, I would include her anti-gay comments, and her postings about Charlie Crist, under a Controversy section, assuming that it can be supported with multiple WP:RSs. I think it's significant because she made a mistake and admitted it, which I think is the sign of a good journalist.

I'm also interested in her criticisms of Bernie Sanders, also assuming that it can be supported by WP:RSs, and that it's written clearly and concisely. It's significant because we're describing her as a liberal, and it might clarify her specific positions.

I think the Career section has a problem of being in strict chronological order without emphasizing or distinguishing any of her ideas. That's what Reid herself is known for -- making ideas understandable. --Nbauman (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, the paragraph about Charlie Crist consists of 56 words. It includes her apology and admission that her posts were "tone deaf." Elevating this to a standalone section would violate WP:UNDUE.

We have previously discussed her Bernie Sanders comments. See above: "Partisan edits by Bernie Supporters" (Dec. 1–10) and "Joy vs. Bernie & Jane" (Dec. 5–6). There was no consensus to include this material.

If you want to propose a new section to emphasize or distinguish her ideas, please don't begin by assuming that her all ideas are in dispute. Such a section ought to be more inclusive—it should not be entitled Controversy or Criticism. KalHolmann (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I only wanted to point out that it is incorrect to say that Controversy sections are disfavored. You asked me for elaboration. I gave it to you. --Nbauman (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

New York Times profile

Here's a long New York Times profile in which a journalist discusses Reid's style of journalism and how it relates to her politics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/style/joy-reid-msnbc.html
How Joy Reid of MSNBC Became a Heroine of the Resistance
The daughter of immigrants, she spars fiercely with supporters of President Trump, both on the air and in the Twitter ether.
By LAURA M. HOLSON
New York Times
FEB. 10, 2018
--Nbauman (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, Holson's profile is already cited six times on the article page. Please at least do us the courtesy of checking first to see whether or not what you're offering is new to Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, now I see you did use it. My point, though, is that the NYT story discusses Reid's journalism and politics, such as ending the interview with Pastor Mark Burns, the black supporter of Trump, when she didn't think he was telling the truth, which the NYT reporter used as an example of Reid's "no-nonsense approach." Or the NYT reporter's view that "her forceful questioning style, matching that on conservative outlets like Fox, has resonated with MSNBC’s viewers." All you used it for was to include some resume-type facts. [1] I think a list of awards, speaking engagements and classes taught is trivia, although if you like it I'm not going to delete it. If you explained why she won an award from the Women's Media Center, that would be significant, but the bare mention of an award is trivia. Particularly for a journalist whose distinction is explaining why.--Nbauman (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, please feel free to edit the article page to explain why she won an award from the Women's Media Center. I look forward to reading any addition of significant content. KalHolmann (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this is a WP:RS, but maybe it could go somewhere. The central point that it reinforces is that Reid is unusual because she asks tough questions. That's what the NYT article said.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Sally-Field-to-Host-2016-Womens-Media-Awards-This-September-20160921

Sally Field to Host 2016 Women's Media Awards This September

TV News Desk

BroadwayWorld.com

Sep. 21, 2016

Carol Jenkins, founding and former president of the Women's Media Center. "In a tough political season, she is one of the few who asks the hard questions and insists on honest answers."

--Nbauman (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, yes, that would go nicely in a new section of overweening significance titled Testimonials as to why Joy Reid is great. I can't wait. KalHolmann (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but I think "Testimonials as to why Joy Reid is great" would violate WP:EDITORIAL and WP:PEACOCK, and I don't think effusive praise is a good way to profile somebody. I believe, and I think that many WP:RS will say, that Reid's style of journalism is tougher, more willing to challenge interviewees, and guided by her political views than the practice in earlier journalism, and they support that assessment with specific examples. This is common to the WP profiles of other broadcast journalists. Many journalists, for example in Columbia Journalism Review, say that this is a response to the Trump Administration, which ignores the customary boundaries of accepting facts. --Nbauman (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, since (apart from me) no other editors have weighed in on either of your two threads here, I'd say go ahead and make whatever changes to the article page you believe would add significance. We'll see how readers react. KalHolmann (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Harvard 'attending' versus 'graduating'

There is no authoritative or documented proof Joy Ann Reid completed all of her requirements to be awarded any degree from Harvard University - AB, BA or otherwise. Although it is often reported she graduated Harvard in 1991, there has been nothing definite cited or made available to prove she did anything more than attend classes there. If no citation is provided before May 2018, all references to her holding any degree from Harvard should be deleted.

Why is it reported here she graduated in 1990, when most online references state it was 1991?

Which faculty did she finish in - if at all? Visual Arts? Documentary film? Film studies? Environmental studies? There are at least a dozen programs listed online, and few firm citations of faculty, major or similar. Just unsourced statements of dubious fact.

Why is her degree listed in Wikipedia as a BA or AB when her LinkedIn profiles lists her degree as a bachelor of fine arts, BFA?

Whoever listed her academic credentials must be called upon to cite evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.72.10 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Citation added to article. KalHolmann (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It has been proven that it is possible to hack and edit the Wayback archive after the fact

A lengthy academic study published in 2017 proved that it is possible to hack and edit the Wayback archive after the fact. The study is here: [2], and is summarized and expanded upon here: [3]. The FBI has opened a case to investigate the hacking of the archives in question of Reid's blog. Therefore there is no actual reason, other than journalistic bias, click-bait mentality, and the opinions of people who have not actually investigated the case but claim to have done so, to doubt Reid's story that the new, blatantly homophobic, posts that have been "revealed" in the past few days from Wayback, were planted on her blog by hackers (who hacked Wayback, not the live blog itself). Why did it take her detractors 5 whole months to find these "newly discovered" posts when their initial efforts to discredit her by posting the Christ posts in December 2017 failed? I'm also going to ping MelanieN to see or monitor whether any BLP violations are occurring in this Wikipedia article. GreyGoose (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

GreyGoose, on April 26, 2018, Kevin Poulsen reported at The Daily Beast that Jonathan Nichols, Reid's cybersecurity consultant, "says Reid and her team no longer believe the archive was hacked." Today on her MSNBC show AM Joy, Reid said, "I hired cybersecurity experts to see if somebody had manipulated my words or my former blog, and the reality is they have not been able to prove it." KalHolmann (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/28/media/joy-reid-hacking-claims-msnbc/index.html: Why MSNBC host Joy Reid's hacking claims don't add up - --87.170.198.244 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

PFLAG National

PFLAG National rescinded its Straight for Equality in Media award to political analyst Joy Reid. https://www.pflag.org/press-releases/pflag-national-rescinds-straight-equality-honors-joy-reid AHC300 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the suggested additions I listed here: [4]. I believe we only have one user who is opposing this addition. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, the "one user who is opposing this addition" is HouseOfChange, who objected five days ago because "PFLAG website is a primary source. Their action doesn't seem like a significant part of this bio, compared to other material here." At the time, I concurred that it lacked significance, but in hindsight I'm prepared to support you and AHC300 in adding it to the article. When you do so, please avoid the primary source and instead use either of the two WP:RS you provided above: The New York Times and CBS News. If agreeable, you might also note that although the award was announced, it was never formally conferred. KalHolmann (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling pro or con any of the particular events being reported, including the very obscure award that never got awarded, which does not seem to have affected Joy Ann Reid's career, the topic of this section. Meanwhile, length of the "scandal" material keeps creeping up. The length of this section does not deserve to be more than 1/4 the total length of the career section, IMO. We should agree on a length, select topics and quotes carefully, and link to at least one recent RS that summarizes important material. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, how did you arrive at your rule of thumb, "The length of this section does not deserve to be more than 1/4 the total length of the career section"? KalHolmann (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, what relative length would you think more appropriate? She has had a long professional career. These events of the past few weeks got lots of coverage, but there is no sign that her career (as in her job at MSNBC) will be affected. She was widely attacked, the people who didn't like her in the first place are still hoping some mud will stick, while the people who do like her (including her employer) accept her apologies and want her to keep her job. I picked 1/4 (because that was the relative length a week ago) but what would you suggest? 1/3 seems too much and 1/5 seems too little. Is there a Wikipedia policy for something like this? I think I am newer here than you are. Thanks for all your thoughtful edits and for all your civility. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, to reflect your concerns, I added an {Undue weight section} tag to the blog posts subsection. Hopefully it will help focus our discussion on this point. KalHolmann (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Joy ann reid is not African American

Everyone who is black is not african american , according to Joy ann reid's bio she's 1st Generation Congolese/carribean American NOT african american, African American does not mean everyone who's black — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reid's father was from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Is that not in Africa? Ms. Reid was born in Brooklyn. Is that not in America? Please stop with this racist horseshit. KalHolmann (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again can u please be respectful I didnt disrespect u at all sir African american doesn't mean everyone who is black and lives in america , thats why identities like Haitian American exist , Nigerian American exist , Ethiopian American , Jamaican American , etc By definition African american means black people are decendants of ancestors who were in enslaved in America, Doesn't mean everyone who's black sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 23:32 30 April 2018 (UTC)

According to our Wikipedia article African Americans they are "an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." Joy Ann Reid, born in Brooklyn, qualifies, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for my profanity. Nevertheless, to quote more fully from the same Wikipedia African Americans page as HouseOfChange: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa. The term typically refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States." As I read it, "typically" does not mean exclusively. Until you can cite a WP:RS reporting that Joy-Ann Reid eschews the term African-American and self-identifies instead as Guyanese or Guyanese-American, please do not alter the existing categories in her BLP. KalHolmann (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

African American is it's own ethnic group, and it's own culture , Calling everyone black African American is similar to calling everyone Hispanic Mexican or similar to calling everyone who's white Irish or everyone whos Asian Chinese , Being Guyanese and Congolese are two completely different things than being African American sir , the two aren't interchangable , According to the US census Bureau Immigrants do not self Identify as African american instead as Names Like Nigerian American , Haitian American ,etc For some reason U seem very determined and adamant to Keep Her falsely listed As "African American" idk why but im gonna go ahead and just leave it alone smh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Reid's mother is from Guyana which is on the South American mainland, and according to History of Guyana, Guyana started as a Dutch (later British) plantation colony that relied on African slave labor since about 1660. So, she is a U.S. born descendent of African slaves in South America. The African-American label seems fine to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again im not sure if your black or not but African American is its own ethnicity , u cannot convert to being African American just like u cant convert to being italian , Thats why things like jamaican american (Who also descends from slavery) exist smh African American, Haitian American, Nigerian American, Guyanese American Etc all exist Just like Irish American Italian American, German American exist these are all separate ethnic identities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course, you can "convert" (wrong word) to being Italian, by living there long enough, immersing yourself in its culture, and becoming an Italian citizen. Ethnic identity is fluid, not rigid, and citizenship can also change. This ridiculous kind of argument was litigated thoroughly in the case of Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a white American mother and a Kenyan father. Obama is an African-American and so is Reid. Reliable sources describe both that way, and therefore, so does Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

U can not convert to someones ethnicity , Nationality and ethnicity are two different things , If someone from Nigeria moves to italy that doesn't make them Italian Descent,if a Irish Person moves to china that doesn't make them ethnically Asian Descent and Barrack has referred to himself multiple times as Kenyan American in interviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to hold your idiosyncratic and overly rigid view of ethnicity, but you will not be allowed to impose it on Wikipedia articles, which summarize what reliable sources say, not the opinions of individual editors. Here is a quote from Ethnic group: " By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion, it is sometimes possible for individuals or groups to leave one ethnic group and become part of another (except for ethnic groups emphasizing homogeneity or racial purity as a key membership criterion)." African-Americans are not a group that empasizes "homogeneity or racial purity". Quite the contrary. Also worth noting is that is quite common for people to identify with two or more ethnic groups, as Obama does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, you (Philly2166)have in mind a definition for "African American" that would exclude Joy Ann Reid. Please post a WP:RS for the definition you have in mind. Currently, the Wikipedia definition of the term would include Joy Ann Reid, an American citizen of partial African ancestry. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It clearly says the term refers to descendants of enslaved black people who are from the united states , I have a good friend of mines who was born and raised in Miami to Haitian Parents and He never once referred to himself as African American , Only as a 2nd generation Haitian American , smh Idk why but you guys seem very determined to keep Joy Ann Reid falsely listed as African American so i'm gonna go ahead now and just leave it alone smh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The term is typically used to refer to descendants of enslaved Black people, I agree. (Numerically, most American people of partially African descent are at least in part descended from US slaves, rather than from recent African or South American immigrants.) But I don't see any reliable source saying that "African American" must be restricted to US slave descendants. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A personal anecdote about how one American of Haitian ancestry self-identifies has no value on Wikipedia, Philly2166. Reid is an American of recent African ancestry through her father and enslaved African ancestry through her mother. Enough said. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again African American doesn't mean any and everyone of african descent smh , the phrase refers to blacks who are descendats of ancestors who were enslaved in america, recent people from both africa and the carribean are self identified by their ethnicity first and american second , Ex Somali American , Guyanese american.etc For some reason u guys are determined to not change your stance and understand the difference of ethnic identities within America but would rather believe african american applies to everyone who's black idk why but I'm gonna leave it alone , have a nice day and good talking with you guys Appreciated the conversation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2166 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to provide any reliable sources verifying your own pesonal opinion, and therefore, your idiosyncratic opinion has no value here on Wikipedia. We rely on reliable sources, and summarize what they say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Joy Reed also made transphobic and Islamophobic comments

Why isn't that as a big deal? AHC300 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What sourcing do you have? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/27/joy-reid-muslims-post/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/26/joy-reid-transphobic-homophobic/ AHC300 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Length of "blog posts" subsection

An editor has raised concerns about the proportion of this subsection relative to the overall Career section, pointing out that the amount of "scandal" material keeps growing, and suggesting that it should not exceed 1/4 the length of the career section. Another editor thinks, to the contrary, that we need more detail to help readers understand why Reid's posts were called homophobic. Specifically, he suggests summarizing Reid's views "on the sight of two men kissing, the graphic description of male lawmakers performing sex acts on each other as well as SCOTUS justices, and her attacks on Rachel Maddow." Additional matters under discussion here at the Talk page but omitted from the article include the FBI's investigation of the alleged hacking, and The Daily Beast′s suspension of Reid's column. I added an {Undue weight section} tag to the subsection, hoping it will help focus our conversation. KalHolmann (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the Career section contains 672 words. Nearly half those words are in the 310-word blogposts section. It is already too long. Anyone who wants to add more details should propose what details currently in there could instead by summarized or omitted. I am going to try to draft an improved version, with an emphasis on events that were important to Joy Ann Reid's career--as it becomes increasingly clear that she has continued strong support from the LGBT community, from her employer, and by the way also from Rachel Maddow.[5] HouseOfChange (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what your proposed material will read re: the strong support from the LGBT community, but I presume there will be a reference to the prominent American LGBT rights group PFLAG taking back their award for Reid based on the homophobic blog post controversy? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My mention of LGBT support won't be in the article unless some RS expresses it. I apologize for perhaps offending you with a Talk-Page subjective opinion based on commentators I follow. But let's try to AGF though our viewpoints differ. I am trying to make the article worthy of Wikipedia's great encyclopedia project, and I hope your goal here is the same. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't offend me at all and I don't think you're acting in bad faith in any degree. I thought that since you mentioned LGBT support that you intended to put it in your proposal, but apparently that's not the case. Either way, I maintain that PFLAG's cancellation of Reid's award as a result of the blog posts is undoubtedly notable, but let's see what you come up with and work from there! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was skeptical at first but after listening to your concerns and seeing in our PFLAG article that it is a notable organization whose commitment to the award is impressive, I want to make room in the section to include the PFLAG info. I'm trying to compress and update, switching a few older references to newer ones (or more reliable ones) to bring in a wider range of information. I think you will like the Nation recent article, which covers her past blogposts in unflattering depth, and is skeptical about the hacking claim. I also am skeptical that anyone hacked her old blog, although I still think she forgot having made stupid blogposts her decade-ago self thought were fun and edgy. That seems more likely to me than that she intentionally put forward stupid, easily disproved lies. Maybe time will tell us all what happened.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Reid subsequently claimed the posts uncovered in April 2018 were fabricated"... no, that is not what happened

Our article currently states, as many early articles about her old blogposts suggest, that Joy Ann Reid claimed her old blog had been hacked only after an April 2018 release of damaging blogposts. But in fact, already in December, 2017, after reviewing her old blog for the first time in many years, she took (unpublicized) action based on her belief that some posts in her old blog were not "her" comments.

It was in December 2017 that blogger shoq claims he sat down with Joy Ann Reid to review old blogposts and heard her initial reaction, those are not my words. [6] More RS-ly, NYT article we cite also states, "Ms. Reid’s lawyers alerted Google and the Internet Archive to the alleged hacking in December, shortly after her public apology but long before the latest batch of posts appeared on social media."[7] Therefore, Wikipedia should not be broadcasting the misinformation that her December 2017 belief that someone had hacked her blog was a Hail-Mary-pass she came up with in response to new claims made in April 2018. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I object to 2 recent additions to consensus blogposts section.

First of all, many thanks to KalHolmann for many improvements to the blogposts section. You have been doing a great job for our readers.

But...in a section that is already quite long, I don't think this passes the test of being important to Reid's career:

Reid's lawyer announced that "the FBI has opened an investigation into potential criminal activities surrounding several online accounts, including personal email and blog accounts, belonging to Joy-Ann Reid."[23]

That may become relevant in the future, but right now it is not.

I also think The Daily Beast "hitting pause" on her as a columnist is much less notable than the PFLAG decision, and does not deserve to be added to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, I added both the FBI and Daily Beast because, in preceding sections of this Talk page, Mr. Daniel Plainview has repeatedly urged their inclusion. Given that I now agree with him, that constitutes consensus in a discussion involving only three editors. KalHolmann (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But, KalHolmann, Mr. Daniel Plainview explicitly approved consensus version, which had already added lots of material to support his views. Your going back to add material that he previously suggested but later agreed to omit is not consensus, in my opinion. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My view is that a mention of the FBI investigation would be considered more helpful to Reid than anything else. My understand of BLP and NPOV in general is that if there is a negative allegation or other material said on a biography, then that person's rebuttal/response should also be represented. Since as far as I know Reid has not gone back on her hacking claims (other than saying that they hasn't been proven yet), shouldn't it be mentioned that Reid's attorney said the FBI is investigating? I would think that Reid herself would personally want it mentioned on her page that the FBI is investigating, and even though we don't write biographies based on what their subjects would want/don't want, I don't see her objecting on DUE or WEIGHT grounds. Assuming she has time to review Wikipeida's policies of course. It's getting late for me now and I'm rambling, but I think we should try to go with whatever the policies say is appropriate. Maybe we should bring in a few other editors for more opinions? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, thank you for reiterating your stance that the FBI investigation ought to be mentioned. Also, on April 26 you said, "The suspension of Reid's Daily Beast column is notable…and should be included in the new section." On May 1 you again objected to the Daily Beast suspension being left out. I see nothing on this Talk page to confirm the claim by HouseOfChange that you "later agreed to omit" either the FBI or Daily Beast items that HouseOfChange reverted. I believe my edits should be restored. KalHolmann (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes apologies for not addressing that (probably more Wiki-fatigue!). I must have missed that the section on the suspension was lost in the shuffle. I do strongly believe that there should be a mention regarding Reid's column suspension. Sorry for the confusion there, HouseOfChange. I did rubber stamp your version, but I overlooked the fact that the Daily Beast material in question was omitted. In either case, I think that this article would benefit from having some fresh eyes. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, a Wikipedia:Requests for comment may be premature. We are actually quite close to settling on a version that satisfies all three of us. If HouseOfChange will restore my edits we can put this matter to bed. If not, and in accordance with WP:RFCST, I'd suggest as a first step in the RfC that you craft a brief, neutral statement in this Talk page about whatever issue(s) you feel can only be resolved by editors who will almost certainly be less familiar with the Reid blogpost controversy than we are. I'd hate to see the educational process that we three have thrashed out restarted from scratch, but will support an RfC if necessary. KalHolmann (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am disappointed but I agree to your consensus and undid my requested edit. IHouseOfChange (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting an RfC, rather just adding of a few more people to the conversation. If two or three other editors had a look it might help, although I admit I don't really know how that works here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, if you want wider comment, an RFC is much better than having individual editors ask friends to take a look, as per WP:CANVASSING. An RFC gets a random sampling of experienced editors, which is a good thing for NPOV. KalHolmann seems more experienced than I am, so I welcome his advice on how to proceed here. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Only three of us have been willing to do the heavy lifting to get this article in shape. Opening an RfC will, I fear, result in editors parachuting in with at best a casual interest in the topic, and at worst complete unfamiliarity. These editors will then, in good faith, undo everything we've achieved, setting us back to square one. I've hoped all along that more editors would join us, but the scandal has run its course, and we can take their absence as a sure sign they don't care. KalHolmann (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I see what you mean KalHolmann. Yes I think you're right about that. Even though we weren't able to agree on all points I think we found a pretty fair compromise with the material in its current form! HouseOfChange did you want to continue discussing any strong objections? At this point I have none, but am more than happy to continue the discourse. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wish it were shorter (a major reason for my two objections) although some additions by both of you were excellent, for example when Mr. Daniel Plainview added "she said." And obviously KalHolmann did a lot of work improving it. If news about this continues, we will undoubtedly see new editors here, but I think the current version is good enough that we don't any of us want to do the extra work of engaging about this with random people who have to be brought up to speed, if we don't have to. There is a lot more of Wikipedia to improve. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Reaction to apology was mixed but to say by "partisan lines" is not accurate/an oversimpification

• Response along partisan lines" is an oversimplification. Surely I saw no Republicans defending her, but many Democrats and non-partisan journalists were critical (former congressional staffer, now a reporter David Sirota, Kyle Kulinsky, co-founder of Justice Democrats for instance, are both Democrats who reacted negatively to her apology). Some journalists were also critical including some important institutional names. I would probably tweak the language so instead of "partisan lines" was "mixed." That is surely more accurate, takes up less space. ~-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:4101:16A6:2D48:5E05:16D0:9B37 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The response was partisan because those who previously supported Reid (the racially mixed and LGBT-supporting Hillary Clinton coalition) accepted her apology while those who previously disliked her (GOP plus Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders) still hoped she would be fired. "Partisan" does not mean Republican vs Democrat in this case. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I revised the text to conform to the cited source, which says "party lines" not "partisan." KalHolmann (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked up Sirota and Kulinsky, who turn out to be prominent supporters of Bernie Sanders, both affiliated with TYT (which has feuded with Reid for her criticism of Sanders). Kulinsky voted for Jill Stein in 2016. To put forward those two names as representing Democrats and/or "non-partisan" journalists is inappropriate. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE expanding section on past tweets

This section needs to be short and based only on WP:RS reporting the controversy, rather than giving an airing on Wikipedia to partisan commentary and primary sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times[8] and Washington Post[9] are not reliable sources? Please elaborate, HouseOfChange. This is getting widespread coverage across the spectrum of reliable sources, Joy Reid is responding, apologizing, and blaming the posts on hackers. Also criticizing her colleague makes this controversy especially notable. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As you say, with excellent WP:RS available to use as references, there is no reason our article should be serving as a conduit to information sources of much lower quality.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Why delete the entire section rather than just the sources that you don't think are reliable? The information stands on its own with just the New York Times and PFLAG website. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Check the page history. I did not delete the section, just shortened it. Another editor then removed the section heading, citing WP:UNDUE. The essential information is still there. PFLAG website is a primary source. Their action doesn't seem like a significant part of this bio, compared to other material here. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, your claim that Reid criticizing her colleague "makes this controversy especially notable" is dubious on two grounds: (1) it's among the posts that Reid contends are fabricated; (2) as The New York Times reports, "Ms. Reid hosts a weekend morning show on MSNBC, but at the time she kept her blog active neither she nor Ms. Maddow had shows on the network." We're dealing with at best a purported criticism of someone who would not be Reid's colleague until 2014—many years after Reid's blog post, even if genuine, appeared. This is flimsy stuff to be considered "especially notable" for Wikipedia purposes. KalHolmann (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, The New York Time reports on PFLAG rescinding its planned award, so we do have a WP:RS should consensus form that it's worthy of inclusion. Personally, I agree with you that it lacks significance. The award was announced but never formally conferred. KalHolmann (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

For #1 I think we should of course include Reid's denial that she wrote the posts (after apologizing for them) and later blamed it on hackers. That's fair and neutral. I have mixed feelings about #2, as I maintain that criticism of her gay future colleague for her views on gay rights is very significant. I am not beholden to including the material, although I would not be surprised if Maddow responds soon, which may affect the notability. The reason that this controversy deserves its own subsection is that at the moment it is getting mixed up in the general overview of her career. It's getting quite a bit of media coverage and PFLAG canceled an award they were going to give her. We should at least leave that bit in, and the header title to help separate the controversy from the rest of her career. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, let's await consensus on whether or not to restore the Homophobic blog posts controversy subsection. I removed it citing WP:UNDUE, and as shown by his comment in this thread, HouseOfChange did not object. In an edit summary on the article page, HouseOfChange also mentioned WP:RECENT, which we must likewise strive to avoid. Restoring the subsection now would blow the ongoing brouhaha—just a day old, after all—badly out of proportion. KalHolmann (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, separately, please be advised that Ms. Reid did not, contrary to your assertion, deny that she wrote the posts after apologizing for them. She has conspicuously not apologized for the allegedly fabricated posts. Why would she? KalHolmann (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I won't speculate as to why Reid apologized for posts she claims were planted by hackers, but she did in fact do just that, per WaPo[10] and NBC News[11]. Reid: "This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote [my bolding] a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized." She went to express further regret: "Re-reading those old blog posts, I am disappointed in myself. I apologize to those who also are disappointed in me. Life can be humbling. It often is. But I hope that you know where my heart is, and that I will always strive to use my words for good. I know better and I will do better." This was approximately four months before she said that the posts were the work of "hackers." Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She apologized for her comments about Crist. Her claim (based on technical information given to her by an expert she trusted) that some other comments in her blog were not by her may simply be a result of her having forgotten what she wrote in the past. But this page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss Joy Reid. The Washington Post is waiting for further clarification and I think we should do so as well. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, since the NBC News post that you cite is dated December 3, 2017, it does not help us understand the present situation. As for WaPo's story, published today, it is misleading on this point. "Joy Reid, host of the weekend MSNBC show AM Joy, apologized more than four months ago for homophobic comments she admitted to making on her blog in the mid-2000s," writes Meagan Flynn. "But now she's suggesting she didn't write many of the posts in the first place—that instead she was hacked." This, I submit, misconstrues Reid's April 23, 2018 143-word statement in direct response exclusively to Mediaite, upon which WaPo relies. Reid does not therein apologize. To the contrary, she says that "an unknown, external party accessed and manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology." Since last year, Mediaite reported, it had "obtained a [second] series of homophobic posts from Joy Ann Reid's old blog. … While Reid apologized in December for writing homophobic content on a blog she ran long before her days as an icon of the #Resistance movement, she claims these new [emphasis added] posts opposing gay marriage and cringing 'at the sight of two men kissing' were part of a 'fabricated' outside effort to paint her as 'offensive and hateful.'" Note that Mediaite limits Reid's allegations of fabrication to "these new posts." Nowhere does Mediaite contend that Reid's December 2017 apology somehow applies to disputed posts published in April 2018. Accordingly, I concur with HouseOfChange's suggestion that we await further clarification. KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not even sure what Joy is arguing anymore. It appears that she is claiming that the homophobic blog posts about Crist were written by her (and is sorry for them), but these newly uncovered posts from the same blog were not written by her, but by hackers instead? Regardless, this story continues to expand and left-wing media is beginning to abandon her, which is very significant. An article from HuffPo regarding this is informative: Joy Reid’s Hacking Claims Look Increasingly Unlikely. The Daily Beast is now suspending her column Daily Beast Suspends Joy Reid Column Over ‘Serious’ Accusations About Past Homophobic Blog Posts. It appears Media Matters is one of the only organizations standing by her, characterizing the controversy as "bullshit" and "right-wing chicanery"[12]. CNN reports that Reid's attorney claims an FBI investigation has been opened into the alleged hacking[13]. No matter the result of this ongoing saga, it certainly warrants inclusion into the article, and has grown in size to the point that it needs its own section to help organize it all. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputed section: how we add WP:RECENT news about old blogposts to Career section

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people seek information about notable people including significant events in their careers. The recent and ongoing controversy about some decade-old blogposts by Joy Reid, in addition to other writings in her blog which her technical advisor claims may have been added by others, is currently covered in this article briefly and based on information by WP:RS. The length of this material should not exceed its importance relative to the journalistic career of Joy Ann Reid. Please discuss on this talk page any new material you consider significant, and what other material you think should be removed as less significant to this biography. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the section is shaping up well, but I really don't think the scenario merits a mention in the lead, at least not at present. Unless there's a huge backlash from the LGBT community (and there hasn't been to my knowledge; there seems instead a rush to defend her), this is hardly a major part of her career timeline. Also, the attacks and revelations (true or false) seem to be politically motivated, which is hardly surprising in the current political environment. All the more reason it should not go in the lead, in my opinion. Apart from the Christ thing, which was over quickly, this whole blow-up is less than 24 hours old. GreyGoose (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I posted my thoughts on this in the above section, but the plot continues to thicken. Reid's attorney claims the FBI is now investigating the alleged hacking, the Daily Beast has suspended her column, and an NBC spokesperson has said she will stay on the air while the investigation is underway [14]. Whatever the result of this bizarre episode, it's notable enough for its own section and likely at least a sentence in the lede to properly summarize the article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Joy Ann Reid, relying on information from somebody with much more tech savvy than she has, suggested that blogposts she did not remember making may have been hacked. The context of this hoo-ha is that people who dislike her are trying to blow up some decade-old stupid remarks into a scandal that wrecks her career. If she has evolved since her opinions a decade ago, haven't you had the same experience? Instead of letting Wikipedia be used as a weapon to destroy careers, let us stick to BLP, NPOV, UNDUE and other useful principles that keep us what we should be, a great online encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a specious argument. It really shouldn't concern us as to the validity of her hacking claims, or whether or not she relied on somebody who was tech-savvy for those claims. We're not talking about criticism from only people who dislike her. As I pointed out, Daily Beast, Politico, HuffPo (all liberal online news magazines) have gone after Reid. It also doesn't matter whether the controversy wrecks her career, or if her (and especially my) opinions have ever changed. None of this has any encyclopedic value. What matters is that it is a significant moment in her career, every reliable source is covering it, and it is notable. If we can't agree on the material, maybe we should start an RfC and get a vote tally. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, before opening an RfC, please give us an updated list of what you believe ought to be added to the article. We have now included the controversy, which you rightly call a "significant moment in her career," in the lead and expanded the final paragraph in the Career section. HouseOfChange suggests that, moving forward, we should "stick to BLP, NPOV, UNDUE and other useful principles." That seems perfectly sensible to me. An RfC at this point, however, would be premature. KalHolmann (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all those points. Here is what I think the article is missing right now:

1. A subsection under "Career" discussing the content blog posts, reactions, response from Reid, and the response attributed to MSNBC stating she will stay on air for the time-being. "Homophobic blog post controversy" I think was a good neutral heading.
2. The sentence in the lede should not say that "some" have called her posts homophobic and insensitive. Every RS refers to the posts as homophobic and/or anti-gay. The criticism is unanimous, with the only exception being Media Matters.
3. More detail in the current section discussing the blog posts. The reader does not know why the posts were called homophobic is the article's current state. Summarizing some of the primary reason for the criticism (Reid's views on the sight of two men kissing, the graphic description of male lawmakers performing sex acts on each other as well as SCOTUS justices, and her attacks on Rachel Maddow)[15][16][17] is necessary.
4. PFLAG's canceling of their award is extremely significant and should be mentioned.[18]
5. The suspension of Reid's Daily Beast column is notable, and the lede needs to be updated to reflect the suspension, as she is not currently a pundit with the Beast. and should be included in the new section.
6. Reid's response, claims of hacking, and the fact that her attorney says the FBI is investigating the alleged hacking is needed for WP:NPOV and WP:N. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The "tweets" section is already about 1/4 of the entire length of the section on her career (117 words out of 479 words total.) The material you propose to add gives even more WP:UNDUE weight to this RECENT controversy. Nothing else in this bio is covered with the level of detail you propose adding about a news story that currently changes daily. I think our coverage of this issue should not exceed 1/4 the length of the career section. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a "tweets" section in the current article. Could you check my list numbered 1-6 and see which suggestions you support/do not support and why? I think only 1 and 3 may be the only ones warranting further discussion. The others are simply a matter of following policy and the facts. For even more context, Vox, a very liberal online magazine, has now written a column calling her posts "homophobic" and stating that there is reason to be skeptical of her hacking claims.[19]Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Too many indents! Trying to restart this discussion productively below at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#The_WP:RECENT_"homophobia"_section_of_the_current_Career_section HouseOfChange (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Admit all additions that are well-sourced, minding that we don't WP:QUOTEFARM nor otherwise include redundant information. The article is in no danger of hitting the Wikipedia article length limit, and therefore no well-sourced material need be removed to "make room". Per WP:DUE policy, "Neutrality requires that each article... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". If the viewpoints only range from mildly negative to ultra-negative, then that's what we print. A quick Google News search confirms that Reid has received little coverage outside the widely-covered the hacking claim; therefore I don't see what the problem is, even if the bulk of the article ends up to be about the 2018 hacking claim. I'm not personally interested in taking the time to add anything, but if other editors do want to add well-sourced WP:BNS, I don't see any policy grounds for reverting them nor for non-inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@(HouseOfChange) I feel we're not compliant with WP:DUE; for example, [20] removes the last vestiges of CNN's negative assessment, but keeps in the article lengthy quotations of Reid's WP:FRINGE continuing insistence that she was hacked, without providing the context that this claim is false, or at least the context that, say, CNN judges this claim unlikely. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Guys, to re-iterate, I feel that this article is NPOV. Is there a reason based on Wikipedia policy for omitting well-sourced material here? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Rolf H Nelson, on April 28 you commented, "I'm not personally interested in taking the time to add anything." The next day you complained, "I feel we're not compliant with WP:DUE" because we'd removed CNN's negative assessment about Reid's claim of being hacked. Today you ask, "Is there a reason based on Wikipedia policy for omitting well-sourced material here?" It seems you want other editors to do your handiwork. I for one am opposed to restoring CNN's negative assessment because Reid herself has said (as we relate in the article), "I hired cybersecurity experts to see if someone had manipulated my words or my former blog, and the reality is they have not been able to prove it." CNN's assessment is redundant piling-on. KalHolmann (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Experts have not been able to prove (that Reid was hacked)" is misleading compared to 'CNN wrote that "Reid's hacking claims don't add up," noting that journalists who had investigated her claims had called them into question, and reported that a rebuttal from the Wayback Machine (which archived Reid's posts) appeared to harm Reid's credibility."' Therefore, the CNN material is not redundant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Rolf H Nelson, the article includes this: "The Wayback Machine, where the newly discovered posts had been found, said it detected no evidence of hacking in the archived versions of her site." This is sourced to The New York Times. Adding your CNN text is by definition redundant. KalHolmann (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the article doesn't include that her claims didn't add up, nor that her credibility was harmed. "No evidence of hacking" is unclear, and may imply the hacking credibly may have occurred, a stance not taken by most (any?) WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Rolf H Nelson, that's preposterous. When the Wayback Machine said it detected no evidence of hacking, they weren't being unclear. They were saying, in effect, that no hacking occurred. KalHolmann (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Wayback Machine being unclear, I'm talking about the current article being unclear. It is not clear from the current article that the Wayback Machine "was saying, in effect, that no hacking occurred". The current article might easily be taken by our readers as "maybe the Wayback Machine had an intern spend five minutes looking for an obvious hack, and then gave up". Therefore, CNN's assessment is not redundant with the current article content. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. (from WP:OVERCITE.) Our job is to tell the story, with a length proportional to the Career section here, of the events. In December, old posts about Crist exposed. Response by Joy Reid and Crist. In April, more posts published. Claim of hacking, people dispute that claim. Reid walks back hacking claim and apologizes. Public response. I am sure we can find good citations for each of these story elements, maybe more than one for the last of these. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:RECENT "homophobia" section of the current Career section

Currently, 1/4 of the section concerning Joy Reid's career is devoted to the WP:RECENT controversy about some decade-old comments (117 words out of 479 words total.) Here is what that section currently includes

In 2017, a Twitter user reported finding posts written between 2007 and 2009 on Reid's former blog "Reid Report", suggesting Democratic Representative Charlie Crist (who was then the Republican governor of Florida) was a closeted homosexual.[19] Following criticism of the posts as homophobic, Reid apologized, calling the posts "tone deaf."[20] Crist responded thanking Reid for her apology.[21] In April 2018, the same Twitter user reported on additional posts from the defunct blog.[22] According to The New York Times, these posts included "claims that gay men prey on 'impressionable teens'".[4] Reid subsequently claimed the posts uncovered in April 2018 were fabricated, and planted by hackers.[4] CNN reported that Reid's claim was "met with plenty of skepticism", and that a rebuttal from the Wayback Machine (which archived Reid's posts) appeared to harm Reid's credibility.[23]

In a Talk section above this one, where the indents are getting impossible, Mr. Daniel Plainview proposes adding much greater detail to this bio, with a particular focus on news stories that attack Joy Ann Reid. Our goal is balance, plus following policies on WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and most important of all WP:NPOV. Reid, who has angered Bernie Sanders supporters as well as Trump fans, is being targeted from the left as well as the right; therefore it is not sufficient to claim that some news source is "liberal" to assume it is sympathetic to her. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how old the controversy is. Bill Cosby's article details sexual assault allegations going back to the mid-60's. Reid's homophobic blog-post controversy is from only ten years ago, and these posts were only recently discovered. The New York Times article summarizes just one blog post, and this content does not adequately summarize the nature of the blog posts and the fallout stemming from them.

In reference to the suggestion that I propose adding greater detail, as readers of this page will see, that is only 2/6 of the problems that I mentioned with this article. The article currently falsely claims that Reid is a Daily Beast pundit. She is not. Her Daily Beast column has been suspended as a result of the Joy Reid homophobic blog posts controversy. That needs to be rectified immediately. To finish up, the fact that left-leaning news sources are all calling the posts "homophobic" is significant because it proves that Media Matters' characterization of this controversy as "bullshit" and "right-wing chicanery" is frivolous and has no basis in fact. We don't put our own point of the view in the article and try to dismiss the posts as being somehow less homophobic/anti-gay because they are "decade-old" posts. We report what the sources say. Joy Reid's article meets Wikipedia's standards of notability for two reasons: she has a television show on MSNBC, and she has become embroiled in a controversy related to blog posts she wrote in the mid-late 2000's. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a final thing to try to resolve this: I asked you in the above section to identify which of the six bullet points I listed you support, and which ones you do not. You have not done so. I see you have reverted three editors to date that have attempted to add this material to the article. This will keep happening for the foreseeable future as the controversy develops, and I again suggest an RfC and get a tally to break the cycle. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Mr. Daniel Plainview, in consideration of your noting that The Daily Beast has suspended Reid's column, I revised the wording in the lead to conform to its cited source, which does not mention Reid writing for The Daily Beast. KalHolmann (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you KalHolmann. That brings my bullet point list down to five! LOL. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, I sincerely appreciate your contributions to this Talk page, and thank you for making me think more about the issues. But I disagree with your assertion, "It doesn't really matter how old the controversy is." The present flare-up, which is not an uninterrupted continuation of last December's conflagration, erupted just three days ago. And as HouseOfChange reminds us, we're dealing with "a news story that currently changes daily." For example, Kevin Poulsen's article at The Daily Beast, "Claims by Joy Reid's Cybersecurity Expert Fall Apart," which in my opinion advances this story dramatically, is less than 24 hours old. Tomorrow may bring another complete turnaround. Moreover, your analogy with Wikipedia's Bill Cosby page seems particularly inapt. Excluding references, Cosby's main article is 6,750 words; Reid's is 762. Editors can add detail about Cosby's legal travails without according them undue weight. Not so with this brief BLP of Joy-Ann Reid. As WP:NOTNEWS advises, "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized…" We need to let the dust settle. KalHolmann (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if Joy Ann Reid made stupid comments a decade ago, do you claim that as equivalent to drugging and raping women? Also, my contribution list will show I work to promote the great encyclopedia project against well-meaning people who come here to "right great wrongs" by posting recent and POV attacks on BLPs. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)]]

It doesn't matter what my personal feelings are on Reid or Cosby. That fact that she wrote the blog posts ten years ago or ten hours ago has no bearing on whether or not the material belongs in the article. Reliable sources have covered and are continuing to cover the controversy extensively. If you see anyone posting "recent and POV attacks on BLPs," by all means, revert them. I personally had to do that after someone recently vandalized this page.[21]. The truth is that the line in the lede declaring that "some" have called her posts homophobic is misleading to say the least. Every RS who has reported on this has called the posts homophobic, and most use the term "anti-gay" as well. Retitling the section as "Decade-old blog posts" baffles me. The reader is left to wonder why there is a section on "blog posts," until they read the section and begin to understand. It's still not entirely clear what the controversy is about, as the bits about lawmakers fellating each other has been left out, as has most of the aftermath (Daily Beast suspension, PFLAG award cancellation, MSNBC backing, etc.). Is there a reason why you chose not to address my six bullet points listing the problems with the article? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Does CNN have a conflict of interest in this story?

Reliance on CNN in our BLP of a rising star at one of CNN's competitors makes me uneasy. In an April 29, 2018 opinion piece at Forbes, Jonathan Berr wrote, "Reid is a rising star at MSNBC. During the most recent quarter, AM Joy beat rival CNN for the first time since the show was launched in 2016." To say that CNN has a vested economic interest in discrediting Joy-Ann Reid is to state the obvious. Yet we cite two articles from CNNMoney, both by media reporter Tom Kludt. After his April 25, 2018: 4:26 PM ET story appeared, Kludt characterized it on Twitter as "establishing clearly and early in the piece how many ppl think her claim is BS." That seems less like the statement of an unbiased journalist than boasting by a paid partisan. KalHolmann (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

To a degree we have to rely on media reporting for information about media, so I don't have much of a problem with CNN reporting on MSNBC personalities and vice versa. However we can use other sourcing to bolster the content. Daily Beast was Reid's employer before suspending her for the blog posts, and wrote this: Claims by Joy Reid’s Cybersecurity Expert Fall Apart. MSNBC itself has called the posts "offensive"[22] and "harmful to the LGBT community"[23]. The characterization of the blog posts and her previous hacking claims is virtually unanimous. This line in the lead about "some have called 'homophobic'" is inaccurate and highly misleading. The dismissal of the posts as "decade-old" is POV. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, thank you for the links to MSNBC, which I have taken the liberty of including in our article. Being from her employer gives them added weight that merits inclusion. Also, in light of the growth of this content, I tentatively added a subsection—but with a more measured title than you had suggested. I am still very much opposed to Homophobic blog posts controversy on grounds of WP:CSECTION, but we'll see what other editors think. KalHolmann (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, re your objection specifically to the lead's final sentence saying some have called her blog posts homophobic, I suggest we need a better source to justify changing the word "some." The New York Times article we cite, which appeared on the controversy's first day, simply does not support saying "many" have called them homophobic. In your 27 April 2018 comment above, you declare, "Every RS refers to the posts as homophobic and/or anti-gay. The criticism is unanimous, with the only exception being Media Matters." However, we must be careful of WP:SYN, which advises, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Perhaps there is a more recent source that is more encompassing on this point. KalHolmann (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. I understand the basis of SYNTH, but that doesn't preclude us describing the coverage in our own words, otherwise we'd just be copy-pasting sources word for word! If we're going to use our own wording and say that "some" have called the posts homophobic, I see no reason why we can't use "universally" or "widely called" in its place, which would be much, much more accurate. The NYT piece you reference uses the terms "anti-gay" and "homophobic." Nothing about "some have called." I think we would be okay changing that word to more accurately reflect the sourcing. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, you're right: The New York Times article we cite does not use the phrase "some have called." Nor does it use the words "many," "universally" or "widely." Of course we as editors often paraphrase our sources. But we're not at liberty to simply substitute words the source does not use in order to advance our own point of view. I've removed the word "some," but please provide a WP:RS before stating that Reid's blog posts have been called homophobic by many, universally or widely. KalHolmann (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed draft for blogposts section, please comment and improve

Dear friends, thanks for your patience. I tried to use better and recent RS, which our readers can consult for information. In particular, the recent Nation article has lots of information about the controversial blogposts released in April.

On November 30, 2017,[1] a Twitter user reported finding posts written between 2007 and 2009 on Reid's former blog "Reid Report", suggesting that Florida's then-Governor Charlie Crist was a closeted homosexual.[2] Following criticism of the posts as homophobic, Reid apologized in December, calling the posts "insensitive, tone deaf and dumb."[3] Crist responded thanking Reid for her apology.[1] Also in December, after reviewing more posts from her old blog, which she did not remember making, Reid asked her lawyers to investigate if her blog or its archives might have been hacked. The Wayback Machine, where the newly discovered posts had been found, said it detected no evidence of hacking in the archived versions of her site.[4] [restored by KalHolmann]

In April 2018, the same Twitter user posted additional screenshots from the defunct blog. According to The Nation, Reid's posts expressed "Ridiculing and recirculating rumors about purportedly closeted politicians and celebrities...Using the trope of gay sex to mock politicians and journalists...Opposition to same-sex marriage...Revulsion at gay sex."[5] These new revelations prompted LGBT advocacy group PFLAG to rescind its plan to give Reid an award.[6]

Reid's employer, MSNBC, called her blog posts "offensive"[26] and said her writings and tweets were "harmful to the LGBT community."[27] [restored by KalHolmann] Reid opened the April 28, 2018, edition of AM Joy with an apology, saying, "I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me. But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me. I've not been exempt from being dumb or cruel or hurtful to the very people I want to advocate for. I own that. I get it. And for that, I am truly, truly sorry." She also said, "I hired cybersecurity experts to see if someone had manipulated my words or my former blog, and the reality is they have not been able to prove it."[7] Response to her apology was divided along partisan lines.[8][9]

According to WP:BRD, I should simply paste this into the article but I would prefer to seek consensus here on the talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I support your addition of PFLAG, but oppose your removal of the Wayback Machine, which is a significant part of this story.—far more important than PFLAG—and badly damaged Reid's credibility. While she never claimed Wayback was hacked, that was the impression fostered by many of the sloppily reported and antagonistic news stories between April 24–28. Reid's enemies seized on Wayback's rebuttal as "proof" that she was lying. To this day, many people still accept this distortion of events. Wikipedia ought to help quell the malicious falsehood. I also oppose removal of MSNBC calling her posts "offensive" and saying her writings and tweets were "harmful to the LGBT community." It's vital to know where her employer stood during this uproar, especially as it provides context for Reid's on-air apology. KalHolmann (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Kal (if I may), can you add some edits to make this better? I agree that MSNBC was agnostic (aside from not firing her) in early part of the story. NY Magazine cites a recent tweet saying that MSNBC supports her more strongly since her apology. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My proposed restorations are shown in green above. KalHolmann (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reconsidered restoration of the sentence quoting Jonathan Nichols. The December 19, 2017, letter from Reid's lawyer John H. Reichman to Internet Archive demands "information needed to determine how the fraudulent posts came to be included in the archived posts." It adds, "We are also investigating, of course, how the malevolent posts came to appear in your archive and whether the Blog or the Wayback Machine was hacked." This may not be an accusation by Ms. Reid that the Wayback Machine was hacked, but it's pretty damn close. We should dispense with Nichols's spin. KalHolmann (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Kal, I like your suggestions and will now put your current draft into the article, which it will greatly improve. Though I guess I should first remove the red and greening of some text. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a vast improvement to what we have now. I think my only suggestion would be to possibly mention the fact that MSNBC told POLITICO that she would be losing her show.[24] I also think it's significant that when she mentioned that she couldn't bring herself to watch Brokeback Mountain, she allegedly said: "Does that make me homophobic? Probably.” But as you said the section is already quite long and wouldn't be opposed to this material being omitted. What do we think about the lede? Am I alone in thinking that saying "some" reliable sources have called the posts homophobic/anti-gay is misleading, and calling the posts "decade-old" is POV? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Mr. Daniel Plainview, I revised that sentence in the lead to reflect your objection and to strictly conform to the wording in our source. It now reads: "In 2017–2018, Reid faced controversy after a series of what The New York Times called 'homophobic posts on her defunct, decade-old blog resurfaced on social media.'" Since "decade-old" is part of this quotation from an eminently WP:RS, I believe it should remain. KalHolmann (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mr. Daniel Plainview for your collegial message about this section. I read the Politico article you linked[25], but did not find a statement from MSNBC that Reid would be losing her show. Is there a different Politico article you had in mind? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha what a difference one word can make! I meant to say that MSNBC stated she would NOT be losing her show. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the lede, I have no problem with the quotation itself. My view is that since some of the posts were from over a decade ago (2007) and some were more recent (2009), "decade-old" seems sloppy to me. That's just nitpicky at this point, though. I think it's fine. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times quotation calls her blog a "decade-old"—not her 2009 posts thereto. It isn't sloppy; it's factually accurate. KalHolmann (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I read Stack's article, and my opinion is that his wording was sloppy and dismissive. But again I'm not all that concerned if you are both satisfied with the current lede. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a poorly-written article. I considered removing it from our list of references and replacing each cite with a better source, but I ran out of energy before doing it. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL I know that feeling. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note Mr. Daniel Plainview has been blocked as a sock puppet of a community banned editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

9/11 truther stuff

Reid promoted Loose Change on her blog and posted truther nonsense herself. An editor reverted this, claiming that it was WP:UNDUE. This is notable (as shown by extensive RS coverage by WaPo, CNN, Politico, the Hill, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Buzzfeed News, the Daily Beast, Adweek, HuffPost). Sources such as Politico and CJR (I'm sure the rest do too, but I can't be arsed to read them all) even link her 9/11 conspiracy nonsense to her continuing future at MSNBC and to how MSNBC will respond to recent reporting over her truther past.[26][27] Sources also report dismay by her MSNBC colleagues.[28] The editor who reverted the text should self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. I think it will be a few days before we learn if this RECENT event is worth 2 paragraphs, 2 sentences, or zero. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense from start to end. It's two sentences, and there are a dozen+ RS on this. If any pundit, politician or individual involved in US politics had promoted 9/11 truther conspiracy theories, it would be covered on their Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

She didn't "promote conspiracy theories" on her blog. She briefly mentioned such theories, inviting her readers to take a look. That was yesterday's attempted new "big scandal" from BuzzFeed. Today's new attempt is that she posted a photoshopped joke mocking John McCain by putting his head on the body of somebody flashing two large handguns. Who knows what exciting revelation they have saved up for tomorrow? If any of these "revelations" creates actual scandal, or a change in her job situation with MSNBC, or really anything beyond salivating eagerness from far left and right, then those stories belong in Wikipedia. Right now, they don't, yet. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion on Wikipedia are not "is this big enough to get someone the sack?". We judge WP:DUE on the weight of RS coverage, and as I've demonstrated, Reid's promotion of 9/11 truther conspiracies have garnered her coverage by dozens of RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reid has now[29] published a statement apologizing for her 9/11 truther conspiracy theories, as well as her attack on McCain (both of which you deleted from this Wikipedia article under the auspices of this being nothingburgers). Do public figures make a habit of publishing a letter of apology for trivial things? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Of course people make public responses on trivial matters when antagonists loudly court news cycles demanding to know why they haven't responded. I'd like to quote, as very relevant here, a comment added by GreyGoose to the RFC section above[30]:

  "Remove heading and reduce the whole thing to one single short paragraph. Let the readers consult the citations if they want more info. It's fairly clear to me that the whole controversy regarding archived personal blog posts she wrote over a decade ago has been initiated, and now amplified (on Twitter and gossipy news articles), by her antagonists. If these were items she had posted on news media, within the past two years, that would be one thing. but posts on a long-defunct personal blog before she was even publicly known have no longterm encyclopedic notability, and lengthy mention of them here serves only to violate WP:BLP and WP:BALASP. Our time and attention should be spent on improving this article by detailing more of her professional career, not her personal blog posts prior to becoming a nationally known journalist...(If something actually happens to her career because of those very old archived blogs posts, then they would be worth mentioning in a separate heading.)"

The WP:RECENT blogpost "revelations" are tame compared to earlier ones, and MSNBC's response of makes it clear that her career has not been damaged. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

These were not things she wrote in high school. She wrote them while in her late30s and working as a journalist and pundit. Of course, if she had written them in high school, then reliable sources would not give a crap about it and would not cover it. The quote you bring up is nonsense, and completely unrelated to Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENT, WP:BALASP, and WP:BLP are Wikipedia policies that govern the matter at hand. I suggest you also review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can also list a random mish-mash of policies when content is added to Wikipedia that I personally disagree with but I don't. I cite policy when it actually applies. You know as well as I do that when dozens of high-quality RS report something, it blatantly passes WP:DUE and is obviously not a flimsy transient episode of trivial importance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedia policies require inclusion here and continue to be baffled that a page editor is blocking it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We disagree, let's seek wider comment at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joy_Ann_Reid HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC: The section on controversial blogposts is too long compared to the rest of the Careers section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rolf H Nelson suggests above that we add more information about the Wayback Machine's response into the "Controversial Blogposts" subsection. I disagree, because that section is already longer than the entire rest of the Career section (363 words vs 362 words.)

I am going to request outside comment on the question of relative length here. I thought we had consensus on a neutral account of the events (which are now completely out of the news, by the way) but every edit since then has been someone adding more (negative) material to the section.

I believe this controversy, already fading from news articles, is already treated at WP:UNDUE length. My question is, Can others give some guidance? What is the appropriate ratio in words of this section to the rest of the Careers section. Pinging also Mr. Daniel Plainview and KalHolmann who have been active on this section of the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Correction: the section in question is Controversial blog posts—not controversial tweets. A Twitter user triggered this controversy by tweeting screenshots of old blog posts by Joy-Ann Reid, but that user's tweets were not the subject of this controversy. Reid's blog posts were. KalHolmann (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Embarrassed KalHolmann is correct and I am amending my previous edit to reflect his change. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete paragraph 3 (Summoned by bot) I don't think UNDUE would apply to the material, nor do I mind something being longer than another section, however, I thinkt he article would be just fine with the 3rd paragraph section either removed or slimmed down. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think the section looks mostly fine as it is right now. We have the intial controversy, the continuation of the controversy, her response to it (apologies, claims of hacking), responses to it from groups she's well-connected with, and responses to her claims of hacking. If anything, we could trim the section length by combining the information in the first paragraph with the second and third. The second paragraph already talks about how the blog posts shared rumors about supposedly closeted politicians, like the post about Charlie Crist, and the third paragraph also repeats her claim that she didn't (or at least doesn't remember) making those blog posts. In other words, instead of mentioning two separate incidents (along with their respective responses by Reid and others), treat this like one extended controversy. clpo13_(talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

clpo13, sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by combining the first paragraph with the second and third to treat this as one extended controversy. If it's not too much trouble, could you please show here on the Talk page how the trimmed section would look? KalHolmann (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, maybe something like this:

In November 2017 and April 2018,[19] a Twitter user reproduced posts written between 2005 and 2009 on Reid's former blog "Reid Report". According to The Nation, these posts expressed "Ridiculing and recirculating rumors about purportedly closeted politicians and celebrities…Using the trope of gay sex to mock politicians and journalists…Opposition to same-sex marriage…Revulsion at gay sex."[22] Following criticism of the posts as homophobic, Reid apologized, calling the posts "insensitive, tone deaf and dumb."[21] After reviewing more posts from her old blog, which she said she did not remember making, Reid asked lawyers to investigate if her blog or its archives might have been hacked.[3] Although the Wayback Machine, where the newly discovered posts had been found, said it detected no evidence of hacking in the archived versions of her site,[3] Reid's lawyer announced that "the FBI has opened an investigation into potential criminal activities surrounding several online accounts, including personal email and blog accounts, belonging to Joy-Ann Reid."[23]

The latest batch of posts prompted LGBT advocacy group PFLAG to rescind its plan to give Reid an award,[24] and The Daily Beast to suspend future columns from her.[25] Reid's employer, MSNBC, called her blog posts "offensive"[26] and said her writings and tweets were "harmful to the LGBT community."[27] Reid opened the April 28, 2018, edition of AM Joy with an apology, saying, "I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me. But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me. I've not been exempt from being dumb or cruel or hurtful to the very people I want to advocate for. I own that. I get it. And for that, I am truly, truly sorry." She also said, "I hired cybersecurity experts to see if someone had manipulated my words or my former blog, and the reality is they have not been able to prove it."[28] Response to her apology was divided along party lines

It's not much shorter, but it's a bit streamlined, in my opinion. When the new posts were discovered in April 2018, information about them was just tacked on to the exist blurb about November 2017, when it was just about Crist. Now it appears to be a larger issue of homophobia in her blog posts, so we could probably cut out the specifics about one individual she talked about. I'm not opposed to keeping a mention of Crist and his acceptance of her apology to him, though. clpo13_(talk) 21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That streamlining is good, thank you. I agree, Crist posts relatively insignificant compared to later controversy. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

clpo13, thanks for your effort, but that's disappointing. Apart from changing paragraph separations and repositioning one sentence ("According to The Nation…"), the only substantive revision you made was to remove "suggesting that Florida's then-Governor Charlie Crist was a closeted homosexual" and "Crist responded thanking Reid for her apology"—less than 5% of the section's length. If this disagreement was worthy of a formal RfC, I figured we'd be looking at a more sizable reduction. KalHolmann (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(Involved editor) **Admit all additions that are well-sourced. (Reiterating here my position from above, for convenience) The article is in no danger of hitting the Wikipedia article length limit, and therefore no well-sourced material need be removed to "make room". Per WP:DUE policy, "Neutrality requires that each article... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". A quick Google News search confirms that Reid has received little coverage outside the widely-covered the hacking claim; therefore I don't see what the problem is, even if the bulk of the article ends up to be about the 2018 hacking claim. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Involved editor) The relevant policy here is WP:BALASP: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Joy Ann Reid has had a long career in journalism. When the first set of old blogposts surfaced, when the second set of old blogposts surfaced, when she publicly repeated claims by a tech advisor that she had been hacked, and when she said she did not remember these blogposts and could not believe that she wrote them, each of these events launched a mini-scandal that got wide recent coverage. NBC criticized but then supported her. She won't lose her show. The scandal has died down and will probably stay dead unless she tries to re-assert the widely-disbelieved hacking claim. So how important is this recent controversy to the topic of this article, which is Joy Ann Reid? It was huuuuuge in April 2018, but now it is mid-May 2018 and where is the coverage? Any material that will still be considered notable 10 years from now can easily be covered in a paragraph or two, certainly not half the length of her career section. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

BALASP specifically states an article "should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Reid's hacking claims have given her a permanent credibility hit, and are not a minor aspect of her career. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Reid is a journalist who made a mistake, or more than one mistake, which people who already disliked her are trying to use to attack her reputation via this Wikipedia article. Go to the Wikipedia article of Judith Miller or Dan Rather and let me know if you can find the word "credibility" in either. BLP dictates NPOV. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Judith Miller's lead states "According to commentator Ken Silverstein, Miller's Iraq reporting "effectively ended her career as a respectable journalist". Dan Rather has a whole article on Killian_documents_controversy. Unlike Rather, however, we don't need to split out as separate article due to length. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove heading and reduce the whole thing to one single short paragraph. Let the readers consult the citations if they want more info. It's fairly clear to me that the whole controversy regarding archived personal blog posts she wrote over a decade ago has been initiated, and now amplified (on Twitter and gossipy news articles), by her antagonists. If these were items she had posted on news media, within the past two years, that would be one thing. but posts on a long-defunct personal blog before she was even publicly known have no longterm encyclopedic notability, and lengthy mention of them here serves only to violate WP:BLP and WP:BALASP. Our time and attention should be spent on improving this article by detailing more of her professional career, not her personal blog posts prior to becoming a nationally known journalist. The career section of this article is a genuine mess, not even in chronological order. (If something actually happens to her career because of those very old archived blogs posts, then they would be worth mentioning in a separate heading.) GreyGoose (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

She didn't write those posts while in high school. She wrote them in her thirties while working professionally as a journalist/pundit. This Wikipedia page should cover her controversial blog posts commensurate with RS coverage. There are at this point dozens of RS that have covered her controversial blog posts. The attempts to whitewash it from her Wikipedia page does not rest on any Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Condense to one or two paragraphs -- the section contains too many quotes and back & forth about the lawyers etc. I believe that the contents can be summarised better. For example:

• "Although the Wayback Machine, where the newly discovered posts had been found, said it detected no evidence of hacking in the archived versions of her site,[3] Reid's lawyer announced that "the FBI has opened an investigation into potential criminal activities surrounding several online accounts, including personal email and blog accounts, belonging to Joy-Ann Reid." can be easily condensed to:
• "Wayback Machine, where the posts had been found, said it detected no evidence of hacking in the archived versions of her site." Etc.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

What do other editors think about including that "(CNN reported) a rebuttal from the Wayback Machine (which archived Reid's posts) appeared to harm Reid's credibility" (undone here: [31]). The main story according to the MSM (which I agree with) is that Reid's claims of hacking were non-credible and undermined her credibility, where in the current Wikipedia article text the main story is that she posted unsavory blog posts ten years ago. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To say that the Wayback Machine rebuked her claim that they had been hacked is true. To say that this harmed "Reid's credibility" in un-encyclopedic and POV. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct that it is a point of view, specifically it is the neutral point of view: NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Therefore it should be included. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Add "Black nationalist" to her resume along with her role as a television host and political commentator. Notsurewhereyoureadthat (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also this is not a resume. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine comments

Should the statement she made about Ukraine be added https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10599009/MSNBCs-Joy-Reid-faces-backlash-criticizing-medias-coverage-Ukraine.html https://www.ktsa.com/joy-reid-ukraine-and-why-we-care/ https://theblackwallsttimes.com/2022/03/09/joy-reid-calls-out-double-standard-in-ukrainian-humanitarian-crisis/ https://www.skynews.com.au/business/media/msnbc-host-joy-reids-snivelling-and-pathetic-argument-that-ukrainians-benefit-from-white-privilege-is-appalling-and-wrong/news-story/7d8824223d2bcef9231f4578e23c7944 Persesus (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

When those who disagree with Joy Reid try but fail to to whip up wider outrage about some recent statement--that is not a "controversy" about Joy Reid. Wikipedia summarizes what RS say about a topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

well it still is one either way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Do these count https://www.thewrap.com/joy-reid-gabby-petito/ https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joy-reid-continues-nonstop-coverage-of-ukraine-after-accusing-her-peers-of-elevating-it-over-browner-countries/ Persesus (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Joy Reid

It’s said in Wikipedia that Joy Reid paid for her Harvard education but on Twitter (3/13/17) she admits to being a recipient of affirmative action. 2601:6C2:4004:D9D0:CC68:ED08:A530:BB36 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

"Affirmative action" does not pay Harvard's tuition. There is no contradiction between having paid her own tuition and having tweeted on 3/13/17 "I'm a proud beneficiary of Affirmative Action: a black HS salutatorian w/ 95th %tile SATs who got to attend Harvard w/ C-student legacies." "Affirmative action" meant that, after Harvard had filled most of its freshman class with athletes, "pay-to-play" Jared Kushners, and "legacy" sons of previous Harvard alums, Joy Reid was lucky enough to tick off one of Harvard's admission categories for a rare non-affluent student--in addition to being well qualified for the work there. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, when she admitted to being a beneficiary of affirmative action (as both Obamas also did), she mean that she was admitted with lower test scores than an asian or white would have to have. That is the essence of affirmative action, which is racial preference in favor of a currently desired race and a penalty for other races. It is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

affirmative action controversy

I'm sure it's WP:TooSoon but this recent controversy could be added at some point. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/joy-reid-doesnt-know-what-affirmative-action-is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somegenerichandle (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Joy Reid on MSNBC: "I got into Harvard only because of affirmative action"

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9e9uV8CCek

How would she know that?

Maybe she's just guessing.

Maybe her guess is correct.

Maybe her guess is mistaken.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The article at your link states: "A book written by Princeton professor Thomas J. Espenshade and MPR Associates researcher Alexandria Walton Radford found that Asian Americans must score 140 points higher on SAT tests than white people, 270 points higher than Hispanic people, and 450 points higher than black people in order to have the same odds of admission."

A much more reliable source, the New York Times, said the same thing:

"A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities."

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20170201172516/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)