Talk:Mollie Hemingway

Untitled

The revelations during the week of May 2, 2020, appear to vindicate Ms. Hemingway’s evaluation of the charges.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c160:2880:4cb9:ff0e:2bfa:aa2b (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

On the reliability of a source discussing themself

An edit of mine was undone, because, as the explanation went: "she's not a reliable source as to the history of her own views. if she's accurate about the history of her views, RS should bear it out."

I found that curious, since the content was not self-published, and the publisher, the Washington Post, is widely considered a reliable source. I looked at WP:RS, and WP:BLP and could find nothing supporting the view that someone cannot be a reliable source as to the history of their own views. In fact, a number of guidelines seem to favor inclusion: WP:RSSELF, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:RSOPINION, MOS:QUOTE, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS.

• For instance, WP:BLPSPS makes an exception for sources "written or published by the subject of the article themselves."
• In addition, WP:SELFSOURCE permits even self-published or questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, provided certain criteria are met."

So I see no clear justification for removal of the quote. I'm leaving this explanation here in good faith.

—Approaching (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that a self written article published by a reliable publisher would qualify for inclusion. It is also worth noting that the claim made is a about a contemporary status of her views, not the history.

71.14.106.209 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans Can you clarify why you reverted revision 1050066318 without explanation?

71.14.106.209 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative", not "center-right"

An IP number keeps insisting that MH is "center-right". Not only is that ludicrous, but more importantly it's entirely unsourced, whereas there are multiple RS that characterize her as "conservative". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

2 problematic sentences

In the Views section, we have :

1. "Page, who had murky relationships with Russia and unusually pro-Putin views[…]" — What's it mean here, "unusually" ? Is it meant to say "unusual" ?
2. In May 2018, Hemingway claimed that the theory that FBI spied on Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, and said that this was "unprecedented and scandalous". — So, "the theory that FBI spied on Trump's campaign" is/does what ?

—Jerome Potts (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There are more issues in the "Views" section. Only the first few sentences say anything about her views. The rest simply repeat things that she wrote in certain months. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Husband or wife?

There's a sentence in the article that says this: "Ziegler married Mark Hemingway, a senior writer for The Weekly Standard who also worked as a freelance writer, contributing to many publications including the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Ricochet, particularly writing about religion-related topics, and who was one of the founding members of The Federalist."

I can't tell from the grammar of the sentence whether the part about "contributing to many publications..." applies to Hemingway (the husband) or the wife. I assume it is supposed to be about Mollie Hemingway but that's not 100% clear. Novellasyes (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Staunch defender of Trump"

This wording has re-appeared multiple times now,[1] with the latest version including a string of almost exclusively liberal sources, while excluding Hemingway's own positions. Politico calls her a "pro-Trump commentator", Salon calls her a "reliable Trump defender", Atlantic calls her a "supporter" after acknowledging she wasn't always, and the New York Times article is about commentator trends in general and makes no claim about Hemingways' views on Trump. Her own words in the Washington Post editorial (paywalled) defend Trump's accomplishments, and she adds that "Like most people, I don't particularly like Trump's rhetorical style, juvenile insults and intemperate disposition — on full display in recent days. At the same time, having followed his career for decades, I am not surprised that he wakes up each morning as Donald Trump." Not the words of a "staunch" defender. She has been critical of the media and electoral processes, and her Post oped -- context -- defended Trump's record relative to her expectations of him pre-2016-election and what she would have expected from Hillary.

Snooganssnoogans, if you want to turn that into a "staunch defender of Trump", please do so by a) finding hhigher quality sources that actually say that, b) balancing those sources with her own wording, c) seeking out a balance of sources rather than all liberal, and d) doing so without resorting to citation overkill. One or two strong sources is always preferable to piling in a string of unbalanced sources. The New York Times source that you had been using does not say anything close to her being a "staunch" Trump defender. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)