Jump to content

Talk:Jo Ann Hardesty

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

911 controversy[edit]

This is a prominent controversy with independent media coverage and per WP:LEAD, given the secondary, reliable independent coverage on this matter, it is deserving of a mention in lede. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC) This article was also the target of undisclosed paid editing/white washing by the City of Portland public relations department through the user account Dove3579. The compelling evidence is there, however I can not share it here per WP:OUTING and the evidence has been submitted to functionary. @Isaac Rabinovitch and Kbabej: Graywalls (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I never got an alert for your ping. I think you need to put the template at the beginning of the paragraph. Please try pinging me again so we can see if I'm right. (Templates are so finicky.) Once we get that straighted out we can discuss your change. — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
test. @Isaac Rabinovitch: Graywalls (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls:OK. I'm under the weather today, let's try to have this discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, have a look at H:PINGFIX. —Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaac Rabinovitch and Graywalls: Pinging editors from above discussion, if you still care either way. I wanted to re-visit this; I was going to remove the info and remembered there was this discussion. The 9-1-1 information is three lines about one event. I really think it's pretty undue for the lead. I'd prefer to move that info to the 'Personal life' section, move the erroneous hit-and-run info to the 'Portland City Commissioner' subsection under 'Career', and get rid of the 'Controversy' section altogether. Interested in hearing your thoughts! --Kbabej (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hit-and-run entirely. Since it was just an allegation, I suppose we could leave it out. If someone feels differently, I don't object to re-inserting it though. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Graywalls! I moved it to the subsection since it still resulted in a $3 million lawsuit and got lots of coverage. Thanks for being open to others re-inserting. What are your thoughts on the 911 info in the lead? --Kbabej (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If my opinion counts for anything, I think it is misleading to summarize it as a call over refusing to roll up a window. That is a single side of the story, and it slants against Hardesty. From her perspective, she called 911 because the driver was attempting to drop her off at an unsafe location, which is against Lyft's terms of service for the driver. I think a neutral statement of this could be "a controversy over Hardesty's 911 call involving a Lyft driver drew national attention". 50.38.38.181 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any affiliation with the subject in any way? I’m curious as for four of your five edits have to do with this subject, two of which are concerned with image and perception. —Kbabej (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I live in the Portland metro area but otherwise have no connections to the political landscape in the area. I have never voted for Hardesty. I am concerned about image/perception because this article seems to potentially have a negative bias to it and uses sources like Fox news (which has been very contentious as a source for political news on Wikipedia) to include that bias. As a woman of color in a public leadership position, she is clearly a target of disinformation and smearing as evident by past police behavior. I think it makes sense to be sensitive to the possibility that Wikipedia is also being used as part of these attacks, which also have evidence to suggest they're racially motivated - the officer that was fired was also a member of a white nationalist organization, and there are many more PPB officers that are members as well. Also to my credit - I'm not jumping in and making these edits myself. I am discussing them with people who have history in managing this article. 50.38.38.181 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we need to be cognizant of racial bias, especially against Black WOC. Implying that editors have used [this article] as part of these attacks, which also have evidence to suggest they're racially motivated is also a strong accusation and will likely (eventually) get you topic banned. Please come from a place of AGF if you are wanting to improve WP, including this article. Most all editors are trying to improve WP, not intentionally subvert it. I suggest registering for an account, asking questions at the Teahouse, and continuing to engage on talk pages, especially for BLPs involved in current elections. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am saying the officers' actions have evidence to suggest they're racially motivated - not the work of people on Wikipedia. I plan on making an account, thanks for your recommendations. 50.38.38.181 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and remove the 911 info out of the lead. It seems to be UNDUE at this point, but of course I'm open to discussion. It appears editors who had a former stance on the inclusion don't really mind either way. Feel free to revert and we can continue discussion here if needed. --Kbabej (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to object to the removal. Per WP:LEAD, prominent controversy should be considered for inclusion and given the amount of coverage, and her stance on anti police, yet calling 911 over this supports that this is a prominent controversy. I think it is unbalanced to remove this, yet highlight something like she is the first African American to serve on Portland City Council. What says that is lead preservation worthy while the Lyft incident with significant coverage is not? Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I would consider the first time in the history of Oregon having a Black female city council member for Portland substantial not only for the subject's life and article, but for Portland's history. A minor squabble over one night doesn't really compare IMO. I think it's very UNDUE. --Kbabej (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second that having a single incident that would otherwise be a barely noteworthy event in any of our lives isn't significant enough to include in the lead. That it received tabloid-style coverage on Fox News and the New York Post, and as a result generated further follow-up on other outlets, to me does not give this incident any more weight. The inclusion of this information on this page only adds two extra sentences to the information already in the lead.
You don't see 911 calls Brad Pitt makes in the lead to his article, even when they generate headlines. I don't see why this is any different. PDXBart (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PDXBart:, It also received coverage in the Daily Telegraph, in the UK. Graywalls (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the headline "Defunder Demands to be Defended" and tagline "What happens when a Portland anti-police activist is in a dispute with her Lyft driver? Why, she calls the police, of course" along with a photo of her making an empassioned face. Maybe I'm biased but this sentiment fits in with the other tabloid-style coverage of this and furthers my argument that this coverage wasn't based in some good-faith reporting on meaningful events. PDXBart (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @PDXBart. It's also churnalism based off one small event. There's no reason a minor dispute with a Lyft driver needs to be in the lead whatsoever. --Kbabej (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in here briefly to say that this incident does *not* belong in the lede. Perhaps elsewhere on the page, sure, but it's a relatively minor incident in her life/career. There's about a dozen other things that should be prioritized up there over this. Constablequackers (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misinterpretation consensus: @Kbabej:, you removed the 911 matter citing "per consensus". Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not a vote. So with two editors actively disagreeing, it's not a matter of a third person came in and took the side of one of them, bam two vs one, consensus. I say this, because as you can see above, this discussion hasn't fully wrapped yet. Perhaps someone not involved should read the consensus. Graywalls (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one was "voting". Two editors explained why the addition of a one-time event in the lead is UNDUE. The ONUS lies with you to convince editors if you want to add the information back to the lead. --Kbabej (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Kbabej's point, WP:BLP specifies:
  • "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid"
  • "[Is not] the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"
  • "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."
  • "Criticism... [should be] presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone"
  • "[Do not give] undue weight to recent events"
I recognize there likely other guidelines that support your stance, but I think it's clear that the intention for BLP is to err on conservatism in presenting inflammatory information. I am all in support of this continuing to be a discussion, even if it means the consensus is counter to my own opinion. But I think this should stay removed from the lead until then. I think this BLP is even more sensitive also given the impending election. PDXBart (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PDXBart:, This has been in the article for sometime prior to recent election/relection. WP:BLP does not preclude coverage of incidents about public figures with proper citations that meet WP:RS standards. There's nothing in guidelines/policies implying sliding scale sensitivity on the ground of current affairs involving the subject such as impending election. Graywalls (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to continue the original discussion but got distracted. I simply agree with your take on the subject, so I'll bow out. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored sources, and re-inserted some details but with clarity to better present what's directly supportable with sources. Sources should not have been pruned over a disagreement about the location within the article. The version prior to my most recent edits that she called 911 as dropped off implied she called after she was dropped off which was an inaccurate representation of sources. The current phrasing better reflects what's conveyed in sources. The disagreement was the presence in lede. So this was inserted into non-lede portion of prose. Graywalls (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I'm making a small adjustment to your new addition. The part written as "to report being told to get out of the car as an emergency" may be better worded to address Hardesty's words and intentions when calling 911, which was also reiterated in her later statements.
From cited Oregon Live source:

"Well, I’m not getting out of the car, in the dark, at a filling station, not happening...I am not going to allow him to leave me at the side of the road"

The dispatch record noted that she wouldn’t get out “because it was cold and she was a woman and alone.

And in her later statement, reiterating the purpose of her communication to 911:

"It is totally inappropriate to expect a woman to get out of a vehicle in the dead of night because any angry person demands it. This is a safety issue for your customer."

From cited KOIN source:

Hardesty told the 911 dispatcher he dropped her off “in the dark at a filling station. And I’m not getting out. Not happening. All because I asked him to put the window up.”

“I didn’t know how long I would have to wait,” she said. “There was no way I was going to get out on the side of the road, in the dark, because some driver has an attitude, and decided I should just get out and just whatever happens happens.”

From her later statement:

He then pulls over in the dark on the side of a gas station and told me he was cancelling the ride. I had no interest in being left on the side of the road by an angry driver...It is totally inappropriate to expect a woman to get out of a vehicle in the dead of night because any angry person demands it...This is a safety issue for your customer

The third source, The Telegraph, is behind a paywall so I can't check there for any further clarification.
I've documented all this to emphasize what Hardest was reporting, which is what your sentence is communicating. She wasn't reporting that the act of leaving a car was an emergency, she was reporting that being abandoned in the dark, on the side of the road, alone, in the cold, as a controversial figure and as a black woman, with an angry man she doesn't know only feet away, and not knowing how long she might have to be there in those conditions was an emergency. Regardless of the accuracy of her statements on the conditions (which I don't dispute), this is what she was reporting. She made it clear both in the 911 and in her later statements. I don't see anything disputing this is what she reported.
With this clarification, I am changing "to report being told to get out of the car as an emergency" to "to report safety concerns about being forced out of a car to be left alone on the side of the road in the dark". I hope this isn't controversial since I think this is a fair summary of her communications and what she was actually reporting. PDXBart (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finances in Personal life[edit]

Mentioning her credit card dealings under personal life seems completely unoteworthy and looks more like some lame attempt to add negativity in any way possible to her Wikipedia page. I have never before seen the inclusion of information like this (dealing with such trivial sums) on Wikipedia. Strong vote to remove this. --50.38.38.181 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finances are often covered on WP for public figures, and discussion of the subject's finances has been in relation to her being a "budget hawk" and being in charge of city budgets. Content is included with due weight when covered in RS. --Kbabej (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First African American woman on city council in lead[edit]

The sentence "Hardesty is the first African American woman to serve on Portland's city council" was removed from the lead by an editor whose edit summary stated this info was "not lead worthy". I actually disagree; I think being the first African American woman on the city council is very lead-worthy. It not only is pertinent to the subject's article, but to Portland and the Portland city council's history as well. The topic is covered extensively in RS media when I did a gsearch for it. I do not want to get into an edit war, so wanted to open up discussion here first. I propose adding that information back to the lead. --Kbabej (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it should be in lead, it's one of the most notable parts of career PDXBart (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it belongs in the lead/lede paragraph. Definitely noteworthy. Constablequackers (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Graywalls, I have opened a discussion on WikiProject Oregon asking for additional opinions. I gave you and PDXBart a courtesy ping, as you are the only two who have commented so far. --Kbabej (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here. This fact is definitely lead-worthy, it's literally in the title of prominent source material like Portland Voters Elect Hardesty As 1st Woman Of Color To City Council from when she was first elected. Also to give you an example for comparison why does Sam Adams (Oregon politician) mention that he was the first gay mayor of a major city but here we can't talk about historic firsts? Makes no sense. Steven Walling • talk 05:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Embellishing this, but suppressing the Lyft 911 matter from the lede would be lopsided and throw things out of balance. With the same line of argument, "US official demanding police spending cuts dials 911 in dispute with Lyft driver is literally the title of prominent source material like Daily Telegraph about Hardesty. What's the basis to cherry pick one of them for inclusion, but only the flattering one? Including BOTH would be a compromise I am happy with, because it maintains a better balance. I however object to including her being the first African American in Portland City Council while omitting the 911 controversy from lede. Graywalls (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you want to note controversial moments neutrally in the lede too. "Hardesty's conduct during her tenure has not been without controversy, such as her handling of personal credit card debt and a 2020 emergency call over a dispute with a Lyft driver". We have room for both if there's a preponderance of reliable sources. Steven Walling • talk 06:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PDXBart and Kbabej:, would you two find the inclusion of BOTH, calling 911 on Lyft driver and her being the first African American City council member in lede with same level of depth to be an acceptable proposal? Graywalls (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls, I still believe the information about Lyft to be UNDUE, but if it's added back with @Steven Walling's verbiage I won't revert. --Kbabej (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm glad we could reach some consensus here. Steven Walling • talk 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More things to cover in the lede[edit]

Other things to expand the lede to I think:

  • A sentence about the fact that she's running again in 2022.
  • Something about her notable policy positions / what makes her unique as a Commissioner? "Hardesty has long been a progressive activist for racial justice and reform of policing."
  • Why is there nothing about the fake hit and run report filed against her that got police fired? It's certainly notable and it happened to her personally.

Seems like basic missing facts. Any objections? Steven Walling • talk 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Steven Walling. I had added her running again in 2022, but @Graywalls removed it. I think it is pertinent, but you may get pushback from them. I think everything on the bulleted list should be included. --Kbabej (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed PDXBart (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok given that the lede should summarize all the main topics of the article and this lede is still pretty short, there's room to cover more here. A politician's bio lede should discuss their overall policy / political perspective in addition to election history and personal life. Steven Walling • talk 18:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auditor is not really a politician. While may not be lede worthy, why wouldn't the fact Hardesty having strained professional relationship with the city's auditor not be covered at all? Graywalls (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really have strong feelings either way, but I’m also of the mind BLPs aren’t just collections of indiscriminate information. The auditor isn’t even notable enough to have a WP article. It doesn’t seem super important to me I guess. —Kbabej (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It strains credulity that two government officials bickering is notable in any capacity unless it's tied to some otherwise notable event. Does Trump or Biden's article mention every single bureaucrat or political figure who has a beef with them? No way, it's not really that interesting. Steven Walling • talk 07:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Steven raises a good point. Can you imagine what Trump's page would look like if it listed everyone he's ever had a disagreement with? It would be twice as long as Infinite Jest. Constablequackers (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an added note to other controversies on this page, like the 911 call or credit card debt - when viewing other mainstream politician's articles, they very clearly mark this sort of thing as NOTNEWS and UNDUE. For example, Nancy Pelosi made national/international headlines for going to a salon appointment in the middle of COVID lockdowns. Including this, even as a mention, was completely shutdown as UNDUE and NOTNEWS. Not sure why something like that is UNDUE for Pelosi but a 911 call with no lasting repercussions for Hardest isn't. PDXBart (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could bring up both articles to NPOV/N for a discussion. Something being one way at another page isn't like a set in stone precedent. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me that wouldn't be very productive for either article :) PDXBart (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are counter examples to the Pelosi one, such as that Gavin Newsom's article covers the controversy about him going to The French Laundry during COVID lockdowns. On balance, I think the current page is more NPOV by including all of it, and it's up to the reader to form their own opinions about the merits and importance of the various facts. Like Newsom, Hardesty's personal history is a part of what reliable sources cover and why she is polarizing among voters. Steven Walling • talk 19:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate information[edit]

I have removed the claim about accusation of hit and run against her by police officers. Where did that come from? From what I am seeing ina reliable source, a motorist submitted an erroneous that placed Hardesty at the scene of a hit and run; and said report being leaked by officers, NOT that police officers made the accusations. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2022/03/portland-mayor-fires-former-police-union-head-over-retaliatory-leak-against-commissioner-jo-ann-hardesty-report-says.html Graywalls (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Graywalls. Not sure when that got added, but it's an important distinction. --Kbabej (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have originated here. @Steven Walling: was there a source that said the police officers accused her? Graywalls (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty filed a $5 million lawsuit on Monday against the city’s police union, its former president Brian Hunzeker, and a Portland Police Bureau officer named Kerri Ottoman, alleging they leaked information that falsely implicated Hardesty in a hit-and-run crash last spring." They leaked the information in order to imply she did it, which is the same as implying she did it. [1] [2] Steven Walling • talk 04:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPA removal of info[edit]

I've reverted today's 2,971 byte removal of info from SPA YusuffusuY, whose only five edits have been from today and removing info from this article with the assertion it is "contentious" material. All the removed info was sourced, and some are even verified quotes from the subject themselves. If you would like to see changes, YusuffusuY, the best place to begin your WP journey is on the talk page of articles or making small edits. You should generally not be removing large chunks of sourced information from a politician's page the day of voting for the midterms. --Kbabej (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jo_Ann_Hardesty&oldid=1207547230"