Talk:Sarah Maslin Nir

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

Untitled[edit]

This article really should lead with the fact that her story about nail salons was basically pulled out of her ass. 64.134.241.88 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this journalist has been exposed as having essentially made up the nail salon story with weak evidence and this has harmed many innocent people. She deserves at least a (Controversies) section to discuss her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.247.174.130 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been repeatedly vandalized by an anonymous editor or editors. I will be manually correcting vandalism if it recurs, and will move to have the page protected if it continues as a persistent problem. Jsg68x (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added structure to this article. Some of the information in the "Early life and education" and "Career" sections needs sourcing. Jsg68x (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to include every ongoing legal action arising out of the nail salons story. Accordingly, I'm inclined to remove discussion of the NYSC case. Also, while the current discussion of the Breezy Point article controversy is reasonably neutral in tone, I'm not sure that the level of detail currently included is appropriate, given this seems to have been a minor controversy that was wholly subjective in nature. I'll wait a little bit for comments from others before taking action. Jsg68x (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nail salons series is important not because it was written, but because of the reaction it generated from legislators, other journalists, and the New York Times itself. The series created a firestorm. It is silly for this page to say Ms. Nir is "best known" for the series, without characterizing why the series itself was newsworthy. Musskel (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually incorrect to suggest that this story only became important when it became controversial. It became famous immediately upon publication, and was important even before (almost immediately) first reacted, and long before any controversy arose. That NYS responded is evidence of that. That Nir's wikipedia page was created within days is evidence of that. That those who found fault in the reporting undertook significant investigations to refute the reporting, and that others held repeated protests, are evidence of that. The notion that its importance arose only because of the controversy is simply incorrect, as a matter of fact. Furthermore, the majority of article is already devoted to a summary of the controversy. This is not a long article. The controversies section is certainly not buried. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to start recreating the controversy section in the top-line. I will be removing such. Jsg68x (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last top-line edits but re-added "controversial" to the top-line. That is an objective characterization that fully alerts any unknowing reader to the existence of a significant controversy around the nail salons report. They can read on to the (not very far) controversies section for detail. Jsg68x (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this page silently for a while, ever since alerted to it by the Post article, but have now been moved to weigh in, even creating an account for the expressed purpose. (note I am just figuring out how to use this site, so the ability to use a "talk" page was alerted to me by the previous editor, I hope I am using it correctly.) I find what's going on here fascinating. The habitual and obsessive editor of this page is Jsg68x who has repeatedly added, expanded, elaborated on and annotated elements of controversy, even ones germane only to the author's past work, and even re-added elements that have been noted by others to be be unfair/unbalanced/and even vandalism. The user even took out the factually exact info that the Supreme Court of NYS threw out the nail salon owners' case! I mean COME ON! In this last edit this same user, who is bent on this type of solely-negative augmentation of the page indicated that "controversial" is a neutral discriptor. Well, then so would be positives like "law-changing," "damning" etc, they would be wiped out, were I to pop them in. While I think having a controversy section is fair, I would hardly say the story warrants it in the first sentence as what it is best known for in the wider world. The inclusion is simply an attempt to stamp it thusly, therefore not neutral. The very scope of this user's obsession makes him/her a non-credible source of whether or not a word is objective, since he/she is certainly not -- his/her agenda is plain. Jsg68x is vandalizing the page with a bow-tie on, obscuring his/her agenda with high-minded language, when the moves are anything but. 1776thistime (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I'm moving to have this page protected. What is the point of Wikipedia, which is now asking for money to help it's cause, if its just used by interested parties to get their bias into the public record. I'm actually offended by this page. 1776thistime (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits are public record. You have clearly not actually examined them if you are claiming them to be one-sided. This page has been regularly used by both supporters and detractors of Ms. Nir to subjectively argue their view, and to eliminate contrary information that they don't like. I have repeatedly corrected problems introduced by both sides. If you seriously believe that my edits have been "solely-negative," I'd be interested in hearing how you characterize my 14:16 12/24 edit (restoring the honors and awards section that was removed by a vandal), my 12:55 12/21 edit (removing reiteration of details of the controversy from the top-line), my 15:00 12/20 edit (removing "controversial and partially discredited" from the top-line), my 23:17 12/18 edit (also removing "controversial and partially discredited" from the top line), my 14:45 12/16 edit (removing excessive detail, including references to Al Sharpton, from the Breezy Point story controversy), and my 1:55 12/9 edit (rewriting the decidedly negative Breezy Point controversy summary into a neutral tone), as examples. I fail to see how any reasonable or objective reader could characterize those edits as "solely-negative augmentation."

The reality is that the vast majority of recent edits have been to correct distorting edits made by overt detractors of Ms. Nir, because that has been the bulk of recent activity. Earlier on, the majority of edits were to correct distorting edits made by overt supporters of Ms. Nir, because that was the bulk of the activity, then.

As for your other complaints, there's lots of things that are true that, nonetheless, do not belong in a Wikipedia biography article. The nail salons court case was certainly not part of Ms. Nir's career (as it had been included) nor was it actually appropriate to the overall article. Those with a viewpoint to push -- as you appear to have -- would like to turn the page into a repository for every fact they see as supporting their case. That's not what a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. (And note, I posted to this page on the question of that material two days before taking action. Nobody -- yourself included -- cared enough to comment on such, either for or against.) I don't believe I've ever characterized "controversial" as a "neutral descriptor" (though, in fact, it is in this instance). I have characterized it as objective. If there is one thing that everybody ought to be able to agree, it is that Ms. Nir's nail salon series has been controversial. That's simply a fact. The only question is whether that word is best included in the top-line, or not. After removing it twice, myself, on the theory that it wasn't necessary to restate such there, I decided to re-add it (in correcting a decidely negative top-line edit), in hopes of achieving an objective and neutral-toned top line that wouldn't continue in an editorial war back-and-forth. And frankly, given the level of controversy associated with the story, on balance, I think it probably makes sense for it to be there. To say she is known for her reporting on this story without noting that the story was controversial seems like it's leaving something very significant out.

Finally, good luck requesting protection. I requested such roughly a month back, and the request was declined, because the problem here wasn't deemed big enough. A month later, I'm inclined to think they were right to decline, as the problem has been manageable via normal editing. Jsg68x (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JLinSword168: if you are who your username implies, you should declare yourself a connected contributor per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

The removed summary of the NYSC case has been re-added, this time in the controversies section. While I believe it is most appropriately removed altogether, it is certainly inappropriate in its current form. The summary quotes the opinion out of context, leaving the impression that quote reflects the court expressing an independent opinion as to the necessity of the regulations. That is not the case. The excerpt in question is actually preceded by recitation of the state's issuing statement for the emergency regulation, which simply asserts that the regulation was necessary, and then concludes "The Court finds that the respondents have sufficiently demonstrated that...." i.e., it is not an independent conclusion of fact, but a conclusion as a matter of law, based on a legal standard of scrutiny of Rational basis review whereby the courts require only a rational basis to uphold a law. At this point, I will leave mention of the case and its dismissal in the controversies section, but I am removing the misleading excerpt. Jsg68x (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jsg68x, the Pulitzer nod is what makes her noteworthy. And from what I'm reading here, you're a paid shill for the industry and obsessed with taking her down, absolutely antithetical to the point of Wikipedia, which is to spread information not manipulate it. To remove the top award from her bio, is to attempt to discredit her, as you continually have -- clearly, the Pulitzer Prize Committee says, with no success. Give it up dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahMaslinNir (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is that actually the writer making the above assertion or is that someone who created a screen name using her name. It doesn't have any other contributions to any pages, and it would seem very strange if it was the author. Is it allowed by wikipedia to use someone's/the entry subject's name as your posting handle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EECD:8C00:FCA0:D72:F82E:2C53 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Pulitzer finalist is clearly not what makes Ms. Nir noteworthy, or there wouldn't have been a Sara Maslin Nir page prior to this week. Actually receiving a Pulitzer would likely warrant top-line summary status. I don't think there's much of an argument that merely being a finalist for a Pulitzer warrants such, let alone demands it, any more than being a finalist for any other award, or any of the awards/recognition Ms. Nir actually did win, do. Furthermore, not everything that makes a person noteworthy belongs in the top line. As has been discussed previously, Ms. Nir is noteworthy in large part due to the controversy surrounding her reporting. That doesn't necessarily mean that fact is most appropriately reiterated in the top line summary.
Ms. Nir's finalist status is appropriately included in the Awards and recognition section. Anybody who believes strongly that Pulitzer finalist status belongs in the top line, feel free to support that position by citing examples of other Pulitzer finalists with Wikipedia bios that include such information in the top line. I would certainly reconsider my view if it were actually typical to cite such in the top line among Wikipedia bios. But I don't believe that to be the case.
As for the suggestion that I am a "shill for the industry," I have no connection at all to the nail salon industry whatsoever -- haven't even ever set foot in a nail salon -- nor do I have any connection to any party to the controversy around Ms. Nir's reporting. I am a shill for no one. I am, however, intent on ensuring that this page continues to present factually accurate information, presented from an appropriate neutral standpoint. There remains no shortage of supporters and detractors of Ms. Nir's who believe anything not biased toward their particular viewpoint is, itself, improperly biased. Claiming such doesn't make it so.
Finally, I'd note that both of the last two (newly-created) usernames used to edit Ms. Nir's entry suggest a likely relationship to Ms. Nir. Per Wikipedia guidelines, users who are connected to a subject are supposed to declare themselves as connected contributors before making any edits. Jsg68x (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jsg68x (talk) the fact you know who JLIN sword is means you're as disingenuous a person as your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahMaslinNir (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite funny to suggest that knowing the identity of somebody who was very publicly outspoken in criticisizing the subject's reporting, organized protests around such, and was involved in litigation related to such somehow makes me disingenuous. Funnier still for such an accusation to be coming from somebody who edits by switching among usernames (and likely anonymous edits, also), intimates by his/her choice of usernames that s/he is, or is connected to, the subject of the article, with an obvious conflict of interest, but fails to declare a connection and writes comments as if s/he were an unconnected third party. Jsg68x (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jsg68x (talk) PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Hongoltz-Hetling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Weidensaul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stone_%28novelist%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Millet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Summers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Russell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Englander — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahMaslinNir (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that there are far more examples where such does not appear in the top line. (And I believe that none of Ms. Nir's colleagues who were finalists this year -- a number of whom were also finalists in prior years -- have such in the top line, if they even have a wikipedia entry at all.) But fair enough, it's not unheard of. In hopes of ending edit warring, I've added note of the Pulitzer finalist status to the top line. Jsg68x (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahMaslinNir (talk Please refrain from using a username that mimics the name of the article subject if you are not in fact her, as you do not seem to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EECD:8C00:9497:78AB:7902:65FF (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would consider it highly likely that both SarahMaslinNir and ThisIsNIRlythere actually are the subject of the article. I wouldn't consider it a certainty, but highly likely. I would consider it a certainty that they are at least connected to the subject and therefore have an inherent conflict of interest. As such, and with an article that is obviously subject to controversy and debate, they really should not be making edits directly to the article, but rather, posting proposed changes to this Talk page, and leaving it to others to actually make any edits the article.
And fyi, if you wanted to edit the top line, you should not have done so by undoing the prior revision, since the prior revision included more than just a change in the top line. Jsg68x (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that "discredited" was added to the top line, and all the rest of the pertinent information removed. I put back the old balanced one as the other is just bias and agenda. I am trying to flag this page for Wiki because such vandalism violates its standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixingThisBS (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the above comment was plopped in the middle of a prior comment thread. Moving it to the end. The prior edit was indeed inappropriate (though not vandalism, by the wikipedia definition), and reversion was appropriate. However, given that you are editing from an account with no prior history or other edits, and given the prior history of anonymous and new account edits to this page, it seems highly likely that you are affiliated with the subject of the article. Accordingly, the proper procedure would be for you to post to this page requesting that the change be made, rather than directly making the change yourself. Given the low rate of issues presently -- this is certainly far from edit warring, at this point -- it is highly unlikely that an admin will agree to protect the page. But you should realize that if they did protect the page, what they'd do would be their lowest level of restriction: to restrict anonymous and new accounts (like yours) from editing it. Jsg68x (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why the edit was inappropriate? The article itself has been discredited by a number of sources documented in the article, including the NY Times Public Editor. The Pulitzer nomination is also mentioned towards the end of the article. The nomination presumably happened before the problems with the piece fully emerged, this it is problematic to put it at the top of the article, implying credibility to an article that does not merit it. SONORAMA (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content in wikipedia articles should be factual. To say that the article has been discredited is not factual. Such a claim implies that a clear consensus has been reached that the article has been disproven. It also tends to imply that the article has been disproven in its entirety. Neither is the case here. Parties both favorable to and critical of Ms. Nir and her reporting have repeatedly attempted to emphasize and promote facts that support their viewpoint, and eliminate facts that oppose their viewpoint, in ways reflecting clear bias. The proper role of a wikipedia article is to present factual information in a neutral fashion, not argue a case.
I am quite familiar with the sources that call into question Ms. Nir's reporting -- I either added or edited most of them, myself. (And frequently re-added, or re-edited them, after biased deletion or editing, during past edit warring.) A reasonable person is likely to conclude there are serious problems with the reporting. (Certainly, I do.) Nonetheless, this does not rise to the level where "discredited" is a factual statement appropriate to be included in this article, let alone in the top line, precisely because that conclusion remains a matter of considerable controversy, rather than anything even remotely approaching a clear consensus.
The Pulitzer nomination certainly occurred after a considerable portion of the controversy had already emerged, since the controversy first emerged very shortly after publication. Whether the entirety of the evidence calling into question the reporting had already emerged, I do not know, because I do not know the nomination timeline. But it's not relevant, in any case. The NYT did not withdraw the nomination. The prize committee announcement of the awards (and finalist status) was long after the all the critical information cited in the wikipedia article had come out, and that finalist status has not been rescinded. Furthermore, if you examine the history of the article, and this talk page, you'll find that there was debate over whether it was appropriate to include mention of the finalist status in the top line. Another user -- very likely Ms. Nir herself -- provided numerous examples of other articles including Pulitzer finalist status in the top line. You, or I, or anybody else might feel that the Pulitzer recognition was undeserved, but it remains a fact. You are effectively arguing that it shouldn't be in the top line because it was undeserved, but that's not a neutral basis for making such an editorial decision. Jsg68x (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarah Maslin Nir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Maslin_Nir&oldid=1207923681"