Talk:Alison Roman

Discussion
There seems to be a back and forth about some content additions/removal that are happening rapid fire, without discussion. What is it we want for this article to say/not say? Ditch &#8733; 05:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am AmorDoctrinaeFloreat. The edits conform to the BOLP guidelines, being in a neutral tone, balanced, and citing news articles. The issue with the original article is that it stated that Alison Roman received social media backlash and because she criticized consumer brands heralded by Asian women Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo. This is inaccurate. The reason for the backlash she received is contextualized accurately in the edit presenting both Alison's detailed response and clarification of any misconceptions from her commentary. Alison was criticized because she chose to lambast two Asian women, while sidestepping critique of a White woman with a lifestyle brand- Gwyneth Paltrow, owner of the website Goop. The original articles erroneously implies that Alison was merely receiving fallout due to disagreeing with the branding efforts of Asian women. There are several news articles which do not include the details correctly and as such it is important to contextualize in order to facilitate comprehension of the issue. Wikipedia is a worldwide platform and the original article and its links do not explain plainly what is at issue. Finally, as Alison Roman has been subject to a change in her career due to this issue, having her the publication of her New York Times column put on hiatus and the future of her upcoming tv show put into question, the incident has gone beyond a passing occurrence. Finally this is an important contribution for understanding how Alison Roman became the centre of a debate surrounding representation in food media and gentrification of ethnic recipes and their marketing by non-ethnic media personalities, which has now become a growing topic in food media. If you do not understand the significance of these issues, it is imprudent to delete text which explains them by arbitrarily claiming it to be "not constructive". If there is a specific critique that you have of a section, rather than delete text, work to improve it as per Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmorDoctrinaeFloreat (talk • contribs) 06:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what we're trying to do now, by talking it out on the talk page first. I realize you spent a lot of time and thought writing the additional info, and I appreciate that, however, it sure seems like a lot of weight given to this single issue when compared to the rest of the article. Perhaps you could propose (here) something more succinct, based on a good source or two, that encapsulates the issue.  I have to tell you, though, that I personally think maybe it would be prudent, given the BLP policy, to wait and see how this all plays out over time, since it is so recent that there hasn't really been time for solid coverage of the events to develop.  Ditch &#8733;  06:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by "erroneously implies"? Ditch &#8733;  06:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your understanding of " In May 2020 she publicly apologized for comments she made about Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo relating to their consumer products and television fame after receiving significant backlash on social media. She stated she was "being blind to racial insensitivities," as both Teigen and Kondo are Asian.[11]"

I would like to know your full understanding of that paragraph, prior to my edits. I would like to know if upon reading that paragraph you understood that Alison Roman criticized women who were Asian and apologized because she did not know that was inappropriate or did you understand that Alison Roman made commentary that was insensitive to Asians? Neither of those conclusions would accurately summarize what the issue was.

The cited article on CNN also references the fact that the women were Asian as the reason why the critique was problematic. "Roman's going after two successful Asian women was met with backlash on social media and hurt from Teigen who tweeted that she considered herself an admirer of the writer, and had even gotten involved with a TV show Roman said in the interview she had forthcoming."

The original article on The New Consumer asked Roman questions about Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop website. Alison replied and made additional commentary about Marie Kondo and Chrissy Teigen.

The cited CNN article also states that Chrissy Teigen made her Twitter account private following the incident and does not explain why. The reason why, is relevant to why updating this article for context is necessary. Chrissy Teigen made her twitter private after receiving backlash online due to perception that Alison Roman who has a popular social media following was receiving backlash for critiquing women who happen to be Asian. I cited several articles from newspapers in order to present a more fulsome presentation of what issues were being disputed on social media that lead to mainstream fallout.

Also, what are your suggestions? As I have stated, improvements should be made. However, I feel that stating that she made comments and not including the comments obscures the sense of what happened even more. I included the quotes for clarity. AmorDoctrinaeFloreat (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This still seems like one small issue being overblown in the media (are we to blame them? they have nothing but this and the lunacies of the POTUS to report on...). A sentence or two could be fine, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper so we should try to keep it to a minimum. RandomCanadian (talk &#124; contribs) 14:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no discussion being had on this talk page of suggestions for improving the text. The edits I made were modified as suggested by Ditch &#8733;  06:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC).

User Random Canadian has indicated that they have an issue with the media and feels that media has caused the issue to be overblown without an explanation of the reasoning behind that assertion. It objectively seems to be a significant issue as it has resuted in career impact for Alison Roman. At issue is that the page curently indicates that Alison received backlash for criticizing women who were Asian, when it was the nature of the comments that was the reason for the backlash. Are any of those who are disputing the edits being introspective as to their own myopia regarding the article, because it doesnt seem that the reversion of edits is due to an understanding of the implicaitons for culinary media of which Ms. Roman is a member. AmorDoctrinaeFloreat (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of 's thoughts on the media, the biggest issues are brevity and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Your 3500 character addition is far too long for a page that is only 8500 bytes. I agree that the phrasing can be improved to better represent the issues that she has been criticized for, but it would be more beneficial if it is not an unwieldy essay-like analysis on the problematic nature of her comments. Your most recent addition was as follows:
 * In May 2020 Alison Roman came under public fire on social media, for disparaging comments she made about Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo  relating to their consumer products. Alison was interviewed about her interest in expanding her brand to include a lifestyle website similar to Goop run by actress and cookbook author Gwyneth Paltrow and her feelings about branding her own products and the delineation between consumption and pollution.  Alison responded that she was concerned about over-saturation in the market and was unsure that another lifestyle brand in the style of Goop was needed. Alison also indicated that Marie Kondo’s product line was antithetical to her brand. In her criticism she stated “For the low, low price of $19.99, please to buy my cutting board!” a comment which was viewed by some to be mocking Marie Kondo’s - a native Japanese speaker- English grammar skills. Alison disputed that interpretation and said that it was a reference to an Eastern European cookbook 'Please To the Table'. The interviewer Dan Frommer noted in a subsequent 'Editor's Note' to the article that Alison had not used an Asian accent when making that comment. Alison critiqued Chrissy Teigen for capitalizing on her successful cookbook by branding products. The nature of her criticism for the two Asian women was interpreted by some to have been due to racial bias. Chrissy Teigen responded online that she had always been a fan of Alison’s and was disappointed because she respected her and, as such, had signed on to executive produce Alison’s upcoming cooking show. Alison issued two apologies, where she explained her criticism was due to her own insecurity and due to her white privilege had not realized that she was singling out two Asian women and was willing to receive feedback on how she can more responsibly express her opinions. Chrissy Tiegen accepted Alison’s apology, while Marie Kondo has not commented on the incident at all. Alison continued to receive fallout from her comments when her New York Times column, was put on hiatus and not published as scheduled.
 * My suggestion for a shorter version is as follows:
 * In May 2020, Roman came under public fire on social media for disparaging comments she made about Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo relating to their consumer products. When questioned about expanding her brand to include a lifestyle website similar to actress Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop, Roman commented on Kondo's product lines, stating they were antithetical to her brand. She also critiqued Teigen for capitalizing on her cookbook by branding products. The nature of her criticism for the two Asian women was interpreted by some to have been due to racial bias. Alison issued two apologies, with Tiegen accepting Roman's apology. Marie Kondo has not commented on the incident at all. Roman's New York Times column was subsequently put on hiatus and not published as scheduled.
 * Cerebral726 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment had nothing to do with distaste for media, it was simply about this being blown out of proportion, which is a common occurence. Regarding the suggested wording, I think it can still be slightly shortened, as follows, without including the non-important details of what the criticism exactly was (since this is already hinted at in the first sentence), and with some other minor improvements to wording (and no need to cite the same ref twice):
 * In May 2020, Roman came under public fire on social media for disparaging comments she made about Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo relating to their consumer products. The nature of her criticism for the two Asian women was interpreted by some to have been due to racial bias. Alison issued two apologies, with Tiegen accepting Roman's apology. Marie Kondo has not commented on the incident at all. Roman's New York Times column was subsequently put on hiatus.
 * Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say an issue is cutting out the context of Goop. I think even my suggestion (now reflecting) misses the issues that mentioned: "Alison was criticized because she chose to lambast two Asian women, while sidestepping critique of a White woman with a lifestyle brand- Gwyneth Paltrow, owner of the website Goop. The original articles erroneously implies that Alison was merely receiving fallout due to disagreeing with the branding efforts of Asian women." It's an important distinction to make.Cerebral726 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then maybe write it in directly (is it mentioned as such in the sources is my only question? given that this is a WP:BLP, we have to enforce WP:NOR as strictly if not more than usual):
 * In May 2020, Roman came under public fire on social media for disparaging comments she made about Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo relating to their consumer products. The nature of her criticism for the two Asian women, while sidestepping critique of Gwyneth Paltrow, owner of the website Goop, was interpreted by some to have been due to racial bias. Alison issued two apologies, with Tiegen accepting Roman's apology. Marie Kondo has not commented on the incident at all. Roman's New York Times column was subsequently put on hiatus. [with the same reference as before]
 * Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Washington Post article states "Some were quick to point out that Roman criticized only people of color for their capitalistic tendencies, but didn’t specifically call out Gwyneth Paltrow for her Goop lifestyle brand, which hawks products of questionable scientific merit." Cerebral726 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I replaced the text in the article with the above (and kept the CNN source too). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing Gwyneth Paltrow mentioned in either source cited for that portion of the text. Maybe I'm just being dense, but can someone point me toward the source where it mentions this.  Ditch &#8733;  20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Realized it was actually a different Washington Post article on the subject, this one. I added back in the content that was from that article with the correct citation. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And someone removed it shortly thereafter. I created a section below to centralize discussion and try to gain some consensus on this.  Ditch &#8733;  02:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Teigen/Kondo content
I'm gonna just go out on a limb here and propose that this whole Roman/Teigen/Kondo social media dust-up be removed from this BLP article based on recent-ism and general tabloid-iness. I realize there are decent sources here, but they are reporting unattributed, mass-opinions from the Twitter-verse. I think it's probably okay now. Ditch &#8733; 00:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow
Gwyenth Paltrow's name has been added and removed a few times since the Tiegen/Kondo events entered the article. Can we try to get a consensus on this?

Should Gwyneth Paltrow be mentioned in the article as it relates to Roman's criticism of Tiegen and Kondo? Ditch &#8733;  01:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No It was only in the source as a trend on Twitter, and as an example of a double standard. It could have been any white female celebrity with a consumer product line.  That Paltrow was specifically named has no bearing IMO.  Ditch &#8733;  02:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation
Can we say this in the article about her recipes? Talk here. Ditch &#8733; 02:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds pointless and unnecessary. Like she hasn't had enough. 46.222.156.176 (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

John McWhorter
Your edit summary is "This addition has been rejected multiple times", yet there has been no discussion here before? I cannot think of any reason to reject a quote from a noted scholar so directly relevant to the topic of an article. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The history that I see is that there were two prior attempts to add McWhorter's views on the controversy based upon an early draft of his book posted on his substack. The first attempt may have been poorly worded but not irrelevant or POV. The second attempt included the same quote that I used in my edit:

"'Her Wikipedia entry will forever include a notice that she was deemed a racist, billboard style, despite most Americans likely see that she did nothing that remotely deserved such treatment, and despite that she would not have been treated that way as recently as a few years ago.' -"
 * Placing this one incident involving Roman in the context of what McWhorter, an academic expert on racism and language, views is a significant issue can only be seen as a relevant addition to this article that enhances its neutrality. If anything, his viewpoint needs to be expanded, not deleted. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that "her Wikipedia entry will forever include a notice that she was deemed a racist, billboard style" is no longer relevant. As you will have seen, I have worked extensively to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards, by removing non-neutral content and expanding upon other aspects of her life outside of the NYTimes controversy. It is radically different than the Wikipedia article McWhorter first described.
 * This addition would undermine that, and make the article non-neutral again - just in the opposite direction. This Wikipedia page should act as a biography and not include any metatextual analysis of the article itself. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is not achieved by deletion. The current, now minimal content regarding the controversy may not be what it was when McWhorter first wrote his response, but has the same one-sided message: Roman was attacked on social media as racist and suspended by the NY Times, made an apology (which McWhorter views as having been forced by the misguided anti-racist climate his book is about), and eventually decided to give up her job. Thus Wikipedia now has her labeled as an admitted racist without any of the context that the McWhorter quote provides. Since I am the third editor who added this content with only your dissent, there is a consensus to include his viewpoint. Perhaps, rather than the quote, his view that she was wrongly treated could be paraphrased.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article in its current form is a neutral telling of the events. People claimed her remarks were racially inflected and she apologised. These are factual statements of the events.
 * I have removed all additions which have tried to guess Roman's intentions, regardless of their point of view. McWhorter has provided no primary or secondary evidence for his claim that Alison Roman was "forced" into making an apology. It is simply his interpretation of events - which would make it non-neutral.
 * I am happy for you to include him in the article now his piece has been published by a reputable publishing company, not on Substack. But his opinion must be flagged as an opinion, not a neutral statement of fact. Any discussion of his piece also mustn't include any metatextual references to the Wikipedia article itself. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed all additions which have tried to guess Roman's intentions, regardless of their point of view. McWhorter has provided no primary or secondary evidence for his claim that Alison Roman was "forced" into making an apology. It is simply his interpretation of events - which would make it non-neutral.
 * I am happy for you to include him in the article now his piece has been published by a reputable publishing company, not on Substack. But his opinion must be flagged as an opinion, not a neutral statement of fact. Any discussion of his piece also mustn't include any metatextual references to the Wikipedia article itself. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with having his view attributed to him, but in terms of wp:rs McWhorter's book is scholarship, being from a recognized expert on racism, and needs not further justification. His opinion of Roman's apology being forced is based upon his research that includes other instances of those accused of racism finding that "eating crow" is better than facing further accusations. In the social sciences there is no "neutral statement of fact", only expert opinions. I have already drafted something that does not include his reference to WP, and will post it now.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC) : You are right that "in the social sciences there is no neutral statement of fact". Instead, they create theories which are tested against evidence. Regardless of McWhorter's qualifications, he does not have any qualitive proof that Alison Roman was "forced" to make an apology. He has created a theory, which has not yet been proven. It must be treated as such. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had to revert your version. If you are going to replace McWhorter's viewpoint with weasel words, you cannnot cite him as the source.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Note: no longer pinging, I assume you watch the page as do I.)
 * The linguist John McWhorter later used this controversy as a case study in his book Woke Racism,
 * No not a case study; he used his expertise to interpreted what was written about this and other incidents. Analyzing text is what linguists do...
 * in which he "claimed" 
 * Weasel word: he made a statement as an expert, calling it a "claim" is casting doubt on that opinion, which is wp:or unless another expert of equal stature is cited with a different opinion. 
 * ...that the accusations of racism made against Roman bared bore no relation to her actions
 * Oversimplification: her actions were evaluated only in relation to her identity

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a claim. Much like I have carefully used the word "claim" when describing the accusations made against her. You may perceive this as "weasely" but I am just applying the same standards across the board. To borrow from the Wikipedia's guidelines on criticism: "Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive."
 * I must remind you that this is a biography for an individual not a social science article. If you want to create a Wikipedia article dedicated to the concept of woke racism, or other concepts that McWhorter has discussed, I encourage you to do it. If you want to discuss Alison Roman's case in relation to McWhorter's concepts in greater depth in that article, I encourage you even more. But currently McWhorter's academic ideas are given far too much weight in what is supposed to be a biographical article about Alison Roman. His section is longer than any other paragraph about her life, and is longer than paragraph describing the controversy itself. To borrow from Wikipedia's guidance on the biographies of living people: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints".
 * It is clear you admire McWhorter's work, and consequently see me as part of the problem he describes. I can assure you I have no horse in this race. All I am trying to do is ensure that this article functions as a biography, not a political battleground for various editors to push forward their own opinions, and that it meets Wikipedia's standards. If you believe that McWhorter's concepts are valuable enough to warrant an in-depth discussion, I ask you to please create an article so that other people might benefit from it.Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I get further into McWhorter's book, I have criticisms, in particular his characterization of woke racism not as merely dogmatic, but as a religion. It may make academic sense, but is not likely to further understanding of his thesis. I did not jump to the conclusion that you are part of the problem, but do think that simply reporting the events—accusation, suspension, resignation, and moving on—leave the impression that justice was served. I do not know if McWhorter is the only voice in opposition to this conclusion, but it is needed for balance. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that the word "claim" is read by too many as they do "theory", not as scientifically supported but as personal opinion no more valid than any other, which makes him one against many. I read balance not as equal but appropriate weight, academic viewpoints being given more. I realize that BLPs are different but do not think McWhorter's viewpoint can be understood without some reference to his theory. He really has little to say about Roman, but the entire social climate that determined her fate. As far as allowing this section to take over the article, that is a result of this controversy being the most notable incident in her life thus far. However, I have been thinking about alternative wording.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaving things alone except replacing the redlink to the book "Woke Racism" here with a link to the section in his article where I have added a summary of the book.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)