Talk:Amy Siskind

The Daily Wire
let's talk about the reliability of "The Daily Wire" and the "controversy" they report about a deleted tweet. does not seem emcyclopedic to me. Psyduck3 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Amy Siskind is an activist, and even though this article does not describe her as one, I think she fits the definition of a reporter. I believe it is very germane to discuss how she treats facts and evidence, especially since she is a prominent disctibutor and disseminator of news. It's very relevant to know what kind of standards she has for evidence. She tweeted two "facts" that she could not have possibly known to be either true or untrue. She simply made up information. She did NOT know the race of the perpetrators - she guessed. When that guess proved to be wrong, and not in line with her political agenda, she simply deleted the factually erroneous tweets (but not before someone was able to screenshot them). She even admits to doing to this on her own talk page: "I put up a tweet which had an error in it and was taken down within 30 minutes." So she does not even dispute that the main claim in the article is untrue. Because it is true, and she knows it's true. She simply doesn't like that she got caught and that she received some negative attention over it. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says public figures can just go and delete true things that they don't like about their bio? It doesn't make it any better when she gets a sympathetic WP editor to do the same. - - Hraefen Talk 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * here is a reliable source for "activist"
 * you need to make an argument that the daily wire is reliable; do you think you can do that, rather than ad hominem? can you add to this discussion Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_241?
 * see also wp:RS, wp:UNDUE and Whataboutism -- Psyduck3 (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not an ad hominem for me to point out that it's inappropriate for a notable person to be removing negative content from their own article. It's also not an ad hominem for me to suggest that you, as the original creator of this article, and someone who the subject reached out to personally for help, may not in fact be unbiased here.

I see no need for me to make an argument for TDW as a reliable source. The RFC that you pointed to was clearly unresolved, there are a lot of arguments on both sides. For what it's worth my opinion is that they are a legitimate albeit partisan website. So like any partisan site, use it with caution, pay attention to context. The relevant context in this situation right here is that the subject of the article admits that the main claim in the article is actually true! So again, do you have a factual disagreement with what is claimed in the TDW article? I don't think you actually do. I think the context here is very clear. The article is accurate. If you take issue with how it is worded, that's a different conversation. But you have raised no actual objection to the factual accuracy of the article itself, and the RFC you pointed to was inconclusive. - - Hraefen Talk 19:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * you might want to address my question of reliable source, rather than assert "truth" i.e.  -- Psyduck3 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I did actually address your question about reliable source. My opinion is that TDW can be a reliable source, you just need to pay attention to context. And there were numerous Wikipedia editors on that RfC who agree with me. There are also some who agree with you. So we're really not going to get anywhere in this conversation just trying to determine whether TDW is a reliable source or not. Opinions vary. It is also my opinion that on this specific topic when you take the context into account TDW is a reliable source. What they are saying is accurate. You are not saying it's inaccurate, Amy Siskind is not even saying it's inaccurate. It is accurate. In this instance this is a reliable source. - - Hraefen Talk 13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that you have now taken it upon yourself to just start rewriting things wholesale without giving any reason or edit summary. But you left the citation that points to TDW. So I guess then this means that you accept it as a source, but you don't like how the paragraph is worded. That's okay, totally worth debating, but you shouldn't just rewrite it with zero discussion. Your rewrite ("Siskind deleted a tweet that was mistaken.") is definitely not acceptable to me. It's not accurate and it gives the reader zero context about what actually happened. Siskind MADE UP INFORMATION. That is not a "mistake." That is fabrication. She was not MISTAKEN about the racial identity of the perpetrators, she cited no source, and she had no way of knowing that information - she MADE IT UP. You should try to rewrite it in a more comprehensive and honest way. I'll give you a day or two to try that before I take a stab at it. Let's not edit war this to death, please. - - Hraefen Talk 14:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist and sexist tweets
Her tweet on Dec 17, 2018: "I will not support white male candidates in the Dem primary." Additionally, Amy Susskind demanded that the vlogger David Pakman, who criticized her for these tweets, is fired from his assistant professor position. Yurivict (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this news getting some coverage in the media. Should probably be added under a "Controversies" section (other public figures have such sections on Wikipedia for smaller things and Siskind seems to be a constant re-offender). Mcrt007 (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, a section dedicated to controversy should be avoided per WP:CRITS. Wikipedia is also not a place where we list all of someone's praises or criticism as it isn't a tabloid. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting issue. I agree with the general community disapproval of criticism sections, as they tend to break the narrative flow of the article, removing events from the chronological or topical context to which they should be associated. There is also, of course, the issue of perspective. A subject may say something which some people find fault with while others find it praiseworthy. As for the tweet itself, I generally favoring inclusion of everything newsworthy an article subject does. However, I recognize that we can not report every tweet and response by a public figure, particularly one whose basis of notability is tweeting. bd2412  T 22:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Her career is making Tweets so listing all of them that make the news - and there are many - would create basically a tabloid. We don't even list all of Trump's Tweets. I believe the same would go for criticism and praise of the subject. Listing what she is and what she does is fine. Also something that states she has been criticized would also be fine, but she's not a book herself so need for a cticial reception type article. I am going to pair some things back now and see how it looks. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I left the information about her supporting the MeToo movement for now. I think it is just like the rest of the line items that need to be removed so feel free to take it out if you see fit. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We the People March was just added. Wanted to make sure there was a blurb prior to someone trying to add the whole event to the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

PUMA/Republican support
There is barely any mention of the fact that she was more or less a Republican Party supporter for the better part of a decade, based largely on her anger toward the Democratic Party for nominating Obama over Clinton in 2008, which she saw as a rejection of second-wave feminism by the Democratic Party. For a long time, she has maintained a philosophy on the importance of electing women regardless of their actual political positions. It was only after 2015 that she essentially reinvented herself as a "Hashtag Resistance" Democrat. This can be source and is worth a few sentences in the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you added PUMA but the source doesn't support what you added. I also see no reason to change the order of the context. If you are saying it is chronological, that would not be possible as "received criticism" doesn't have a specific date to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The section in question makes no sense from eithr a subject matter or chronological point of view (just for starters, why is her pro-McCain stance in 2008 and her MeToo support from 2017 even in the same paragraph?), and reverting it was seems simply petulant, to be quite honest. I will find a better reference, but crticism of Siskind as part of the 2008 PUMA movment is very much part of the criticism for her support for McCain and Palin. In general, this article reads as largely a puff piece about Siskind and in that regard violates WP:NPOV. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article specifically states that "Siskind has drawn criticism from liberals for voting for John McCain over Barack Obama and for her defense of Sarah Palin", so is not a "puff piece". We need not include a laundry list of specific criticisms of a subject for the article to generally inform readers who the subject is and why they is notable. The primary source of this subject's notability appears to be her more recent activities, which should (and do) receive the most attention here. BD2412  T 16:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming no sourcing exists on Siskind's earlier activities, I agree with BD2412. Inclusion of this material is fine as long as reliable sources support it (preferably from strong secondary sources). Does this material exist? Jlevi (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The closest thing is RationalWiki (which is, of course, a wiki, and therefore not a reliable source), which lists her on their "PUMA" page, but says "Amy Siskind is the founder of the website The New Agenda. Siskind is vehement that her movement is unconnected to PUMA", but lambastes her for being ambiguously connected to people who are, and for apparently sharing positions on issues. However, there is no reliable source, certainly not anything contemporaneous, that actually affiliates the subject with PUMA. It seems odd to have a neutrality tag on an article because the article does not include an apparently untrue assertion, for which no source can be found. BD2412  T 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In general, this article plays down Siskind's Republican background as incidental, when in fact that's what Siskind was primarily known for until she reinvented herself as a leading figure in "hashtag #Resistance" sometime around 2016. The odd claim that "The primary source of this subject's notability appears to be her more recent activities, which should (and do) receive the most attention here" smacks of WP:PRESENTISM.
 * There is also the fact that she's not only received criticism for her previous support for Palin, but more recently, her authenticity as a figure in "#Resistance" has been criticized as well. This is not only mentioned in the Sales article that's cited for the single sentence about her Republican background, but this article as well concerning the cancellation of one of her Seattle appearances based on these concerns. So, yes, this content needs to be included in a balanced way. Playing down this topic leads to article bias.
 * I once again raise the problem that the section "The New Agenda and political activism" has organizational issues, and jumps back and forth in both chronology and subject matter. The fact that my attempts to improve the organizational structure of that section was met with across-the-board reverstion smacks of WP:OWN issues. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Further sources - Siskind's support for Palin and female GOP candidates in 2011:, . 2018 Mediate piece critical of Siskind for prior Republican support: ; Siskind's response: . Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources you point to generally repeat the same refrain, that Siskind supported the advancement of women irrespective of party affiliation, and (as the article already reflects) voted for McCain over Obama and defended Sarah Palin. Of interest, the link you provide to Siskind's response indicates that she voted for Obama in 2012. The piece on the cancellation of one of her Seattle appearance focuses on a tweet she had made about the normalization of neo-Nazi rallies, and not on her previous affiliations (except to basically say that rumors were spread on Twitter, which is hardly something that rises to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article). Not a single source affiliates the subject with PUMA at all, in any sense, nor with the Republican Party beyond boosting women candidates, even where those candidates happened to be Republican. There is nothing there to support the characterization of a "Republican background", as opposed to a nonpartisan support for female candidates. BD2412  T 19:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an existing controversy over her Republican support, even if it was 'bipartisan'. This was mentioned in earlier versions of the article and scrubbed for no apparent reason. I have provided references. I am not proposing to write a one-sided criticism-only section, but a description of existing criticism and her responses. You are basically implying at this point that you're going to revert any changes to the article that expand on this point, no matter what the characterization of her position is. You have also refused to address why you will not allow reorganization of the section in question. I'm quite ready at this point to report these article ownership and edit warring issues to the appropriate noticeboard. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your addition to the article was that the subject had been criticized for "her role in the PUMA movement in support of these efforts". You have still provided no source supporting any role in 'the PUMA movement', and the fact that you also made changes to the chronology of the article does not justify the addition of unsourced and apparently inaccurate claims about a BLP. Are you planning to report to the appropriate noticeboard that you were twice reverted for adding claims to BLP incorrectly attributed to the source provided? You also described your reversion of the removal of this inaccurate claim as a "bad-faith reversion", despite the reverting editor explaining that the claim was not found in the source. Is it your position that this content should be in the article even if no reliable source can be found to support it? BD2412  T 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll drop the "PUMA" wording - I do think her agend of going from HRC supporter to McCain/Palin supporter was materially the same as PUMA PAC, however, the closest I can find is this early press release by New Agenda, which states that their founding meeting was attended by PUMA members, among others. I do wish to describe the reasons why Siskind is controversial, and that includes earlier support of Republican candidates and the fact that she is currently regarded with suspicion by other #Resistance figures (among others, Kathy Griffin and Imre Gandy) and that one of her public appearances was cancelled over this controversy. This is most certainly not fully described by the one sentence "Siskind has drawn criticism from liberals for voting for John McCain over Barack Obama and for her defense of Sarah Palin."
 * The reason I expressed the sentiments of "bad faith", though, is because not only was the "PUMA' part reverted, so were my housekeeping edits of that section for no valid reason. As of now you have pointedly refused to address that aspect of the dispute each and every time I've raised the subject in this conversation. According to Ownership_of_content, signs of improper "article ownership" behavior include: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article", "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." I am asserting that yourself and User:CNMall41 are exhibting this kind of article ownership behavior. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with someone in a content dispute is not exhibiting ownership of a page. In fact, discussing here shows the antithesis and making an accusation as you did does not WP:AGF. As far as housekeeping, no amount of housekeeping justifies keeping an edit that also introduces a BLP violation. As such, I must compliment you on conceding the point about PUMA. I am not sure where we are in the discussion as there is a lot of conduct being discussed. Can you tell me what you want changed with the article at this point and point out the references that support that proposal? I am more than happy to discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide here the content you believe should be added to the article and the sources you believe supports such an addition? BD2412 T 15:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being that the question has been asked twice, not answered, and then Iamcuriousblue decided to add content that had not reached consensus, I will say that they likely aren't willing to discuss. If they are, great. In the meantime, I am removing the tag as we don't use these to shame articles.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite apparent that POV pushing in favor of Amy Siskind is what's taking place here, and I will be taking it to the appropriate noticeboards. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It would have been best for you to actually propose some specific language supported by sources. Thus far, all you've done is to add a reference to the subject having an affiliation with PUMA, which we now all agree is unsupported by sources, and therefore properly reverted. BD2412  T 02:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will re-read the journalist sources I've mentioned above and propose additions to the article. It is quite clear that Siskind has a history of supporting Republican candidates, some (like Palin) quite strongly, and that this is a matter or ongoing controversy, leading to the cancellation of at least one appearance. It's well attested that her current presentation as "#Resistance leader" has *at best* a mixed reception. These facts should not be whitewashed. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A "history of supporting" suggests multiple instances of supporting Republicans over Democrats in contested elections, and "quite strongly" suggests that there will be quite strong evidence of this support. However, according to Jeffrey C. Alexander, The Performance of Politics: Obama's Victory and the Democratic Struggle for Power (2010), p. 200, Siskind exclusively voted for Democrats "up and down the ticket" for her entire life up until the 2008 election. According to Siskind herself (in a source you provided, she voted for Obama in the 2012 election. Her support for Clinton in 2016 is well-documented, as is her current opposition to Trump's reelection. The only sources suggesting anything to the contrary are anonymous rumor posts on internet forums with no editorial oversight. BD2412  T 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying you will "re-read" means that you don't currently know what sources say what about what. If that's the case, how do you know what you claim? Its proof by assertion. You have had ample time to discuss what you think is not neutral about the page but have failed to do so. As such, the tag is being removed. As far as your accusations of ownership, you are displaying the same characteristic that you accuse me of. Don't make accusations as you have already been told to WP:AGF. If you are unhappy with my conduct or the Wikipedia process in general, please take me to ANI but adding the tag just because you feel (without supporting evidence which you have been asked for) that page is biased.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ample time" according to your timetable. I will be revisiting this, and I will probably be taking this to ANI as a *first* step, given your clear incivility, rules lawyering, and determination to bias the article in favor of Amy Siskind. This is a badly biased article, which cannot even be tagged as such based on the article ownership behavior of two rogue editors. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been given every opportunity to propose changes you feel are necessary. Instead, you focus on editors and not content. You have introduced content that violates BLP and edit warred when talk discussion was required. I am not so sure you want to go to ANI based on WP:GLASSHOUSES, but the link is here if you feel its appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. Your behavior has been hostile from day one, and you are clearly using "BLP" as an excuse to create a "symapthetic point of view" toward the article subject. This article is POV, and I think you are quite aware of this. I have been less than civil, it is clearly provoked by your behavior. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Misleading
The paragraph on Gavin McInnes implies he showed up at her house because she had anti hate signs following a completely unrelated incident. The sources actually say that she specifically targeted McInnes’ living nearby as the actual impetus for the signs. In other words, she was protesting HIM. This gives much clearer context as to why he showed up at her house and should replace “in the days following [unrelated incident]”. 173.54.127.51 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is your interpretation of the reference, not what the reference says. Wikipedia uses what it says in the actual source, not what we believe the source is saying. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)