Talk:Jemele Hill

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lanaeedits.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

College Background
More information on her college background would be helpful, e.g. years at UM, Major/Minor, sports played (only to give context to why she's a sports journalist), and other activities that would give more context to her professional life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.199.34 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Race Baiter / Racist in controversy
In the controversy section, shouldn't there be a mention of the controversy around her being a race baiter, agitator, or outright racist? A simple google search of Jemele Hill and race returns a wide assortment of articles (and hate trash) documenting her writings and talking points regarding race. In fact, she herself had to address the issue a few years back via the media. (http://www.espn.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/hill-110914/readers-question-jemele-hill-columns-race)

If even only a sentence, does this not merit particular mention? It is more than enough to not just be lumped in with her "unpopular or extreme stances", no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no controversy here -- it's standard fare for anyone who talks about race in the US. Mizike (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Mizike gee whiz, I wonder if you agree with her 2604:2D80:4084:6400:357B:14D:8B6:DF14 (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course he does. As does leftist wiki. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:ED91:4FE3:3162:5672 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

this section should be expanded. there is tremendous original sources that find her utterly deplorable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C2:500:7EDD:84EE:D440:28A6:8DAE (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Just a reminder that all information added needs to be reliably sourced, both for WP:Verifiability and to establish the significance of the info--not all tweets rise to the level of inclusion in the encyclopedia, and per Wp:No original research, we need secondary sources indicating importance to include, rather than WP user personal opinion that it merits inclusion without confirmation from reliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging to request you please discuss here before adding back contested material, per WP:ONUS. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard has repeatedly found that Breitbart is a reliable source only for the personal opinions of people publishing there (i.e. op-eds are reliable for indicating what the author believes) but not as a source of fact-checked news. Moreover, we already have one apparently reliable source to the material cited, so there's nothing gained by including this reference; it only introduces an unreliable source. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Family members
Hi all, particularly and, I wanted to touch base about info on family members. I really appreciate that all of it is sourced--thank you!--I'm just concerned that even though Hill has discussed these topics publicly, the family members remain low-profile individuals and I tend to think the encyclopedia should err on the side of their privacy (per WP:BLPNAME, WP:NPF, other privacy-related BLP policies)--but I could see the other side too, as when I was working on this a few weeks back, I read the materials cited and debated how much should be included, so I'd love to hear people's thinking on the matter. Thanks all for your collaboration! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * BLPNAME allows for names of immediate family members, and these are from secondary sources (as opposed to OR on public birth records.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true, it's definitely preferable that they are not OR from vital records (technically only one of the two sources in question is secondary since Hill wrote the other but I'm not fussed about that). Still I'm not sure the info is "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject"; given the family members in question are low-profile, it doesn't really give the reader more context to include names, while leaving them out does respect privacy of non-public figures... Innisfree987 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that short of blue links, family member names aren't worth mentioning. I can go either way.  Perhaps you should consider pursuing this at WT:BLP if you want to establish a broader consensus. Cheers—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not talk about her parents, but the whole thing about her mom's problems is important, as it inspired her to begin writing. Also, I don't consider someone President Trump has tweeted about low-key. 8 November 2017 (UTC)