Talk:Jessica Pressler

Some not so positive reactions to Pressler's writing
As listed in refideas above, there are a handful of stories that Pressler covered that did not get such a positive reaction, namely the one about EDM musician Avicii who didn't like her GQ article about him, and a person who went by Mohammed Islam who interviewed with Pressler claiming to be a successful teenage trader with a net worth of $72 million, but was later revealed to be a hoax. Bloomberg had withdrawn a potential job offer to Pressler as a result. Note Articles for deletion/Mohammed Islam AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I went to the AFD on Mohammed Islam, and nothing springs out as to why this AFD has anything to do with the article on Pressler.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that was concerning the old deleted version of Islam where he claimed to be a teenage trader with a net worth of $72 million, not the current Mohammed Islam article which seems to be about a professor. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our articles on individuals are not supposed to be hagiographies, or "hit pieces". We are supposed to neutrally summarize, paraphrase or quote what RS had to say.  If RS say she is a brilliant writer, we find a neutral way to say that.  If RS say she is a lazy writer, who doesn't check her facts, we find a neutral way to to say that.  If RS originally said she was brilliant, and later said it was crap, we find a neutral way to say that.  So, why are you bringing up the AFD?  Did RS initially praise her reporting on him, only to turn on her?  Well, so what?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you. This is why I added these RS'es that critiqued her writing, and combined the abundance of self-published articles that were flooding the article references. You can integrate the not-so-positive reactions into her article, and that would help the balance the tone. I brought up the AFD because back then, like I said before, the AFD was concerning that same person, the teenage trader. Do you see how Mohammed Islam the trader is connected to Pressler now?  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources tag
Over half of the references for Pressler's article are coming from Pressler's writing or interviews conducted by Pressler. This is why the primary sources tag is there. It really needs more balanced secondary sources that cover Pressler's career. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I count over a dozen references that are neither written by Pressler, or links to interviews of others, by Pressler. What about RS where someone else interviews Pressler?  I disagree that those should be considered a primary source.  I have strong doubts over whether a primary sources tag should be applied to an article with lots of secondary sources.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , tell you what: if you can remove all of the primary self-written sources and write the article with just the secondaries, then that would be worth removing the tag. Interviews are mostly primary sources as the person is self-disclosing a lot of the information. The interviews may have a little bit of secondary where the interviewer assumes knowledge of the subject in asking the questions or writing the background of the person. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. How, exactly do you think WP:PRIMARY requires the removal of all primary sources?  In my long experience here most contributors don't expect articles to not use primary sources.  Rather, most contributors use primary sources, to establish non-controversial details, with the understanding that they do not establish an individual's notability.  Pressler is a writer, and, in the case of this article most of the primary are used to establish that she wrote for this ore that publication.  I suggest this a completely policy compliant and non-controversial use.
 * Consider the Frost-Nixon interviews. Frost, and his staff of researchers, spent months of research, prior to the interview, so he could ask the right probling questions, and so Nixon couldn't use the interview to blind the audience.  Other interviewers won't spend months, but, in a good interview, the interviewer is either has ongoing expertise in the same fields as the interviewee, or they have done some homework.  Granted, there are sweet-heart interviews, where the interviewer is a confederate of the interviewee, who asks softball questions.  I suggest these are a special case.
 * Perhaps you should reach out to someone else, a contributor you trust, and ask their opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , see Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_61 But it's already been shown that Pressler is notable for now, and I'm not calling for AFD.  It's just that in its current state, there are far more self-written sources compared to the secondaries and the interviews, so that's why the primary sources tag should not be removed.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to the archived discussion.
 * I still don't understand why you placed the tag, and will not agree it should be removed. The article does use references to Pressler's own works.  I suggested those references are being used in a completely policy compliant manner, and there are lots of policy compliant secondary sources, and, in those circumstances, the primary tag is not appropriate.  Excuse me, it seems you haven't really addressed this point.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , check out the two articles I recently added for Tilton and Scaramucci, and how they reference Pressler's articles in a secondary way. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I scrubbed out the articles and have removed the tag. The pubs references to her own articles is commented out. There are plenty of secondaries. I've kept the interviews and marked them as such, but they aren't overwhelming the information about her now. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Sometimes otherwise smart, competent people work too hard, and try to leave replies when they are so tired it affects their coherence, and they leave replies that don't make any sense - their tiredness triggers them to leave a reply as incoherent as if they were drunk, or high, without them realizing it. I am going to assume that this comment was so difficult to understand because you were overtired, overtired, and didn't realize you weren't being coherent.  If that is what happened, don't leave replies when you are over-tired.  Reply tomorrow, after a good sleep.
 * The Scaramucci article you added? You didn't add the Scaramucci article.  It is a redirect of long-standing. I checked the revision  history.  You haven't edited Anthony Scaramucci in the last six weeks.  You did leave an edit to Jessica Pressler that included "Scaramucci" in your edit summary.is this the Scaramucci thing you were talking about?  I should not have to play detective to figure out what you are talk about.  I suggest if you want your respondents to look at a specific edit you made then you definitely should provide the specific diff to that edit.
 * Similarly, is this the Tilton thing you were talking about?
 * Okay, I've looked at them. Please return here, and make a greater effort to explain whatever point you were trying to make in referring to them.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My point for the Saramucci article is that it is better to have the secondary source articles that talk about Pressler's articles rather than having Pressler's actual article. I left a few of Pressler's original articles because they pinpointed the actual date of publication.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Back to the original point. If you looked at the article prior to the tag HERE, it was filled mostly with primary sources, mostly Pressler's writings. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:ABOUTSELF #5: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)