Talk:Jason Mojica

Problem paragraph

Much of the information for the biography section of this article is based on a self-published, self-posted biography by the subject of the article, Jason Mojica, at jasonmojica.com.

Thus, information is posted on Mojica's Wikipedia page whose only source or citation is what the subject of the article posted online himself. As described below, the Wikipedia page itself appears to have been started online by Mjoica himself, or someone close to him, and almost entirely written by him or someone close to him. Only later, did the article appear less than a advertorial or promotion for Mojica when others added to this page.

With all of those things being the case, should information from jasonmojica.com-- a website posted by the subject of the article and probably original author of it-- be used in this article at all?

Also, added a reference to Daily Beast article, but it is now footnoted and also has a citation for it added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This paragraph is a problem:

While in Pyongyang, Mojica and the other members of the VICE crew attended a lavish dinner hosted by Kim Jong Un, and attended by Kim's uncle Jang Song Thaek, who Kim would later have killed by firing squad. Mojica and the others were severely criticized for Tweets they posted and comments made to the press about the cuisine at the dinner, even as hundreds of thousands of ordinary North Koreans (millions of people, according to some accounts), many of them children, died of starvation. Mojica tweeted: "Um... so Kim Jong Un just got the #VICEonHBO crew wasted... no really, that happened." Vice correspondent Ryan McCarthy told the Associated Press: "Dinner was an epic feast. Felt like about 10 courses in total. I'd say the winners were the smoked turkey and sushi, though we had the Pyongyang cold noodles earlier in the trip and that's been the runaway favorite so far." "It was the most surreal experience of my life," Mojica said.

• The text "and attended by Kim's uncle Jang Song Thaek," I could not find mention of that in the video source, and along with "who Kim would later have killed by firing squad." is irrelevant to this article.
• The text "Mojica and the others were severely criticized for Tweets they posted and comments made to the press about the cuisine at the dinner, even as hundreds of thousands of ordinary North Koreans (millions of people, according to some accounts), many of them children, died of starvation." is unsupported by a source and also appears to include editorializing that is unattributed.
• The text "Vice correspondent Ryan McCarthy told the Associated Press: "Dinner was an epic feast. Felt like about 10 courses in total. I'd say the winners were the smoked turkey and sushi, though we had the Pyongyang cold noodles earlier in the trip and that's been the runaway favorite so far." is unsupported by a source, is trivial, and is irrelevant to this article.

The paragraph was revised to While in Pyongyang, Mojica and the other members of the VICE crew attended a lavish dinner hosted by Kim Jong Un. "It was the most surreal experience of my life," Mojica said..

Unsupported claims in a biography of a living person should be removed and were, but Cathradgenations is reverting them back to the article. Cathradgenations, can you explain your reasons for including unsourced and irrelevant content to the article? Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Response:

There are indeed multiple sources that the feast attended by Mojica with North Korea's dictator was highly controversial. Here are just a few:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2013/mar/01/dennis-rodman-north-korea-kim-jong-un

https://gawker.com/5987670/10-absolutely-unbelievable-images-from-dennis-rodmans-vice-sponsored-trip-to-north-korea

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/02/dennis-rodman-vice-having-fun-with-dictator.html

New York Magazine, the Guardian, and Gawker are all credible sources. The controversy surrounding the trip, including the feast, was ubiquitous. Mojica and his colleagues made it even more so because of their comments about the high living and cuisine on Twitter, and in the case, of his colleague, to the Associated Press.

The quote to the Associated Press is on Lexis-Nexis and repeated in the Gawker post verbatim. AP does not retain its past articles online, but it is in the Lexis-Nexis data base, and verbatim in Gawker.

The criticism is consquential. That the criticism was widespread is not, as you, is a personal opinion, but verifiable fact. But the fact that it was ubiquitous, that you could barely read anything about the trip, without finding something makes it worthy of mentioning. All of those writers and publications believed it was consequential. So did others, such as Anderson Cooper, who tweeted about it.

They say it is consequential, which is their opinion. You say it is not. Your opinion should matter no less than theirs. Simply put, that so many people found the episode of such a feast int he midst of hundreds of thousands of people starving makes it worthy of including in this article. That you included it "irrelevant" is your opinion. Anderson Cooper, New York Magazine, Gawker, the Guardian have expressed opinions that, to them, this was highly relevant. Their "relevant" opinions expressed over and over again in mainstream publications is "relevant" as well. To say they are all irrelevant is to say to say that your opinion the issue is irrelevant is imposing your own opinion by saying they are wrong, and injecting that opinion into the editing of this article.

Related, this article was largely written by a single person from scratch. Virtually everything in this article was written by this one person, which appears to be Mojica or someone close to him. Mojica was involved in a notorious sexual harrassment scandal at his last job, Vice. He sexually harassed several young women, turned a blind eye as a manager to others doing so, and was eventually fired, when caught, according to the New York Times. This information was only included by additional contributors.

The original article and much of it still reads like an infomercial or promotional article for Mojica, to deflect attention from the sexual harassment incidents he was alleged to behave in-- mention of which was ommitted by Mojica or whoever else close to him set up this Wikipedia page and then wrote virtually of all it, until more recent contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

Gawker is not a reliable source; see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The other two articles only mention Mojica to quote Mojica's tweet. So this, Mojica tweeted: "Um... so Kim Jong Un just got the #VICEonHBO crew wasted... no really, that happened." can be sourced but that's trivial and a tabloid-type addition. You can source Mojica and the others were criticized for Tweets they posted and comments made to the press about the cuisine at the dinner, but adding even as hundreds of thousands of ordinary North Koreans (millions of people, according to some accounts), many of them children, died of starvation is original research. McCarthy's quote about dinner has no place in the article either. I will add the criticism line, now that you've provided a source for it.

When you add content to an article, you should include reliable sources for that content. When your content is reverted, you should discuss, not edit war. When you post on a talk page, you add your comments at the bottom, and you WP:INDENT. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

For those of us with scant experience with Twitter, are you an editor or have some veto power over other users? You seem to be issuing edicts and orders. Do you have more authority than anyone else here? You are expressing your opinions on what is relevant or important and what is not, and I am wondering why you are issuing orders as if your thoughts are more important than those of others or paramount to anything else?

I am not sure you understand the nuance ot this: Whether Gawker itself is a reliable source, the fact that its post lead others to weigh into a controversy is the issue; not the original information that Gawker published. That hundreds of thousands of North Korean died, of course, has a thousand sources, which can be documented.

This article was written by the subject of the article himself or someone close to him, almost as a promotional or public relations venture. The subject of the artile openly boasted about paying someone to publish a Wikipedia profile such as this one, which defeats the whole rationale for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

First, please learn to indent (see WP:INDENT for instructions).

Second, I'm an editor just like you and every editor is obligated to uphold Wikipedia's policies. Do you see the banner on this page? This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

Third, how many North Koreans have died is irrelevant to this article unless an independent reliable source explicitly makes that connection in relation to Mojica. You've made over 70 edits to this article, I assume to get rid of any promotional content, which is a good thing to do. Schazjmd (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Odd trivia

​ This sentence After beginning attendance at the school, however, Mojica said he never felt like part of the university community: "I’m a 31-year-old male. Do you really want me living in a dorm?” Mojica said in offering an "awkward explanation" he gave to live off-campus doesn't really add to the article. It's chatty trivia that isn't really relevant to an encyclopedia biography. Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point. But that one sentence (trivia) tell us a lot: He went to school at a fairly old age, in his thirties. He never became part of the larger community, etc. In encyclopedia biographies, both traditional and online, like Wikikpedia-- as well as newspaper obituaries-- it has become increasingly encouraged to include anecdotes, quotes, examples, etc. of information that gives us a sense of the person. Not knowing a lot about Wikipedia, does it have strict rules one way or the other? (I can find similar examples of other Wikipedia articles to show you.... of similar anecdotes, quotes, etc. that appear effective, and very tightly edited because they are of famous figures!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

I disagree, but I won't fight over it. Since it's there, please fix the reference. You're citing the same GW Hatchet source in two places. Name the ref and call it in the other location. Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for not knowing hwo to do that, but will research it soon. I get your point by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

Fixed it for you; you might find User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the most recent edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) ​