Talk:Mollie Hemingway

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mollie Hemingway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mollie Hemingway. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mollie Hemingway at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Colorado Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The revelations during the week of May 2, 2020, appear to vindicate Ms. Hemingway’s evaluation of the charges.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c160:2880:4cb9:ff0e:2bfa:aa2b (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the reliability of a source discussing themself

An edit of mine was undone, because, as the explanation went: "she's not a reliable source as to the history of her own views. if she's accurate about the history of her views, RS should bear it out."

I found that curious, since the content was not self-published, and the publisher, the Washington Post, is widely considered a reliable source. I looked at WP:RS, and WP:BLP and could find nothing supporting the view that someone cannot be a reliable source as to the history of their own views. In fact, a number of guidelines seem to favor inclusion: WP:RSSELF, WP:SELFSOURCE, WP:RSOPINION, MOS:QUOTE, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS.

For instance, WP:BLPSPS makes an exception for sources "written or published by the subject of the article themselves."
In addition, WP:SELFSOURCE permits even self-published or questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, provided certain criteria are met."

So I see no clear justification for removal of the quote. I'm leaving this explanation here in good faith.

—Approaching (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a self written article published by a reliable publisher would qualify for inclusion. It is also worth noting that the claim made is a about a contemporary status of her views, not the history.

71.14.106.209 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snooganssnoogans Can you clarify why you reverted revision 1050066318 without explanation?

71.14.106.209 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative", not "center-right"

An IP number keeps insisting that MH is "center-right". Not only is that ludicrous, but more importantly it's entirely unsourced, whereas there are multiple RS that characterize her as "conservative". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 problematic sentences

In the Views section, we have :

"Page, who had murky relationships with Russia and unusually pro-Putin views[…]" — What's it mean here, "unusually" ? Is it meant to say "unusual" ?
In May 2018, Hemingway claimed that the theory that FBI spied on Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, and said that this was "unprecedented and scandalous". — So, "the theory that FBI spied on Trump's campaign" is/does what ?

—Jerome Potts (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more issues in the "Views" section. Only the first few sentences say anything about her views. The rest simply repeat things that she wrote in certain months. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Husband or wife?

There's a sentence in the article that says this: "Ziegler married Mark Hemingway, a senior writer for The Weekly Standard who also worked as a freelance writer, contributing to many publications including the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Ricochet, particularly writing about religion-related topics, and who was one of the founding members of The Federalist."

I can't tell from the grammar of the sentence whether the part about "contributing to many publications..." applies to Hemingway (the husband) or the wife. I assume it is supposed to be about Mollie Hemingway but that's not 100% clear. Novellasyes (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Staunch defender of Trump"

This wording has re-appeared multiple times now,[1] with the latest version including a string of almost exclusively liberal sources, while excluding Hemingway's own positions. Politico calls her a "pro-Trump commentator", Salon calls her a "reliable Trump defender", Atlantic calls her a "supporter" after acknowledging she wasn't always, and the New York Times article is about commentator trends in general and makes no claim about Hemingways' views on Trump. Her own words in the Washington Post editorial (paywalled) defend Trump's accomplishments, and she adds that "Like most people, I don't particularly like Trump's rhetorical style, juvenile insults and intemperate disposition — on full display in recent days. At the same time, having followed his career for decades, I am not surprised that he wakes up each morning as Donald Trump." Not the words of a "staunch" defender. She has been critical of the media and electoral processes, and her Post oped -- context -- defended Trump's record relative to her expectations of him pre-2016-election and what she would have expected from Hillary.

Snooganssnoogans, if you want to turn that into a "staunch defender of Trump", please do so by a) finding hhigher quality sources that actually say that, b) balancing those sources with her own wording, c) seeking out a balance of sources rather than all liberal, and d) doing so without resorting to citation overkill. One or two strong sources is always preferable to piling in a string of unbalanced sources. The New York Times source that you had been using does not say anything close to her being a "staunch" Trump defender. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]