Talk:Jonathan Swan

Request Edit

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a WP: COI here as a paid consultant to Axios, the employer of the article's subject.

I believe the following text violates the Wikipedia policy for Biographies of Living Persons WP: BLP. Specifically, it violates Neutral Point of View WP: NPOV, including by using sensationalistic language and not using a “dispassionate voice.” The use of quotation marks around criticism does not make inflammatory language any more acceptable on Wikipedia. The text also fails the BLP policy on “Balance” by failing to recognize the many extremely prominent individuals who defended Swann (e.g. Bob Woodward, Sally Quinn, as well as "colleagues" cited without being named.)

Delete:

Swan received extensive media criticism for an October 2018 interview with President Donald Trump. Critics slammed Swan for his "gleeful" interview with the President who announced during the interview the he planned to end the practice of birth right citizenship in the US. Swan offered no push back and then failed to correct Trump's erroneous assertion that only the US offered birth right citizenship, when 30 countries do. Others accused him of being overly deferential to the Trump administration with one writer calling him a Trump administration "bootlicker." A writer for the New York Times asserted his journalistic style suggested he favored access to people in power over holding them accountable.

Replace with:

In November 2018, Swan broke the story that President Trump wanted to end U.S. birthright citizenship though an executive order. Some criticized Swan’s tone during the interview with President Trump, which aired on HBO as being overly deferential. But others, such as journalist Bob Woodward defended Swan's reporting style, saying he was “hitting Trump pretty hard” while still giving him an opportunity to make his case.

Also, as long as this article is being evaluated, especially with this latest addition, I think the flag for "reads like a advertisement" isn't justified and should be removed.

Thanks for the evaluation!

BC1278 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

Reply 07-NOV-2018

  Clarification requested  

• I prefer your proposed version. The issue here is Woodward's quote being added whilst Watson's is omitted. If one is going to be added, so should the other for balance. Please provide a revised proposal which incorporates quotes from both or none, per WP:BALASP.

  Please consult assigning editor  

• As far as the maintenance template, please first make contact with the editor who added the template in order to determine from them whether it may be removed.

When ready to proceed, please change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no Regards,  Spintendo  05:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you. Made adjustment below without quote. We could also get rid of "such as journalist Bob Woodward" if you think that's more fair. Several people across two articles made similar defenses.

Replace with:

In November 2018, Swan broke the story that President Trump wanted to end U.S. birthright citizenship though an executive order. Some criticized Swan’s tone during the interview with President Trump, which aired on HBO as being overly deferential. But others, such as journalist Bob Woodward, defended Swan's reporting style, saying he was asking tough question while still giving the president an opportunity to make his case.

BC1278 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References

Reply 09-NOV-2018

My suggestion would be the following:

In November 2018, Swan broke the story that President Trump wanted to end U.S. birthright citizenship though an executive order. Some journalists criticized Swan’s tone during the interview with President Trump, which aired on HBO, as being overly deferential while others such as Bob Woodward defended the style's standard, noting that "walking that line of being tough but fair while also listening to the people you’re covering is a delicate one."

My reasoning:

1. The claims against Swan being reduced to "overly deferential" (quotes placed in my retelling of the material here only, and not in the final product) is an appropriate summation of the claims against that interview
2. Woodward's quote being OK as the only one included as a defense for this example, as the quote is appropriately generic — Woodward's mentioning of Swan is not necessarily a defense of Swan's particular interview with Trump (as Woodward does not offer specific examples) so much as it is Woodward's defense of the journalistic standard in general, to ask "tough but fair" questions while taking time to listen to the answer.

I feel that the above is a balanced entry, and would appreciate any feedback from others.  Spintendo  11:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Request Edits

I have a COI, as disclosed above, as a paid consultant to Axios. I am proposing the article be re-structured as a typical Wikipedia bio in chronological order (not reverse, as it is now); the language be changed to reduce the promotional tone; and that accuracy and sourcing be fixed in some places. All proposed changes are numbered below. Since this is an extensive request, as a reference, I have created a sandbox with all proposed changes incorporated: User:BC1278/sandbox/Jonathan_Swan#Career

1. Insert new section after lead:

Early Life

Swan was born and raised in Australia. He is the son of journalist and radio and television broadcaster Norman Swan.  Done

2. Insert new Career section header after Early Life:

Career

Swan began his career as a national political reporter based in Canberra, Australia for Fairfax Media and a political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald. In 2014, Swan became a panelist on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Sunday political show, Insiders (TV program).

He was the Australian selected in 2014 for the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship. It involved moving to the United States for a yearlong political fellowship, during which he served on a congressional staff. Swan joined The Hill in August 2015 as part of their campaign team.

Why? Re-orders placement of information already in article to establish chronological order (instead of reverse chronological order) of bio; delete struck words “Before moving to the United States”; delete words “prestigious” and “flagship”; move sentence about award to new section proposed below.  Done

3. Insert sub-header "Axios" and reword next paragraph for continuity:

Axios

Swan became a national political reporter for Axios in December 2016. He is also the editor of the Axios Sneak Peak newsletter. While at Axios, Swan became known for breaking stories about the Trump administration.

Swan was the first to report that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate deal; that Trump would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; and that Trump would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive action policy. On April 11, 2018, Swan broke the news that the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was retiring from Congress. On October 9, 2018, he was the first to report that Trump had accepted the resignation of Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley.  Done

Why? Reduces promotional language; cuts Coatrack:

4. Delete unsourced and incorrect statement:

"On September 24, 2018, he falsely reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had resigned."  Done Replace with:

On September 24, 2018, he was the first to report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had verbally resigned. The story was later updated to clarify that is was uncertain if the White House had accepted the resignation, though Swan also published the Rosenstein exit statement that the Justice Department sent to the White House. Swan later said he had given the resignation story unwarranted certainty.

Added Other news outlets had more accurately reported that Rosenstein was considering a resignation.

5. Insert reworded sentences to reduce promotional tone and add references:

He broke the news that Steve Bannon was about to be fired, and he was the first to report that Anthony Scaramucci would step in as communications director.  Done

7. Insert/move the following sentence to below paragraph about criticism over interview with President Trump:

Swan has appeared on Morning Joe, Special Report with Bret Baier, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and PBS NewsHour.  Done with "...since he began reporting for Axios.

Why? More accurate language and sourcing,

8. Delete the repetitive sentence:

“Prior to joining Axios, Swan served as national political reporter for The Hill, a Washington-based political newspaper.”  Done

9. Delete, in “Personal Life”, statement relying only on Twitter as a source:

“He is Jewish”  Done - also removed him from categories related to his religion.

10. Delete section:

“Personal Life”

Why?All the remaining material has been moved to "Early Life"  Done

11. Add section at end of article, with content moved from higher in article:

Awards and Honors

As a member of the Sydney Morning Herald's reporting team in the Canberra Press Gallery, Swan was presented with the Wallace Brown Award in 2014 for most outstanding young journalist.  Done but left section as "Recognition" - also included Politico mention. (Took out the hypey part.)

Why? Consolidates awards already in article into one section, proving flow of career narrative.

12. Delete sentences (somewhat promotional):

"In 2016, Politico named Swan one of its '16 breakout media stars' of the U.S. presidential campaign. The article described Swan as one of the few reporters singled out for attention by officials from both Republican and Democratic sides."  Done

13. Remove "advertisement" flag based on recommended changes.  Done

References

BC1278 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Kudos to BC1278 for declaring his conflict of interest on this topic. He has asked me, to comment here, because I have experience in journalism. (I don't know if he has also asked others.) I have no COI at all.

I agree with the suggestion that the article is not well organized. I added a Career section but that needs to be fleshed out with specifics about steps in his career, not just the scoops and the accolades and criticism.

In some areas, the wording of the article was unfair. i.e. the uncited claim that Swan falsely reported Rosenstein's resignation. I have revised that to be more accurate and added two citations.

I see that BC1278 now wants to delete a sentence that I had added a few minutes ago, after the report of accolades from Bob Woodward.

    On the other hand, the author of the November 4, 2018 article in the Washington Post noted that Swan had ignored the fact that the president cannot simply override the Constitution and that he did not advise viewers that the president had erred when stating said that other countries had birthright citizenship; none do.[14][25]

The sentence I had added is clearly based on the Washington Post article; many other web sites have also criticized Swan; I cited the HuffPost, but there are many others.

IMHO, the sentence that I added provides a counterpoint to the Woodword praise ... for Neutral Point of View. (accolade + criticism). This is how a balanced Wikipedia article should work. Because BC1278 recommends that the sentence and the HuffPost citation be deleted, I can no longer support the changes he is requesting. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. It is much appreciated - although the structure of the article is now very rough since the review was only partial. On that specific point about the added sentence, there was already extensive discussion and rewriting of this paragraph during a Request Edit Talk review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edit If you wished to revise further, then Talk would have been the best outlet, to allow those who already were engaged to participate. I'll say that I agree what you added is an accurate summary of additional criticism. But there is already criticism of him earlier in the paragraph. At a certain point, it just becomes Undue to go into this much depth about just one story in the subject's career. And this was a television interview - if you're going to add this level of very detailed criticism about the reporter, then we should add more defenders of the subject who said it was unrealistic to expect the reporter, in real time, to know the level of detail demanded by critics to refute the president during a wide-ranging interview on many subjects. There are news organizations who devote full-time reporters to fact check the president's many false statements -- but it takes many hours or days of research to get the facts right when there are so many falsehoods. But if we add more defenders about the reporter's work during this TV interview, then we get even more Undue. The bio gets weighted down by all the detail about just one incident in the subject's career. BC1278 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

I am impressed with your expertise throughout the comments you have made on this Talk page BC1278, and am sure you are an excellent journalist. But with due respect, I disagree. The amount of criticism about Swan that was published after the Trump (HBO) interview is overwhelming. In fact, this may be the most press coverage he has ever received. Hence, the topic deserves more coverage than the others in that section, IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Peter K Burian I respect the disagreement and appreciate Be Bold as philosophy for just making edits and seeing what happens. But, since I can't respond on the article itself because of COI (for example by adding an additional defense), I just wish this change was proposed on Talk since we already had a previous discussion about just this topic. Fine to re-open the discussion, of course, and consensus might be with you. I removed from my list of Request Edits since there's disagreement, so there should be discussion. BC1278 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

User:Spintendo I'd suggest I separate out a new section for the one item where there is some disagreement. And that the rest of the Request Edit be re-opened (I have already removed anything having to do with this one item of disagreement from the list of requests), as there are already a couple of editors slowly working through what is a complete restructuring of the article (which is not very good at present) based on these requests. ThanksBC1278 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Request Edits

Re-listing the unaddressed COI Request Edits, from above, with some revisions, leaving out the one disagreement. As before, disclosing I am a paid consultant to Axios. I am proposing the article be re-structured as a typical Wikipedia bio in chronological order (not reverse, as it is now); the language be changed to reduce the promotional tone; and that accuracy and sourcing be fixed in some places. All proposed changes are numbered below. If I don't mention content currently in the article, I am not proposing it be changed or deleted.

1. Insert in Career section, a new order, so it is chronological and begins the section with the following information, the beginning of his career:

Career

Swan began his career as a national political reporter based in Canberra, Australia for Fairfax Media and a political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald. In 2014, Swan became a panelist on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Sunday political show, Insiders (TV program).

He was the Australian selected in 2014 for the American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellowship. It involved moving to the United States for a yearlong political fellowship, during which he served on a congressional staff. Swan joined The Hill in August 2015 as part of their campaign team.

Why? Re-orders placement of information already in article to establish chronological order (instead of reverse chronological order),as is more standard in a bio; delete words “Before moving to the United States”; delete words “prestigious” and “flagship” as promotional; moves sentence about award to new section proposed below; deletes "youngest" panelist as source only shows he was a panelist, not the youngest.

2. Insert sub-header "Axios" in Career section (some of this is just re-ordering paragraphs so they are chronological):

Axios

Swan became a national political reporter for Axios in December 2016. He is also the editor of the Axios Sneak Peak newsletter. While at Axios, Swan became known for breaking stories about the Trump administration.

Swan was the first to report that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate deal; that Trump would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; and that Trump would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive action policy. On April 11, 2018, Swan broke the news that the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was retiring from Congress. On October 9, 2018, he was the first to report that Trump had accepted the resignation of Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley.

Why? Reduces promotional language; cuts Coatrack; chronological order; adds continuity language:

3. Delete inaccurate statement:

On September 24, 2018, he reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had resigned; this proved to be incorrect. Other news outlets had more accurately reported that Rosenstein was considering a resignation.

Replace with:

On September 24, 2018, he was the first to report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had verbally resigned and published the Rosenstein exit statement that the Justice Department sent to the White House.. The story was later updated to clarify that is was uncertain if the White House had accepted the resignation, which it ultimately did not. Swan later said he had given the resignation story unwarranted certainty.

Why? Rosenstein did, in fact, offer his verbal resignation. This was a significant scoop by Swan and is sourced as such to the New York Times. Swan also obtained and published the Justice Department statement announcing the resignation. The current Wikipedia language, which states that Rosenstein only considered offering his resignation, is incorrect. The Swan story was flawed because it did not report that the White House was considering rejecting the resignation, which it ultimately did. This Requested Edit credits Swan's reporting but also reflects Swan's mistake. It also proposes deleting what other media outlets reported about Rosenstein (not Swan's reporting), which is not relevant to this bio. Putting sources into the article that don't mention Swan, in an attempt to do independent analysis or draw a conclusion not in the source, violates WP: SYNTHESIZE

4. Delete this sentence draws conclusions without sources: "Swan is known for his insider reporting on White House power struggles, with coverage of Oval Office conversations."

5. Delete "a hire that roiled the White House and generated months of tabloid gossip" after "he was the first to report that Anthony Scaramucci would step in as communications director..."

Why? WP: COATRACKING

6. Correct: ....president had erred when stating said that other countries had birthright citizenship; none do. Change to: "president had erred when stating said that no other countries had birthright citizenship  ;more than 30 others do."

Why? Sources state the error by Trump is that he asserted other countries don't have birthright citizenship, not that they do. Also sources do not state "none do." The Washington Post story says "dozens do" and hyperlinks to a story with details. HuffPo says nothing on the subject. We should add the already cited The New York Times story, which specifies that more than 30 other countries do.

7. Delete the repetitive sentence: (Assuming new Axios sub-section is added)

“Prior to joining Axios, Swan served as national political reporter for The Hill, a Washington-based political newspaper.”

8. Change subsection title "Recent Recognition" to Recognition and move content here from higher in article:

As a member of the Sydney Morning Herald's reporting team in the Canberra Press Gallery, Swan was presented with the Wallace Brown Award in 2014 for most outstanding young journalist.

We can leave in "For his reporting work in the U.S., The Sydney Morning Herald..."

Why? Moves awards already in article into a section low in the article, not interrupting flow of career narrative.

10. Remove "advertisement" flag based on recommended changes.

Thanks for your consideration. BC1278 (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

References

Restore paragraph

Hi,

Many thanks to User:JSFarman for review of the previous requested edits from me! I have a disclosed COI.

In the course of the latest edit, the following paragraph was omitted. I think it should be restored (the criticism was widely reported), with the exception that the final sentence should be omitted or corrected, since it contains a straightforward inaccuracy. Notifying User: Peter K Burian who contributed the last sentence here.

In November 2018, Swan interviewed President Trump, who discussed wanting to end U.S. birthright citizenship though an executive order. Some journalists criticized Swan’s tone during the interview with President Trump, which aired on HBO, as being overly deferential. A writer for the New York Times noted that Swan's journalistic style suggested that he favored access to people in power over holding them accountable. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post defended what he saw as the style's standard evidenced by the interview, noting that "walking that line of being tough but fair while also listening to the people you’re covering is a delicate one." On the other hand, the author of the November 4, 2018 article in the Washington Post noted that Swan had failed to advise viewers of the HBO program that the president cannot simply override the Constitution and that the president had erred when stating said that other countries had birthright citizenship; none do.

DELETE: Either the entire last line or, "...the president had erred when stating said that other countries had birthright citizenship; none do."

REPLACE WITH: Either nothing if deleted or, "...the president had erred when stating said that no other countries had birthright citizenship; more than 30 others do."

Why? It's a bit of overkill detail (undue) for a bio to have this last sentence, but if we are going to have it, it should be accurate. This last sentence says the opposite of what the sources report. The sources report the error by Trump is that he asserted other countries do not have birthright citizenship, not that they do have birthright citizenship. Also the sources do not state "none do." The Washington Post story says "dozens do" and hyperlinks to a story with details. HuffPo says nothing on the subject. We should add the already cited New York Times story, which specifies that more than 30 other countries do.

BC1278 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)BC1278

It was an accidental omission. I know this is the correct format for COI edit requests, but I find it difficult to move between the talk page and the article. Maybe it's that I have a touch of dyslexia.

That said, I agree with you, BC1278. You should go ahead and make the changes specified above. I already went through the references - the paragraph is neutral and the assertions verifiable. JSFarman (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a COI here as a paid consultant to Axios. I'd request an independent reviewer consider the following request:

Delete the "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" template from the article.

Why? The paid COI is disclosed on the Talk page, both as a template up top, and in every edit request made by me, as per WP: COI. The entire article has had extensive revisions and reviews by independent editors as part of the Request Edit reviews.  Done

Thanks for your consideration. BC1278 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Hi BC1278 (talk), I was the editor who added the above template to the article. After more thoroughly reviewing your disclosures, it appears that you've correctly disclosed your COI in the past. I stand corrected, and have removed the template.

That being said, I'd like to review the contents independently in more detail, and which parts are fit for this WP:BLP. There seems to be information that doesn't really belong in a biography, even though it is well sourced. I hope to get your input on those down the road. Btcgeek (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Advert

NO NON-COI EDITORS SUPPORT THE ADVERTISEMENT TEMPLATE'S REMOVAL. RFC RECOMMENDED TO DISCUSS HOW TO INCLUDE NEGATIVE MATERIAL FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST.:

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. No non-COI editors have supported removing the {{advert}} template that was most recently added on 16 March 2018 by Ronz. COI editor BC1278 wants to remove the template.

After reviewing the discussion, I found one outstanding concern that is preventing editors from supporting the {{advert}} template's removal: Why does the article not contain criticism about the subject and how should the criticism be included in the article? As Gaidenjagi noted, the subject received criticism in The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The article previously had the following two paragraphs added by BC1278:

Extended content

:1) In November 2018, Swan interviewed President Trump, who discussed wanting to end U.S. birthright citizenship though an executive order. Some journalists criticized Swan’s tone during the interview with President Trump, which aired on HBO, as being overly deferential. A writer for the New York Times noted that Swan's journalistic style suggested that he favored access to people in power over holding them accountable. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post defended what he saw as the style's standard evidenced by the interview, noting that "walking that line of being tough but fair while also listening to the people you’re covering is a delicate one." On the other hand, the author of the November 4, 2018 article in the Washington Post noted that Swan had failed to advise viewers of the HBO program that the president cannot simply override the Constitution and that the president had erred when stating said that no other countries had birthright citizenship; more than 30 others do. 2) On September 24, 2018, he was the first to report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had verbally resigned. The story was later updated to clarify that it was uncertain if the White House had accepted the resignation, though Swan also published the Rosenstein exit statement that the Justice Department sent to the White House. Swan later said he had given the resignation story unwarranted certainty. Other news outlets had more accurately reported that Rosenstein was considering a resignation. References

The paragraphs were removed on 20 March 2019 by Btcgeek who wrote, "Consolidating sections, removing content written like an ad, removing some NOTNEWS and RECENTISM issues".

The removed content contained the only negative material about the subject. BC1278 wants to restore the negative material so that the {{advert}} template can be removed. Other editors disagree with the restoration with Slatersteven saying "I would rather it was less specific and more general" and Newslinger writing that Btcgeek "removed this content in Special:Diff/888594983 to address the promotional tone of the article".

I recommend taking into account editors' feedback about promotionalism, recentism, and having more general wording while summarizing the criticism in The New York Times and The Washington Post and then submitting an RfC to determine whether the content should be restored. Once the negative material is restored to the article in a manner that complies with WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RECENTISM, editors likely will support the {{advert}} template's removal.

Cunard (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Btcgeek asked me to look over this article. I'd already seen the COIN discussion, and had wanted to look over some of the articles listed.

I've only briefly looked the article over. I need to look over the independent sources, having only looked at the heavily-used WaPo ref at this point.

Some initial thoughts:

• Consider pulling all Axios refs that aren't being used to expand upon clearly encyclopedic content that's been mentioned in independent sources.

• Consider trimming the list of Swan's scoops. They're all so recent that it may be difficult to determine any historical significance at this time...

• Consider trimming or removing cases of NOTNEWS and similar RECENTISM problems.

Journalists covering journalists is problematic, but I doubt we'll find better sources for years. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Btcgeek and Ronz, since all the changes suggested by Btcgeek below have been implemented by Btcgeek, is there a reason why the "advertisement" template/flag is still on the article? What else needs to be done, if anything? Cheers, Ed BC1278 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 thanks for the follow-up. The article seems clean of advert material now as far as I am concerned. However, I'll defer to Ronz to make a judgement on removing the advert tag. I know he's already reviewing and cleaning up the article further. --Btcgeek (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronz anything else I can do re: possible advert material? Like Btcgeek, I see nothing else. But happy to help if you'd like me to work on anything. Of, if you're done for now and don't want to make the final decision about the flag, I can put in a new Request Edit. But I do want to be sure you've had the chance to do the final review, if that's what you'd like. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like an independent review of the article.

Is the Wallace Brown Award really noteworthy?

Many of the Axios refs look more like examples than references. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi User: Ronz. That's fine with me. Would you like me to do a Request Edit or do you have another suggestion? That said, just a quick recap: User: Btcgeek just did a top-to-bottom review and rewrite, giving anyone the opportunity to comment before implementing the changes (below), and now sees no advert problems; prior to that User: JSFarman reviewed a series of proposals that re-organized the article and removed a bunch of promo material, then removed the advert flag; and now you have looked too, of course, and made several edits. I removed the three Axios citations as they were all superfluous. There was already a secondary source to support all the statements that these were scoops. Regarding The Wallace Brown Award, worth noting that Btcgeek and JSFarman already looked and didn't see it as an advert issue. Looking at the article, I see it was presented to him by the Prime Minister of Australia; he was the only recipient; it was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (the newspaper where Swan worked for part of the investigation leading to the award); and that the investigation into "questionable use of taxpayer funds" "resulted in new rules surrounding MPs' entitlements and expenses." | Fairfax journalist Jonathan Swan awarded prestigious Wallace Brown Young Achiever Award. But perhaps there is policy about awards that will be more definitive or objective? Is this the only issue? Maybe just open up a new discussion about this award? BC1278 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronz Just following up: you said above you'd like another review of the article for Advert. How can I help make that happen? Perhaps a Request Edit with an alert to the Journalism project? What do you think would be a suitable method to find someone independent? BC1278 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Getting someone from the Journalism project involved is a very good idea. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Posted request on discussion page of Journalism project. BC1278 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)BC1278

Ronz So far no one from Journalism project has responded to request for an independent review. Maybe I should post a request at Teahouse? What would you suggest? BC1278 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)BC1728

Sounds like a good next step, but maybe wait until Monday? --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• The source that is used to list Swan's firsts is this one: A fast-rising journalist hits a speed bump with his latest scoop about Trump. It includes some criticism of Swan, such as this:

“This is less a news story than it is a press release,” wrote one critic, beneath a headline calling Swan “a bootlicker.” “This is a news outlet willingly staging a press event for a racist administration.”

It looks like selective reading of the source and contributes to the advertorial nature of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Btcgeek actually removed a passage about that incident as a result of this very Advert discussion, responding to issues raised by Ronz that some of the events might have RECENTISM issues. User: Ronz placed the flag. User: Btcgeek proposed a new draft, then implemented it after a comment period. Prior language from the article, written by User: Spintendo, after a Request Edit from me, is above: Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edit. BC1278 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you rewrote it doesn't mean it's no longer an advert. There isn't one single piece of negative information worth including on this page? Not one. That's an interesting argument. --Gaidenjagi (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any negative information to include?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the recent decision to redraft the article (including by removing some detailed passages with both criticism and praise) was from Btcgeek, not me. Their rewrite (which I had nothing to do with) was proposed here: Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Article_Proposal. K.e. Kofman mentioned a specific criticism and I explained that that criticism had already been in the article, but it was among the content very recently removed by Btcgeek, for RECENTISM. You can see the article before all the recent deletions by Btcgeek here: |dif Somebody can start a discussion and/or just restore the deleted passages if they'd like. But these issues are about WP: RECENTISM, not WP: PROMO. The article should not have an Advert tag unless there is still promotional content of some sort. BC1278 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of critical content Slatersteven, K.e.coffman pointed out the Washington Post column. There's also the New York Times column. If the two top print publications in the United States run stories about a person's work, they are relevant. If you include a promotional Adweek press release while excluding those major publications, it's accurate to call it promotional. (Regardless of who rewrote it!) --Gaidenjagi (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, those sources and events were in the article at the time the ADVERT flag was placed. See |dif Quite a few editors worked on polishing the language. It's there and ready to be restored if that's what editors want. Perhaps User:Btcgeek and User:Ronz would like to weigh in, as I think it was their concerns over WP:RECENTISM that led to these and other passages being deleted. Just to be clear, these deletions are not something I requested or weighed in on, and I'm the editor with the COI. The irony is that it's the ADVERT flag that prompted the deletions now being used to justify the ADVERT flag. BC1278 (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If RS have negative comments about him so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to post a notice to Teahouse asking for further input, unless someone objects or has another idea? BC1278 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You might want to read wp:forumshopping. Also (as far as I am aware) none of us are really new users. If you take this anywhere it needs to either be an RFC or dispute resolution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Forum shopping is raising the same issue for discussion and resolution in more than one place. Placing a neutral notice advising people of an existing discussion on another forum, in order to get more input, is not forum shopping. That's why WP:FORUMSHOPPING advise on how to do just this: "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Ronz and I had already discussed placing a notice on Teahouse and they had no objections. But we could place a notice anywhere else, too, if you have another suggestion.

In any case, unless User: Btcgeek steps in soon to explain their thinking behind those deletions, I'd suggest someone just restore the paragraphs about the Trump interview and Rosenstein story: scroll down to see the article before the deletions, with the language about the two events. Presumably that will resolve the ADVERT tag, so no one else has raised any other objections. I think anyone but me can take these steps at any time. Or, if no one wants to do it, then I'll place a Request Edit to restore the graphs and then remove the ADVERT flag, or a request for neutral admin closure, as there's no remaining dispute here to resolve unless Btcgeek or anyone else here steps in to defend the deletions. No need for RfC or dispute resolution without a dispute. BC1278 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Just warning you to be careful, you have attracted some attention. I think an RFC with a notice at the BLP notice board might be the best bet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: An RfC would simply be to restore those paragraphs about the events. But I don't see anyone disagreeing or objecting. I certainly haven't disagreed. I wish someone who thinks these events about Trump and Ronsenstein should be in the article would just WP: BE BOLD and reinsert them, taking care of the lingering ADVERT issues. BC1278 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are the two parargraphs about these recent events that were deleted | from the article for RECENTISM. I want see if anyone objects to them being restored, as three editors have said above they think the incidents should be covered.

1) In November 2018, Swan interviewed President Trump, who discussed wanting to end U.S. birthright citizenship though an executive order. Some journalists criticized Swan’s tone during the interview with President Trump, which aired on HBO, as being overly deferential. A writer for the New York Times noted that Swan's journalistic style suggested that he favored access to people in power over holding them accountable. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post defended what he saw as the style's standard evidenced by the interview, noting that "walking that line of being tough but fair while also listening to the people you’re covering is a delicate one." On the other hand, the author of the November 4, 2018 article in the Washington Post noted that Swan had failed to advise viewers of the HBO program that the president cannot simply override the Constitution and that the president had erred when stating said that no other countries had birthright citizenship; more than 30 others do.

2) On September 24, 2018, he was the first to report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had verbally resigned. The story was later updated to clarify that it was uncertain if the White House had accepted the resignation, though Swan also published the Rosenstein exit statement that the Justice Department sent to the White House. Swan later said he had given the resignation story unwarranted certainty. Other news outlets had more accurately reported that Rosenstein was considering a resignation.

References

BC1278 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)BC1278

I would rather it was less specific and more general.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am posting a request for admin closure of this discussion. I do not think there is any disagreement that these incidents should be restored to the article. And there are no other outstanding Advert issues that anyone has raised, except for this. My suggestion would be to restore the paragraphs already in the article. Anyone with suggestions about editing these paragraphs further either create a new section on Talk or make the edits directly on the article. BC1278 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Your summary is not representative of this discussion. From the above, I don't see any other editors who support restoring these paragraphs. Btcgeek removed this content in Special:Diff/888594983 to address the promotional tone of the article. To restore the content and then remove the {{advert}} tag would reverse most of the improvements that resulted from this discussion. — Newslinger talk 03:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Proposal

Here's my article proposal for Jonathan Swan after cleaning up adverts, poorly-cited sources, condensed the sections, and very recent news. Since this is a controversial page, I am posting the below for comments first before updating the main article.

Extended content

Jonathan Swan Born August 7, 1985 Nationality Australian Occupation Journalist Employer Axios Parent Norman Swan (father) Jonathan Swan (born August 7, 1985) is an Australian journalist, who works as a U.S. political reporter for AXIOS Media. Swan covers the Trump presidency and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. Early life Swan was born and raised in Australia. He is the son of journalist and radio and television broadcaster Norman Swan. Career Swan began his career as a national political reporter based in Canberra, Australia for Fairfax Media and a political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald. He joined The Hill in August 2015 as part of their campaign team. Swan became a national political reporter for Axios in December 2016. While at Axios, Swan broke several stories about the Trump administration. Former Washington Post journalist Ronald Kessler claimed in his 2018 book, The Trump White House: Changing the Rules of the Game, that Swan is among a handful of reporters to whom President Trump feeds information, with instructions to attribute quotes to an unnamed White House official. Swan was the first to report that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate deal; that Steve Bannon was about to be fired; that Trump would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; and that Trump would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive action policy. On April 11, 2018, Swan broke the news that the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was retiring from Congress. On October 9, 2018, he was the first to report that Trump had accepted the resignation of Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. Swan has appeared on Morning Joe, Special Report with Bret Baier, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and PBS NewsHour since 2016, when he began reporting for Axios. Recognition For his reporting in the US, as a member of the Sydney Morning Herald in the Canberra Press Gallery, Swan was presented with the Wallace Brown Award in 2014 for most outstanding young journalist. In 2016, Politico named Swan one of its '16 breakout media stars' of the U.S. presidential campaign. References

Not sure we need a list of TV appearances, general notable people get to be on TV a lot, and most do not need a list of them. Reads like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I am not sure we need a list of firsts, again reads like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP

Hi,

I had a disclosed WP: COI for this article, but I am not being paid for this work, which also involves a discussion of me. The almost identical discussion about use of this HuffPo article was already decided here, in favor of removing the language: Talk:Caryn_Marooney

Remove:

"In March 2019, The Huffington Post reported that Axios had paid a public relations firm headed by Ed Sussman to remove unflattering information from Swan's Wikipedia page and to promote his accomplishments. [11]"

Why?

1. WP: Coatrack, especially in light of factually inaccurate summary. If the article were summarized accurately, it would become a discussion of Wikipedia policy. Such discussion is not relevant to the bio of the subject of this article. The actual HuffPost article does not allege that I directly edited the Swan article (or any other) or that Axios paid me to do so -- but rather, it says I made proposals, submiited for independent review on the Swan Talk page, after full disclosure of a COI as mandated by Wikipedia policy. It does not allege that I was paid to remove "unflattering information" at the instructions of Axios (or even that Axios suggested I make any specific proposals): rather it cites an example of inaccurate information that I proposed be replaced with accurate information, which was then reviewed and approved by an independent editor. Also, FYI, The HuffPo article also does not describe WHiteHatWiki.co as a public relations agency, which it is not. An accurate summary of this artice becomes Coatrack.

2. Administrative Noticeboard has already reviewed this HuffPo article in-depth and found it to be unreliable: [1] "The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all... This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage..." This is from the admin User: Swarm. Swarm explained this thoughts about the removal of a similar passage derived from the HuffPo in the Wikipedia article about Caryn Marooney: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong. It has been suggested that the user should probably be more concise, but we haven't seen anything to support the notion that they're relentlessly argumentative or engage in "bludgeoning" behavior. This is an unprecedented scenario in which a supposedly-reliable source is making claims about Wikipedia that we can actually weigh and judge from an administrative perspective, not just from a content perspective. And, when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario." Also at Talk:Caryn_Marooney.'

3. Contentious material from weak source. Sussman disputes any wrongdoing in the HuffPo article: "Everything he does is aboveboard." As per BLP policy, weakly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately. BC1278 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Married now

Snow married Betsy Woodruff https://www.thedailybeast.com/author/betsy-swan on September 14, 2019 https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1173112005110259712 which was wedding date also given in Registry https://www.crateandbarrel.com/gift-registry/betsy-woodruff-and-jonathan-swan/r5944635 . Please add to article. Thanks. 68.231.27.254 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

recent removal, wikipedia editing controversy

the tangential and sourced claims regarding the paid whitewashing/scrubbing seems relevant to his article.

i restored the cited content. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)