Talk:Jemele Hill

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jemele Hill 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 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

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

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.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: Black women (2017)

This article was created or improved during the Black women edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in February 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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)[reply]

College Background[edit]

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)[reply]

Race Baiter / Racist in controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Of course he does. As does leftist wiki. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:ED91:4FE3:3162:5672 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

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)[reply]

@Jmcmanus33061: Pinging to request you please discuss here before adding back contested material, per WP:ONUS. Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Family members[edit]

Hi all, particularly Bagumba and MROATL, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. MROATL 8 November 2017 (UTC)