578:. But sorry, I still don't agree that, for example, the Business Insider article corroborates any aspect of Cooke's article. It only ever references things from Cooke's article as things Cooke said. The NPR article was before Cooke's article and was just describing basic facts about the warrant, so it neither picked up nor actively corroborated anything in Cooke's article. The Reason article was much the same as the Busines Insider article--I don't think copying a couple twitter hyperlinks from Cooke's article constitutes corroboration.
389:
211:
305:
281:
315:
201:
461:, I got your message, thanks. I fully share your concern that Wiki needs to be careful in an incident related to personal character. I'm not sure this quite fits that model though as nothing in the article specifically references her character. Only that a National Review article had debunked claims of fraud and political harassment. I'm not sure what, specifically, is character related in the quoted text.
183:
113:
95:
64:
552:, definitely not out of line, we are all editors looking to make it better, I appreciate your input. I think one other distinction needs to be drawn. I'm not implying that those articles corroborate all aspects of Cooke's article, you are correct that there is a good deal of "according to Cooke" in them as well. Would it help to modify the sentence to read "corroborate aspects..."?
377:
432:"In May of 2021, Cooke authored a piece debunking Covid fraud and political harassment claims made by Rebekah Jones that was picked up widely and corroborated by outlets such as NPR, Reason, and Business Insider. The latter of which credited Cooke with extensive public record research into her background, questionable authority, and specious claims."
123:
439:
It seems especially important for
Knowledge (XXG) to be careful when it comes to attacks on someone's personal character (Rebekah Jones). It's obviously fine to mention Cooke's major articles, but I'm concerned about how it's being given undue credence. I'd probably want to remove the whole paragraph
435:
To be more specific, none of the cited articles (at least from my reading) independently corroborate the claims in the
National Review article. Thus, I'd suggest at least striking the words "and corroborated." Further, the Business Insider article again just references Cooke's article, so to say "the
516:
Using the
Business Insider article as a cite for corroboration makes the least sense to me because it constantly says things like "according to a column in the National Review," "the column ... accuses Jones," "The National Review column claims," "Cooke writes in the National Review," and so on. The
510:
I see your nuance on what constitutes as corroboration, and yes, it'd be too much to require these article verify private sources. But, I'm still not seeing these cites. Take the NPR article, I don't believe it confirms anything about the nature of her firing? The only descriptions it gives on her
466:
I'm also not sure I would agree with your reading of the support articles. I think it might depend on what you are counting as an 'independent source.' Since all of these claims rely on public records, independently checking those sources would seem to meet the mark for me. Sometimes though, I
511:
firing are what
Rebekah Jones says about it herself. The NPR article was written back in January well before Charles Cooke's article in May, so it certainly didn't corroborate Charles Cooke's article, but just contained basic uncontroversial information about the statement of her arrest warrant.
472:
I read the NPR article as confirming his research on the nature of her firing, and her role at the job. The Reason article validated her data manipulation claims and characterization of the investigation as being incorrect. However, the
Business Insider article is probably the strongest source
522:
The Reason article is largely the same as the
Business Insider article. (Granted, they do have one paragraph that repeats three hyperlinks to Jones' twitter and one to the AP, all from Cooke's article. That's hardly corroboration, and what matters is if they corroborate new things that are not
517:
Business
Insider article simply stating what Charles Cooke wrote without any take on whether it is correct or not. I do not see how the Business Insider article independently verified any of those three things mentioned?
467:
know people mean that phrase to mean looking for a separate source entirely. I'm not sure that is possible here given the nature of the incidents (there aren't usually multiple sources for a warrant).
591:
I also worry that "corroborate aspects" could be used as an arbitrarily low bar that holds if there is any point of agreement between two articles. It therefore does not seem like a useful term?
473:
independently verified her job description, data access rights, and linked to a verification that the claim she made about law enforcement pointing weapons at her children was incorrect.
43:
402:
291:
711:
686:
407:
257:
48:
263:
701:
361:
716:
706:
666:
523:
general background that everyone agrees on. Aside from copying a couple hyperlinks from Cooke in that one paragraph, everything else is just quoting Cooke.)
367:
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
141:
23:
691:
681:
505:(This is actually my first time participating in Knowledge (XXG)! Please let me know if I'm out of line, but I'm going to push back some more now.)
233:
676:
671:
145:
721:
696:
337:
436:
latter of which credited Cooke with extensive public record research" seems to unduely lend authority or corroboration to Cooke's article.
140:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
224:
188:
149:
136:
100:
328:
286:
604:
I don't think I'll have anything more to add, so unless someone else shares my concerns in the future, I'll leave it up to you.
75:
624:
536:
447:
32:
81:
63:
633:
620:
549:
532:
458:
443:
429:
I'm concerned that footnotes 44-46 don't "corroborate" the
National Review article and only mentions them.
540:
490:
451:
394:
336:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
232:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
636:, given one of the pillars of Wiki is consensus, I've removed corroborated from the current article.
641:
557:
486:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
39:
216:
478:
I think you have a good point on the undue authority point though, I've struck that sentence.
128:
637:
575:
553:
497:
482:
320:
314:
304:
280:
660:
440:
unless there's something more to be said other than that Cooke wrote this article?
112:
94:
645:
628:
561:
384:
310:
229:
206:
200:
182:
118:
425:
Do the news citations "corroborate" Charles Cooke's article on Rebekah Jones?
333:
376:
148:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
375:
332:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
228:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
366:This article has not yet received a rating on the
262:This article has not yet received a rating on the
8:
61:
275:
177:
89:
424:
528:Thanks for your time and consideration!
277:
179:
91:
712:Low-importance Libertarianism articles
687:Unknown-importance Journalism articles
242:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Journalism
500:, I appreciate your considered reply.
158:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography
7:
702:Unknown-importance politics articles
346:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
326:This article is within the scope of
222:This article is within the scope of
134:This article is within the scope of
717:WikiProject Libertarianism articles
707:Start-Class Libertarianism articles
667:Biography articles of living people
80:It is of interest to the following
14:
387:
313:
303:
279:
209:
199:
181:
121:
111:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
692:WikiProject Journalism articles
682:Start-Class Journalism articles
245:Template:WikiProject Journalism
677:WikiProject Biography articles
672:Start-Class biography articles
161:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
722:WikiProject Politics articles
697:Start-Class politics articles
400:This article is supported by
349:Template:WikiProject Politics
340:and see a list of open tasks.
236:and see a list of open tasks.
24:biographies of living persons
146:contribute to the discussion
36:must be removed immediately
738:
403:WikiProject Libertarianism
368:project's importance scale
264:project's importance scale
646:11:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
629:05:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
562:13:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
541:04:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
491:23:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
452:17:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
383:
365:
298:
261:
194:
106:
88:
380:
225:WikiProject Journalism
70:This article is rated
395:Libertarianism portal
379:
137:WikiProject Biography
74:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
329:WikiProject Politics
248:Journalism articles
634:JustDoubleChecking
621:JustDoubleChecking
550:JustDoubleChecking
533:JustDoubleChecking
459:JustDoubleChecking
444:JustDoubleChecking
381:
164:biography articles
76:content assessment
422:
421:
418:
417:
414:
413:
352:politics articles
274:
273:
270:
269:
217:Journalism portal
176:
175:
172:
171:
56:
55:
729:
397:
392:
391:
390:
354:
353:
350:
347:
344:
323:
318:
317:
307:
300:
299:
294:
283:
276:
250:
249:
246:
243:
240:
219:
214:
213:
212:
203:
196:
195:
185:
178:
166:
165:
162:
159:
156:
142:join the project
131:
129:Biography portal
126:
125:
124:
115:
108:
107:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
737:
736:
732:
731:
730:
728:
727:
726:
657:
656:
427:
393:
388:
386:
351:
348:
345:
342:
341:
321:Politics portal
319:
312:
289:
247:
244:
241:
238:
237:
215:
210:
208:
163:
160:
157:
154:
153:
127:
122:
120:
71:
12:
11:
5:
735:
733:
725:
724:
719:
714:
709:
704:
699:
694:
689:
684:
679:
674:
669:
659:
658:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
618:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
567:
566:
565:
564:
530:
529:
525:
524:
519:
518:
513:
512:
507:
506:
502:
501:
480:
479:
475:
474:
469:
468:
463:
462:
426:
423:
420:
419:
416:
415:
412:
411:
408:Low-importance
399:
398:
382:
372:
371:
364:
358:
357:
355:
338:the discussion
325:
324:
308:
296:
295:
292:Libertarianism
284:
272:
271:
268:
267:
260:
254:
253:
251:
234:the discussion
221:
220:
204:
192:
191:
186:
174:
173:
170:
169:
167:
133:
132:
116:
104:
103:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
734:
723:
720:
718:
715:
713:
710:
708:
705:
703:
700:
698:
695:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
665:
664:
662:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
619:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
527:
526:
521:
520:
515:
514:
509:
508:
504:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
477:
476:
471:
470:
465:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
409:
406:(assessed as
405:
404:
396:
385:
378:
374:
373:
369:
363:
360:
359:
356:
339:
335:
331:
330:
322:
316:
311:
309:
306:
302:
301:
297:
293:
288:
285:
282:
278:
265:
259:
256:
255:
252:
235:
231:
227:
226:
218:
207:
205:
202:
198:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
168:
151:
150:documentation
147:
143:
139:
138:
130:
119:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
531:
481:
442:
438:
434:
431:
428:
401:
327:
223:
135:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
72:Start-class
661:Categories
638:Squatch347
576:Squatch347
554:Squatch347
498:Squatch347
483:Squatch347
239:Journalism
230:journalism
189:Journalism
155:Biography
101:Biography
40:libellous
343:Politics
334:politics
287:Politics
574:Thanks
496:Thanks
78:scale.
617:Best,
642:talk
625:talk
558:talk
537:talk
487:talk
448:talk
144:and
548:Hi
457:Hi
362:???
258:???
29:BLP
663::
644:)
627:)
560:)
539:)
489:)
450:)
410:).
290::
640:(
623:(
556:(
535:(
485:(
446:(
370:.
266:.
152:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
