![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Doucereuse.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Price for Commentary in 2020. [1]
"Nikole Hannah-Jones received a B.A. (1998) from the University of Notre Dame and an M.A. (2003) from the University of North Carolina." [2] Kimles ( talk) 00:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)kimles
References
https://nikolehannahjones.com/ https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/nikole-hannah-jones/ https://www.nytimes.com/by/nikole-hannah-jones
These sources provide information regarding her investigative journalism,which is only briefly mentioned in the current Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maariya012 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I plan to go into more depth regarding her investigative journalism,this will include things such as what kind of investigative journalism she has gone into and also the journey she went through to get there,this may include her own struggles alongside already pursuing the challenges of investigative journalism.There is also very little information on Wikipedia as to what inspired her to pursue this particular career and what drives her to continue it today,therefore I hope to display her reasons as to why this is.I may then also look at the Ida.B Wells Society and the significance of why there is a need for such a society today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maariya012 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Nikole Hannah-jones was inspired to go into journalism when she first started writing for her high school newspaper,where she wrote about a desegregation programme that was taking place.Her dream of becoming an investigative journalist stems from the reporters she looks upto.This includes Ida B. Wells [1] and Claude Sitton,who have also fought to expose the injustice within America long before Nikole Hannah Jones was even alive.Nikole Hannah -Jones has worked as an investigative reporter in New York City analysing ways in which official policy was being used to maintain segregation within both housing and schools.She is currently a domestic reporter for the New York Times working against racial injustice.
References
This passage .... 'is a baseless assertion that has been 'vigorously disputed' by Northwestern University history professor Leslie M. Harris, who wrote 'the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war' is unacceptable. Calling an assertion by a historian 'baseless' is simply opinionated. People disagree about history. Her view is supported in detail by several historians including Professor Gerald Horne and Professor van Cleve in his heavily researched 'A slaveholders Union'. I propose to delete these comments.
Agreed. I was shocked to see such a statement on Wikipedia.
Languagehat (
talk)
01:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The section concludes with the quote from Hannah about not hating white people. This is misleading, because she goes on to say that she thinks the white race if inferior, and as a result had always had a chip on their shoulder and needed to prove something. “Not hating” is a far cry from the tone of the op-Ed. The most charitable conclusion she has for white people there is “I don’t hate you, I pity you for being inferior.” I propose the section be edited to reflect this. Anyone can go online and read this op ed. Failing to change this would violate wikipedia’s Neutrality standards, and would erode credibility in this project. Azahariev ( talk) 01:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I want to know why there's no longer any reference or mention of it on the article. This is important information and it needs to be properly put out there. 2601:681:200:43C0:B89A:5E9A:3A12:41CD ( talk) 06:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems that Hannah-Jones' appearance in Texas in December 2019 was sponsored by the oil company Shell, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell which is currently on trial in The Hague for complicity in crimes including the murder and rape of Africans: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/18/shell-d18.html JezGrove ( talk) 20:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Unknown0124: You just added Category:American conspiracy theorists to the article. It is important that references are included to support information, especially on biographies of living people. To warrant a category it must also be a defining characteristic, otherwise it will be removed. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Unknown0124: Please don't remove other people's comments on talk pages without good reason. Richard Nevell ( talk) 20:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Richard Nevell: https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/header_photo Unknown0124 ( talk) 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Two issues about the "Criticism of the 1619 Project" part of this page.
1. Should this even be here (on Nikole Hannah-Jones's biographical page)? Why not just relegate this to the separate 1619 Project page?
2. The phrases "leading historians" and "leading historians of the American Revolution and the Civil War" are unclear. Which historians, in particular, are being invoked here? And how is their status as a leading historian being assessed? The historians that were named (Gordon Wood and James McPherson) produced major scholarship for their fields. However, that scholarship is by no means the most up-to-date and those scholars are by nearly all accounts not particularly active in their fields today. There is a bias issue here because it seems that fellow critics of the 1619 Project invoke this particular language of status in order to further legitimize and strengthen their critiques. That is, using the phrases here is repeating a talking point of those leveling critiques at the 1619 Project, not neutrally describing who some of those critics are.
Cjslaby ( talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Such material "must be attributed to a reliable, published source".
Per WP:RSP, Fox News, New York Post, and National Review are known by the Wikipedia community to be biased, partisan, or generally unreliable, especially with regard to politics. NYP especially shows a lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Washington Free Beacon and Knewz are not known as reliable sources either. Per BLP, "material not meeting this standard may be removed". — Jade Ten ( talk) 04:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
2 of the 3 things mentioned under Controversy are about tweets, with the "Controversy" being accidentally tweeting a picture with a phone number, and retweeting something that turned out to be wrong. Does that really fulfill the criteria to be mentioned here? The 1619 Criticism section could be expanded instead considering how strongly she is involved with it. jonas ( talk) 04:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I could find no support in the referenced source to this claim: " investigative journalism, which is the least common type of reporting.[68]." Is it less common than watchdog journalism or trade journalism? I don't know. Unless there is a source giving numbers of various kinds of journalism, I think the claim should be removed. Kdammers ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I began editing to correct some obvious errors in the section on NHJ's appointment at UNC. But after doing further research, I've discovered that the section contains gross inaccuracies, is completely out of sequence, and gives an exceedingly misleading overall picture of the subject. Chronologically:
The article currently doesn't even begin to accurately portray the events or their sequence. Remarkably, it doesn't even note that NHJ had signed a contract and was planning to teach at UNC, knowing full well she wasn't getting tenure—and that only after the public hue and cry did she renege on her agreement and begin alleging discrimination. Given all the errors, I think it's worth considering a complete rewrite of the section—I'm happy to take a whack at it, or to discuss further here first. Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
From my reading there seems to be a particular individual who was reported as largely being the cause for these concerns, a UNC major donor. I don't see that reflected in the article where it currently vaguely says, "...particularly from conservative groups". Hussman is later mentioned relatively indirectly in the article (making the link between Hannah-Jones' comment, "it became really clear to me that I just could not work at a school named after Walter Hussman" a little confusing. I had to read up about what Hussman had to do with all this).
Later reporting after the incident calls out this connection. I'm not sure if this should be added (or how), so I'm leaving a note for others to consider.
Ckoerner ( talk) 02:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hannah-Jones is neither African nor, Black! She (like many other pretenders) has derived a remarkable amount of currency by erroneously claiming she belongs to these diasporas. Hannah-Jones is a mixed-race American. When she personalises her experiences she speaks as an American ... not a Black person and certainly, not an African! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:28B1:DC83:2136:3927 ( talk) 02:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The article should be consistent in how it references Nikole Hannah-Jones when only the last name is used. There are 3 instances that only use "Jones".
Is there a standard with regard to how we reference hyphenated last names?
I'm going to update these 3 to "Hannah-Jones"; I'm happy to revert if there's a standard I've missed. Mapping Data ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Doucereuse.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Price for Commentary in 2020. [1]
"Nikole Hannah-Jones received a B.A. (1998) from the University of Notre Dame and an M.A. (2003) from the University of North Carolina." [2] Kimles ( talk) 00:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)kimles
References
https://nikolehannahjones.com/ https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/nikole-hannah-jones/ https://www.nytimes.com/by/nikole-hannah-jones
These sources provide information regarding her investigative journalism,which is only briefly mentioned in the current Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maariya012 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I plan to go into more depth regarding her investigative journalism,this will include things such as what kind of investigative journalism she has gone into and also the journey she went through to get there,this may include her own struggles alongside already pursuing the challenges of investigative journalism.There is also very little information on Wikipedia as to what inspired her to pursue this particular career and what drives her to continue it today,therefore I hope to display her reasons as to why this is.I may then also look at the Ida.B Wells Society and the significance of why there is a need for such a society today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maariya012 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Nikole Hannah-jones was inspired to go into journalism when she first started writing for her high school newspaper,where she wrote about a desegregation programme that was taking place.Her dream of becoming an investigative journalist stems from the reporters she looks upto.This includes Ida B. Wells [1] and Claude Sitton,who have also fought to expose the injustice within America long before Nikole Hannah Jones was even alive.Nikole Hannah -Jones has worked as an investigative reporter in New York City analysing ways in which official policy was being used to maintain segregation within both housing and schools.She is currently a domestic reporter for the New York Times working against racial injustice.
References
This passage .... 'is a baseless assertion that has been 'vigorously disputed' by Northwestern University history professor Leslie M. Harris, who wrote 'the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war' is unacceptable. Calling an assertion by a historian 'baseless' is simply opinionated. People disagree about history. Her view is supported in detail by several historians including Professor Gerald Horne and Professor van Cleve in his heavily researched 'A slaveholders Union'. I propose to delete these comments.
Agreed. I was shocked to see such a statement on Wikipedia.
Languagehat (
talk)
01:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The section concludes with the quote from Hannah about not hating white people. This is misleading, because she goes on to say that she thinks the white race if inferior, and as a result had always had a chip on their shoulder and needed to prove something. “Not hating” is a far cry from the tone of the op-Ed. The most charitable conclusion she has for white people there is “I don’t hate you, I pity you for being inferior.” I propose the section be edited to reflect this. Anyone can go online and read this op ed. Failing to change this would violate wikipedia’s Neutrality standards, and would erode credibility in this project. Azahariev ( talk) 01:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I want to know why there's no longer any reference or mention of it on the article. This is important information and it needs to be properly put out there. 2601:681:200:43C0:B89A:5E9A:3A12:41CD ( talk) 06:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems that Hannah-Jones' appearance in Texas in December 2019 was sponsored by the oil company Shell, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell which is currently on trial in The Hague for complicity in crimes including the murder and rape of Africans: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/18/shell-d18.html JezGrove ( talk) 20:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Unknown0124: You just added Category:American conspiracy theorists to the article. It is important that references are included to support information, especially on biographies of living people. To warrant a category it must also be a defining characteristic, otherwise it will be removed. Richard Nevell ( talk) 19:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Unknown0124: Please don't remove other people's comments on talk pages without good reason. Richard Nevell ( talk) 20:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Richard Nevell: https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/header_photo Unknown0124 ( talk) 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Two issues about the "Criticism of the 1619 Project" part of this page.
1. Should this even be here (on Nikole Hannah-Jones's biographical page)? Why not just relegate this to the separate 1619 Project page?
2. The phrases "leading historians" and "leading historians of the American Revolution and the Civil War" are unclear. Which historians, in particular, are being invoked here? And how is their status as a leading historian being assessed? The historians that were named (Gordon Wood and James McPherson) produced major scholarship for their fields. However, that scholarship is by no means the most up-to-date and those scholars are by nearly all accounts not particularly active in their fields today. There is a bias issue here because it seems that fellow critics of the 1619 Project invoke this particular language of status in order to further legitimize and strengthen their critiques. That is, using the phrases here is repeating a talking point of those leveling critiques at the 1619 Project, not neutrally describing who some of those critics are.
Cjslaby ( talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Such material "must be attributed to a reliable, published source".
Per WP:RSP, Fox News, New York Post, and National Review are known by the Wikipedia community to be biased, partisan, or generally unreliable, especially with regard to politics. NYP especially shows a lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Washington Free Beacon and Knewz are not known as reliable sources either. Per BLP, "material not meeting this standard may be removed". — Jade Ten ( talk) 04:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
2 of the 3 things mentioned under Controversy are about tweets, with the "Controversy" being accidentally tweeting a picture with a phone number, and retweeting something that turned out to be wrong. Does that really fulfill the criteria to be mentioned here? The 1619 Criticism section could be expanded instead considering how strongly she is involved with it. jonas ( talk) 04:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I could find no support in the referenced source to this claim: " investigative journalism, which is the least common type of reporting.[68]." Is it less common than watchdog journalism or trade journalism? I don't know. Unless there is a source giving numbers of various kinds of journalism, I think the claim should be removed. Kdammers ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I began editing to correct some obvious errors in the section on NHJ's appointment at UNC. But after doing further research, I've discovered that the section contains gross inaccuracies, is completely out of sequence, and gives an exceedingly misleading overall picture of the subject. Chronologically:
The article currently doesn't even begin to accurately portray the events or their sequence. Remarkably, it doesn't even note that NHJ had signed a contract and was planning to teach at UNC, knowing full well she wasn't getting tenure—and that only after the public hue and cry did she renege on her agreement and begin alleging discrimination. Given all the errors, I think it's worth considering a complete rewrite of the section—I'm happy to take a whack at it, or to discuss further here first. Thanks! Elle Kpyros ( talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
From my reading there seems to be a particular individual who was reported as largely being the cause for these concerns, a UNC major donor. I don't see that reflected in the article where it currently vaguely says, "...particularly from conservative groups". Hussman is later mentioned relatively indirectly in the article (making the link between Hannah-Jones' comment, "it became really clear to me that I just could not work at a school named after Walter Hussman" a little confusing. I had to read up about what Hussman had to do with all this).
Later reporting after the incident calls out this connection. I'm not sure if this should be added (or how), so I'm leaving a note for others to consider.
Ckoerner ( talk) 02:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hannah-Jones is neither African nor, Black! She (like many other pretenders) has derived a remarkable amount of currency by erroneously claiming she belongs to these diasporas. Hannah-Jones is a mixed-race American. When she personalises her experiences she speaks as an American ... not a Black person and certainly, not an African! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:28B1:DC83:2136:3927 ( talk) 02:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The article should be consistent in how it references Nikole Hannah-Jones when only the last name is used. There are 3 instances that only use "Jones".
Is there a standard with regard to how we reference hyphenated last names?
I'm going to update these 3 to "Hannah-Jones"; I'm happy to revert if there's a standard I've missed. Mapping Data ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)