Talk:Jonathan Swan

Refs need full citations

I'd tag the article if it wasn't protected. There are minor problems with a number of citations as well, especially capitalization. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent expansion

Though reverted , the additional references and content should be reviewed for what can be salvaged. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Hipal. I have prepared a draft of this article based on my version that was reverted. Taking your criticism into consideration, I attempted to purge all laudatory language and redundant, chatty sentences, as well as rewrite some sections for clarity. I think it's a big improvement on what we currently have, but will not publish it without some consultation. If you wish to review my draft, you are very welcome to. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I glanced at it, and my immediate impression is that there are POV and NOT problems: too much detail with a promotional presentation. Again, just glancing, the lede seems far too detailed, straying from WP:LEDE and MOS:LEADBIO. Skimming the References section, I'm seeing heavy reliance on his own writing and similarly poor sources, which might indicate problems with the choice and weight of the associated content.

Trying to rewrite an existing article from a draft is problematic in the best of situations. While I appreciate that you've put a great deal of effort into it, it's very difficult to work from, and I've never seen it go well. You might want to get suggestions on how to proceed at WP:TEA.

If I had the time, I'd try to identify the best references from your draft (high-quality references about Swan), and fold them into the existing article, expanding upon them as needed to present the main information from those references. I'd be very cautious what poorer sources I'd use, even when paired with the better sources for additional detail.

Thanks for the hard work. --Hipal (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Those are valid issues, and perhaps I haven't fully come to terms with them. The problem with Swan is that not much has been written about him beyond what is included in my draft, and there's little I can work with. Maybe submitting the draft for review could help.

Again, thanks. You've been very helpful. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No changes should be justified by claims similar information is included in other articles (see WP:OSE), rather by what the sources indicate are important aspects of his life. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair, agreed. DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Removal of any references should be noted and explained. --Hipal (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on the removal of the citation, I did provide an explanation. If not, then it probably wasn't saved. It read, "Removed citation: The article was more of an opinion piece on the controversy than a report, and it added little that the Huffington Post article didn't cover." DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

If you're making mistakes like that, yet seem to recall what you meant to write, it might be best to work slower.

I'm struggling to access the ref. What does it say about Swan and this article? --Hipal (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

That's the thing: it says nothing about the article on Swan. It gives an overview of the controversy regarding the article on Axios, which was related to the Swan article controversy, and then goes on to praise the Wikipedia community for its transparency. You can access it here. DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've done a quick review so far up to 21:13, 15 July 2025. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is working given how many serious problems there have been. This is definitely not working from the best sources, not even working from a basic understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Issues are being raised one by one, and they are being solved. Sure, there's many still unsolved, but progress is happening. The article is already, and I think you'll agree here, quite better than the last version during the edit war of two months ago, and hardly any disagreements have arisen this time round.

And, yes, sourcing is still a problem. Remember that Swan is not a particularly well-known figure, and so not many great sources on him exist. I've probably read almost the entire literature that's been written on him, and if any poor sources remain, mention them and I'll get rid of them.

If this continues to be a struggle, I'll consider consulting a third opinion through the Teahouse. I remain convinced that, some way or another, we can get this article to work. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The Recognition section should be reexamined. I'd assume the Emmy is noteworthy if nothing else. The other awards should be checked for general noteworthiness, and a search for reference should be made for each to determine if Swan's might be otherwise noteworthy. --Hipal (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for returning. Firstly, I don't find the Recognition section to be of much use considering that his awards are already mentioned throughout the article. Of the ones mentioned in the article prior to my edits, three (Wallace Brown, Emmy, and Aldo Beckman) are still mentioned, but the others (Politico ("16 Breakout Media Starts") and JP ("50 Most Influential Jews") aren't—I don't find them to be noteworthy.

The Emmy is worth including—quite clearly—and so is the Aldo Beckman award, in my opinion, as it is awarded by the WHCA (a prominent organization of journalists) and also has its own Wikipedia page, for all it's worth. I'm not sure about the Wallace Brown award: it's not that prominent, but it did play quite a major role in Swan's career. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The "Off the Rails" section should be rewritten with the focus on Swan. The First Trump interview (2018) section needs to be trimmed, Second Trump interview (2020) less so.

His Jewish heritage should be in the Early life and career section.

That's a very quick review. I saw a number of references that looked questionable, and a more thorough review is needed. --Hipal (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it, I'll do what I can. In the meantime, I have solicited the advice of other editors which, at this point, is much needed. Thank you for your patience. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think all the requested changes have been carried out. All self-published sources, save for the "Off the Rails" article series (which is only used to provide very specific information) and a Twitter post, which I think meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Verifiability, have been purged from the article. In the meantime, I am still soliciting help from other editors. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Way too long

The article on Jonathan Swan is disproportionately long given his level of notability. He remains one of many working journalists rather than a uniquely influential public figure. The current entry reads more like a detailed résumé, with exhaustive coverage of interviews, appearances, and minor professional milestones, rather than a concise summary of his most notable work. Significantly shortening the article would bring it in line with Wikipedia’s standards on due weight, improve readability, and avoid giving undue prominence to a journalist whose career, while respectable, does not warrant such an extensive biography. 2603:8001:95F0:8CC0:C90C:E6E0:A3EB:E9D0 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The article spans at a little over 1,000 words, and nearly all the information mentioned has been covered by major media outlets (NYT, WaPo, Jewish Insider). And that's not to mention how much of the article has already been trimmed. Giving specific examples of constitutes "undue weight" would help.

Also, if you would like to be taken more seriously, which I assume is your intention, removing mention of his American citizenship does not help your case much. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines. DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Quickly look at revised article

The new reference format make the article difficult to review due to the full references not linking to the relevant article content in a way that can be easily seen. Is there something I'm missing with how this formatting style works?

Quick notes for follow up: Refs that stand out to review: The Splinter, The Forward, Huffington Post, London Evening Standard. Check how they are used and the references they are used with. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Hipal. Regarding your second concern, 1) I have reduced references to the Splinter to only one citation; 2) references to the Forward are now explicitly indicated in the article (as it's an opinion piece); 3) the Huffington Post is acceptable for apolitical matters; 4) the London Evening Standard has been removed. As for your first concern, I can't say that I really understand it. All I've done is adopt Harvard style and merged clusters of citations into one, wherever applicable (see the article on Winston Churchill). This should make the reading experience easier. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the reference format: How does an editor find where are reference is used from the list of full references at the very bottom? Because there are no hyperlinks to the article content, it's difficult. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean, but I'll restore the old style. Shouldn't take too long. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that. Keep it. Just know that it slows reviews down. --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm nearly done. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you appear to have time and urgency that I don't: It would help to review all the refs against WP:RSP, and note any that are not generally considered reliable for BLP information or specific topics that might apply (especially politics). That's what I had started doing, finding the four that I noted. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Already at it (the Forward and the Splinter are not recognized as unreliable on WP:RSP, but there are better sources, to be sure). My main concern is whether or not the neutrality issues you brought up in July have been resolved. I don't expect you to cleanse this article by yourself, and I will consider peer review, but I would like to know whether your concerns still stand. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Hipal, I've reviewed all the references against RSP, more or less. I'll list them here, in order of use in the article:

1. "Jonathan Swan Joins The New York Times". The New York Times Company --- The NYT is reliable. The source is only used to indicate that Swan works at the NYT, anyway.

2. "Monday's birthdays". Politico --- Politico is reliable. This is used for Swan's birthday; no other source seems to mention his birthday.

3. "Who is Jonathan Swan, the reporter who grilled Trump? And what do kangaroos have to do with it?". The Guardian --- The Guardian is reliable for non-blog articles.

4. "'You never know what strength you've got': Anna Swan's long road back from brain trauma". The Sydney Morning Herald --- The Sydney Morning Herald is reliable.

5. "Jonathan Swan joins JI's 'Limited Liability Podcast'". Jewish Insider --- While not discussed on RSP, this particular source is almost certainly reliable, seeing that it is an interview with Swan and is only used for info about his early life.

6. "A fast-rising journalist hits a speed bump with his latest scoop about Trump". The Washington Post --- The Post is reliable.

7. "Fairfax journalist Jonathan Swan awarded prestigious Wallace Brown Young Achiever Award". The Sydney Morning Herald --- See no. 4.

8. "Another Trump Scoop, a Giddy Reaction and a Reporter Under Fire". The New York Times --- The NYT is reliable.

9. "The Hill Adds Jonathan Swan to Cover the Money in Politics Beat". Adweek --- Adweek has been discussed at least once on RSP, where two editors noted that it is reliable for info related to the advertising industry. The Adweek source used in the article relates to the issue of money in politics, which in a sense, is related to advertising. See for yourself whether it's reliable.

10. "Axios' Jonathan Swan heading to NYT". Axios --- Axios is reliable.

11. "Jonathan Swan on migrating to the Biden beat". Jewish Insider --- See no. 5; Jewish Insider seems to be reliable on subjects unrelated to the Gaza war.

12. "Axios's Jonathan Swan is the latest interviewer to leave Trump grasping on TV". The Washington Post --- See no. 6.

13. "Never Trust a Reporter Who Bounces in His Chair With Glee". The Intercept --- An opinion piece. All references to the Intercept are attributed, either explicity or indirectly (as in, "Some journalists noted that his attitude debased the profession of journalism as he seemingly placed discovering new media fodder above holding politicians accountable.")

14. "Jonathan Swan is a bootlicker". Splinter --- See no. 13.

15. Kikerpill 2022, p. 142 --- A reference to scholarly literature; almost certainly reliable.

16. Karl 2021, pp. xviii, 33 --- See no. 15.

17. "Australian journalist Jonathan Swan wins Emmy for his viral interview with Donald Trump". The Guardian --- See no. 3.

18. "'They're dying … it is what it is': key takeaways from Trump's shocking interview". The Guardian --- See no. 3.

19. "Jonathan Swan reveals the simple secret to exposing Trump's lies: basic follow-up questions". CNN --- CNN is reliable.

20. "'They are dying. That's true. It is what it is.' Trump's Axios interview was a disaster". Vox --- Vox is reliable for non-blog articles.

21. "Jewish journalists make a difference in the world". The Jerusalem Post --- The Jerusalem Post is reliable for issues unrelated to the Gaza war.

22. "Jonathan Swan is the meme hero we need right now". The Forward --- Another opinion piece. Both references to the Forward are attributed.

23. "The Axios Interview Showed Us an Important Threshold for the President". The New York Times Magazine --- See no. 8.

24. Karl 2021, pp. 117–118 --- See no. 15.

25. Karl 2021, ch. 28–29; Parmar 2021, pp. 35–50 --- See no. 15.

26. "Off the Rails". Axios --- A primary source. Only used to provide specific information about the article itself.

27. "Jonathan Swan wins Excellence Award from White House Correspondents' Association". Mediaweek --- Mediaweek, to the best of my knowledge, has never been discussed on RSP. However, this specific source is only used to provide basic info, namely, that Swan won an award.

28. "Jonathan Swan to leave Axios, join The New York Times". The Hill --- The Hill is reliable.

29. "Baby Samuel is here! We are so thankful for this little cutie" (Tweet) --- A tweet about a personal life event. RSP notes, "As a self-published source, [Twitter] is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description." So it should be fine.

30. "Thanks for all the kind notes, everyone. Was a very emotional day. Proud to be an American" (Tweet) --- See no. 29.

31. "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages". HuffPost --- HuffPost is reliable for apolitical matters.

That should be all. And, finally, what, if any, neutrality concerns remain? Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Very much appreciated.

I mostly agree with your analysis.

Probably best to pull 13, 14, and 22, rather than attribute.

27 is an announcement. Is the award generally noteworthy?

15, 16 (24, 25), and (Parmar, 2021) need a careful review. RSN would be the quickest way. Parmar seems very questionable. I'm unsure about Jonathan Karl's Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show. Kikerpill is published in an edited book, so might be considered just opinion. --Hipal (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• 13, 14, and 22 have been removed.
• 27 has been retained since the Aldo Beckman Award does seem to be notable; however, the only times when reliable sources have discussed it involve one of their own reporters winning the award. So I'm not sure if this really counts. Consider these examples from Axios, The WaPo, and PBS.
• I will consider RSN for Karl's book. The other two studies (one of which I have replaced) are, as I've said, almost certainly reliable. They have gone through peer review and are precise, methodical, and objective. I don't think there's much need for RSN for academic papers in general.

Hopefully this will close off the path toward peer review. Thanks for your time, as always. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Karl's book, these are the comments I have received at RSN after asking, "Is Jonathan Karl's Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show generally reliable regarding its treatment of January 6 and January 6-related subjects?":

• "He's had a long career as a political journalist, and the reviews don't throw up any concerns. Unless you have a specific question I can't see an issue."
• "Personally, I believe that most of the newspaper sources in Donald Trump need to be replaced by books, and that book looks as good as any other."

DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You didn't follow the RSN instructions. Can you update the RSN discussion so that it does? --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Where can I access these instructions? DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

They are at the top of the page, duplicated at the top when you edit the page, The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. --Hipal (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, missed them. Sorry for my ignorance. I'll try again. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Pion-Berlin reference looks good. To be clearer, you believe Kikerpill is peer reviewed? If so, why? --Hipal (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes; Kikerpill's study forms part of the book Discordant Pandemic Narratives in the U.S., which was partly avaliable on Google Books when I started editing this article, but not anymore. The study focuses on two Trump interviews conducted in 2020 (one of them being Swan's), particularly, how on he tackled questions related to the pandemic and how social media reacted to them. On a quick glance, I thought it very empirical and precise. As far as studies go, I found no issues with it. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal, According to this discussion on RSN, it seems that the article's use of Betrayal is fine. I have added a more specific source for the Covid statistics. Has this issue been resolved? Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. The RSN discussion appears to have resolved it. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. Are there any more neutrality issues left? DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to inform you that I have removed the POV tag on this article. The edit summary includes my rationale for doing so. DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jonathan Swan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DannyRogers800 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello, I'll take this review. I'll add my initial comments within the next day or so. MCE89 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! In the meantime, I'll review Chinese Australian Herald. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That's very kind, thank you! Initial comments added below. The only thing remaining is my source spot checks, so just ping me when you're done with these comments and I'll do those. MCE89 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89 Should be done. I'll start the review either tomorrow or the day after. DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, just one suggestion inline below. Will try to do the spot checks later today. MCE89 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Spot checks all look good. My one remaining concern is whether the section on the criticism of his reporting may be slightly harsher on him that is really warranted by the sources. For instance, the Washington Post article that is cited heavily here concludes: Even accounting for competitive jealousies among reporters, the take on Swan among his peers is generally positive... Notwithstanding the birthright citizenship episode, they describe Swan as a rigorous and independent reporter. At the moment I think the takeaway I get from reading the article is a bit more negative than what I got from the sources for this section. I think replacing some of the passive language (e.g. "Some commentators", "attracted criticism", "been questioned") and attributing statements/criticisms more directly throughout this section might help with this, but let me know what you think. MCE89 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Good point, but the sources detailing this criticism do not attribute themselves. So I don't think much can be done. I don't know how the section can be made to read less negatively. DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. To give a couple of specific places where I think you could consider making changes:

• Journalists initially called out some of his reports, such as his 2018 interview with Trump, for lacking insight and critique — I think the fact that this is all that is really said about his pre-2020 reporting in the lead gives the impression that he was generally regarded negatively by other journalists early on, whereas the sources suggest that he attracted some criticism but had a relatively positive reputation (which I think the body of the article does do a better job of conveying). You could consider adding a sentence before this one in the lead saying something like Swan broke several major stories and became a rising figure in political journalism, contributing to Axios's rise to prominence. However, some of his reports, such as his 2018 interview with Trump, were called out for lacking insight and critique.
• ...and the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long. — Could this potentially be attributed directly to Farhi? I'd probably summarise this as something more like: In an article for the Washington Post, Paul Farhi described Swan as being not the "deepest reporter or finest writer", pointing out that his story detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was just 55 words long. You could also consider mentioning Farhi's conclusion that other journalists thought of him positively, by adding something like: However, Farhi described Swan's reputation among his fellow journalists as generally positive despite the criticism he had attracted, saying that they described him as a "rigorous and independent reporter".

Those are just rough illustrative wordings, so not suggesting that you adopt any of that verbatim. If you're happy with the article as it stands then I'm not too concerned about this, so happy to leave it if you're not keen on changes here. MCE89 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestions. About this time tomorrow they should be ready. DannyRogers800 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've followed your suggestions but generally used a different phrasing. See what you think. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing this now. MCE89 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Initial checks

• Images: Infobox image is CC-BY-3.0. The image from the 2020 interview is fair use and the NFUR seems appropriate to me. I'm a little more on the fence about the image from the 2018 interview though — could you add a bit more to the NFUR on how this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 (specifically how it significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding)?

Changed slightly. See what you think.

Yep, that works.

• Copyright: No issues apparent on Earwig. Will do further checks for close paraphrasing as part of my spot checks
• Stability: I can see that there have been NPOV concerns in the past, but these appear to have been resolved. I don't see anything to suggest that this fails the stability criteria at this stage

Splendid.

Prose and general comments

• He is best known for his 2020 interview... — I think the claim that he is specifically "best known" for this interview would need a source, and I can't currently see this specific claim in the body. You could alternatively change this to "His 2020 interview...attracted attention" or similar if there isn't a source explicitly saying that it's what he is best known for

I've rewritten the first lead sentence.

• with then-US president Donald Trump — Not strictly incorrect, but reads a bit oddly given that Trump is now president again. Perhaps consider taking out the "then"?

Agreed... removed.

• Swan started out in journalism with local papers — Again not strictly incorrect and I know what you mean by this, but given that the Sydney Morning Herald is one of Australia's newspapers of record and serves a city of 5 million+, referring to it as a "local paper" does sound a bit odd. You could consider changing this to something like "started out in the Australian media".

Changed to "with Australian papers".

• His peers initially denounced — "His peers" is a bit ambiguous, I'd suggest clarifying that you are referring to other journalists in general rather than his coworkers at Axios specifically. "Denounced" also feels like extremely strong language here, I think "critiqued" or "criticised" might somewhat better reflect the sources

Changed to "called out" because the root of criticize is already mentioned in the sentence (critique).

• You could briefly mention the first Trump interview in the lead

Done.

• A year later, Axios won an Emmy Award for Best Edited Interview. — You could specify that they won the award for Swan's interview

Done.

• Around this time, he also worked for The Age — The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are sister papers published by Fairfax Media that pool together a lot of their stories and journalists, so I wouldn't exactly say that he "also" worked for The Age. The source says that he was the Fairfax national political reporter, which means that he would have just produced stories that were published simultaneously by both of the Fairfax papers, not that he exactly had separate jobs at both papers

I've rewritten the second sentence to "Around this time, he was a national political reporter for Fairfax Media."

• to work as a congressional aide at Washington, D.C. — Should be in Washington, D.C.?

Yes, fixed.

• and the lack of depth in his articles — This clause seems to be missing a verb, suggest changing this to something like and criticised some of his articles for lacking depth

I don't think it's a clause of its own; it's a noun phrase. Consider the sentence thus: Some commentators accused him of favoring "access over accountability" in light of 1) his refusal to strongly challenge the White House's actions and 2) the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long.

Ah got it, I'd parsed it incorrectly. That's fine.

• I'd suggest integrating the blockquote at the beginning of the "Second Trump interview" section into the prose, as at the moment it comes a bit out of nowhere before we've gotten the context

Done.

• It lasted 38 minutes — Suggest changing to The interview lasted 38 minutes

Done.

• ...where he focuses on congressional Republicans. — This probably can't be stated in present tense, as it seems like he's shifted to covering the White House since then:

Agreed. I also added another sentence indicating what Swan does now.

• I'm not entirely convinced that the section on Swan's Wikipedia page is really WP:DUE for a biography of him, especially for the "Personal life" section. The story seems to be much more about Axios paying for Wikipedia edits than having all that much to do with Swan himself, so I'm not quite sure it merits inclusion in an article summarises his life/career. Open to being convinced otherwise though.

I'm not convinced either. But it's an interesting bit of info, possibly the only interesting part of the article. I'll remove it if you wish.

That's fair — how would you feel about shortening it slightly and moving it up to the "First Trump interview (2018)" section when you describe the backlash to the interview? That feels like a slightly more natural place for it at least — I'm not sure it really belongs in "Personal life".

Sources

• Source reliability all looks fine to me.
• Reference formatting and layout meets all GA criteria.

Spot checks

This table checks 15 passages from throughout the article (20.3% of 74 total passages). These passages contain 21 inline citations (20.2% of 104 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. MCE89 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Jonathan Swan was born on August 7, 1985,
2		politico.com	web.archive.org
he grew up in a "very liberal" Reform Jewish household enrolled in the Emanuel Synagogue.
5		jewishinsider.com	web.archive.org
Swan began reporting on politics at The Hill in 2015.
9	c	adweek.com	archive.today
the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the firing of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
6	e	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
and the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long.
6	h	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
His paid speaking engagements, earning him as much as $25,000 per speech,
6	i	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
a constitutionally protected right.
6	k	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
and "less a news story than … a press release".
6	o	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
The US was then engulfed in a pandemic that had killed upward of 100,000 Americans
14		nytimes.com	web.archive.org
He pointedly challenged and spotlit the president's false and misleading statements throughout.
11	d	jewishinsider.com	web.archive.org
12	d	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
16	a	theguardian.com	web.archive.org
Journalist David Brody asserted that while Trump often dominated interviews by "commandeering" them, Swan humbled him.
12	e	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
The interview was widely praised,
3	e	theguardian.com	web.archive.org
12	f	washingtonpost.com	archive.today
16	b	theguardian.com	web.archive.org
The interview proved a media and internet sensation,
16	e	theguardian.com	web.archive.org
20	f	jpost.com	web.archive.org
A tenth bonus article (or episode) is also included in the series.
25	a	axios.com	web.archive.org

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.

Archived talk pages

Why is the entire talk page, consisting of hundreds of discussions, fully archived? It gives the impression that the editors of this controversial article are trying to conceal something. Shana3980 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly why the talk page is archived... because it has hundreds of discussions and cannot be navigated easily. Thus new comments are given more space to breathe. Standard practice on Wikipedia. DannyRogers800 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@DannyRogers800 Archiving multiple pages is standard practice but not the entire thing - the most recent discussions are left until a page is filled. The general public would think there's never been any discussions at all about this controversial subject when that's not the case. I'm not accusing anyone of nefarious intentions, simply stating it looks like info is being purposefully hidden. Shana3980 (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

How do we decide when a page is filled? Anyway, I guess it would be sensible to keep some of the discussions open here, if anything to give a veneer of honesty. DannyRogers800 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@DannyRogers800 The main controversy was over 6 yrs ago so there's really no need to archive every discussion anymore. Shana3980 (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested unarchiving some, not all, of them. Perhaps you could decide which of the most recent should stay here. DannyRogers800 (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@DannyRogers800 I think it makes the most sense to restore the 6 from 2025. They're the most recent and are relatively mundane. Anyone looking for older discussions can find them via the top section, which doesn't show at all when everything is archived. Shana3980 (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored the five (not six... I counted five) discussions from 2025. Thank you for the suggestion. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@DannyRogers800 Excluding the bottom 3, I'm seeing 6 restored discussions (from 5/17 to 12/24). Regardless, restoring them was a good idea and I appreciate you handling it as I'm still learning to edit. Thank you! Shana3980 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. We're all still learning, really. It's just that some will say they know it all already. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)