Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 18 October 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Missouri This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV issue

"NPOV dispute Changes repeatedly made to the section on Josh Hawley's legal residence are not biographical facts. They are clear statements of opinion made by Hawley's political opponents" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam1857 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Eric Greitens' troubled tenure

Allegations against Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, a Republican, first arose in 2017. Scrutiny initially included a focus on his pre-election personal, possibly criminal sexual behavior, blackmail of a victim, then pre-election campaign financing irregularities, including illegal fund raising, violations of prohibited non-profit organization donor and other contact data for partisan political purposes, violations of Missouri's Open Records Act "Sunshine" laws, and other concerns. Hawley initially contended he lacked jurisdiction to prosecute, but eventually initiated an investigation announced in mid-December 2017. He shared case information with St. Louis Circuit Court Attorney Kimberly Gardner, who had taken office on January 1, 2017 after serving in the legislature. Gardner took the initiative to bring a case against Greitens, including investigation and taking critical witness and victim testimony, which she shared. As pressure on the governor mounted over the next five months, the Republican-majority legislature, and eventually Hawley began to more aggressively pursue the matters in question. Gardner noted that the Greitens defense team had attacked her, Hawley and the House committee involved in the investigation, as well as the victim and her family. On May 29, 2018, Greitens announced his resignation, to become effective on June 1st, at 5:00 p.m. Gardner announced that she had been involved in the negotiations with the governor's legal team, to resolve the matter in the public interest. While Hawley approved of the resignation, he had clearly been reactive, rather than proactive, with respect to the multitude of improprieties. Whitewashing his page to remove Gardner's core role does not neutrally describe the situation. Hawley was consistently dilatory and languid, following first Gardner's actions, then the legislature's. Any analysis of the timeline of the process that ended in the resignation will clearly demonstrate his ongoing reticence to intervene. Activist (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support your opinions stated above? It looks like original analysis. You might have strong personal views on the matter, but it’s my understanding that Misplaced Pages should report what sources directly say rather than what individual editors believe. It also seems like this situation should be getting more play at the Greitens page than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:C900:3159:3553:F7EF:A53F:1817 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

/*Litigation*/ Although the source, National Review, states Hawley "litigated" this case, he is not listed on the briefs, did not make an appearance on the case. Though he was volunteering for the Becket fund at the time, they were not a party in the case, though they may have filed an amicus brief. The NR reporter was simply wrong, perhaps not being conversant in "lawyer speak," and this should not be restored in absence of more definitive information to the contrary. Activist (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

This article reads essentially as a campaign brochure than an objective biography. It details every minor accomplishment (or attempted accomplishment) that this fellow has made, rather than using summary form as appropriate for an encyclopedia. It also presents these accomplishments without context such as opposing arguments. I'm going to start pruning back the undergrowth in a few days. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

On NPOV, compare to Phil Weiser Wiki page, who is also running for office.Bjhillis (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I respectfully disagree with your comment above and with the tags you placed on the article. Could you be more specific as to which language you believe is POV and which language you believe is "written like an advertisement?" I also don't see the article as lacking in context. To me, it seems quite in-depth given that the subject of the article is a politician who has held public office for less than two years. At this point in Hawley's career, I doubt there's a whole lot to say beyond a list of his accomplishments; actually, I'd lean toward trimming the article rather than adding context. If you believe that the article is unbalanced (which it seems that you do), may I suggest that the "unbalanced" tag might be more precise than the tags you have used? One area where some balance might be needed is on the Greitens scandal. I will try to add something there. Thanks. SunCrow (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We agree more than we disagree; in particular, I fully endorse your I'd lean toward trimming the article rather than adding context. There's waaaaay too much detail on every little thing this fellow has done. Apologies if my comments were unclear. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No prob, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Thanks.

I tried to trim some material that I thought was extraneous, but User:Jytdog accused me of POV editing. Not sure what that was about. SunCrow (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This section is about promotional content. Please clarify what promotional content you removed. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Take another look, Jytdog. The heading on this section is "neutrality concerns." SunCrow (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the OP. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement over one sentence

User:Snooganssnoogans and I disagree about the brief section entitled "Trump's tax returns." The section reads as follows:

During his 2018 campaign, Hawley called on his opponent to release her husband's tax returns. When asked if Hawley thought that President Trump should release his tax returns, Hawley refused to directly answer.

I don't think content like this is significant enough to be on the Misplaced Pages page (especially about Hawley not answering a reporter's question; if a politician not answering a question is encyclopedia-worthy, wouldn't every Misplaced Pages article about a politician run hundreds of pages?), so I reverted it. User:Snooganssnoogans restored the material, stating, "this is a political position, and it would be within his power as senator to compel the release of the tax returns." I moved the first sentence of the paragraph to the section on Hawley's 2018 Senate campaign and deleted the second, which does not state a political position at all. User:Jytdog reverted this and other edits made by me, describing them as "absurdly POV" (which is not so) and warning me of discretionary sanctions. I attempted to discuss the matter with User:Jytdog without success. SunCrow (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

the source's headline is "Hawley wants McCaskill to release full tax returns, dodges on if Trump should, too"; it is mentioned in the lead of source, and given substantial discussion in the body. How is your edit a neutral summary of that source? Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't think content like this is significant enough to be on the Misplaced Pages page in the first place. I also don't think a candidate for office dodging a question is encyclopedic. My question is: What is this information doing here? Who cares about it? SunCrow (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to mention him bringing up his opponent's tax returns it is fair game. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The source for josh Hawley's photo needs to be added. This photo is from "Drew Morris, Staffer, Team Hawley" Lonecowboy96 (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The info on the file page is not added to the infobox, only a caption is proper, but in this instance a caption is not needed. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Objections

User:Odomjm please discuss your objections per your edits:

• diff 17:24, 18 October 2018 (edit note corrected perception that data was conclusive by adding reference to only "some sources")
• diff 17:36, 18 October 2018 (edit note added language to remove obvious leftist political bias. Neither of these statements are possible of proof from these or any sources, but are rather speculation as)
• diff 17:39, 18 October 2018 edit note hese are his opinions, and without the qualifier, appear as if conclusively wrong facts.

Please do see your talk page here and especially here. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Without these qualifiers, the assertions are logically unverifiable. The assertions about the potential effects of Hawley's stands depend upon many factors (e.g., if there is verified evidence that he opposes other legislation to protect pre-existing conditions) and should either be omitted entirely, or qualified by language explaining the necessary logical limitations of the sources, as my edits properly did. There is clear bias towards Hawley's opponents as it currently stands. I am not yet experienced enough to defend my edits beyond this, and would appreciate help from those of you who are truly savvy to the use of subtle biased language in journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odomjm (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Initial reply.... That is a very strangely formatted remark. It was partially fixed in this diff. I am fixing it the rest of the way, in this diff. Please see your talk page, about using article talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Missouri articles
• Unknown-importance Missouri articles