Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Corey Stewart

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sucker for All in topic Retired?
Learn more about this page

Wikipedia in the lead

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Do we really need this? It's in the body of the article, which is fine. I think it's overkill to put it in the lead, and presents a neutrality issue. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

How is it a neutrality issue? Because it's perceived as having a negative impact on Corey Stewart's image? Is your argument that anything negative shouldn't be in the lead of a BLP? You'll have a hard time with that angle. At this point, it's arguably the second-highest amount of coverage that Stewart has received in US national news in his entire life. Rockypedia (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are trying to have 1/3 of the lead reflect one paragraph of the body, reflecting an issue that was reported in the news yesterday. I do not agree with that. 71.203.254.54 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's great. I don't agree that the subject of an article, who has admitted to editing his own page to make it more favorable to himself, can possibly be neutral when evaluating what should and shouldn't be in the lead. In other words, leave this to people that aren't directly involved with the topic in question. Rockypedia (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Let's not assume that this IP user is necessarily the subject or a COI editor (though it may be). He or she is correct that one-third of the lead is excessive. I think the original placement was fine. I hesitate to reinsert as it may be considered a revert. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I saw this posted on Jimbo's talk page. i have no connection to this subject. Actually never heard of him before today. 71.203.254.54 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Whatever. You have a right to participate in this discussion whether you are connected or not. Best to declare. If not connected, don't. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
We can always move it to the Controversies section. St. claires fire (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Vandals don't get special treatment, especially if they are running for a federal office. That his campaign admitted to WP:POV on his page is completely unprecedented for someone of this level of influence. It absolutely needs to be in the lead. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anon IPs editing this page

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
WP:CYCLE has been implemented -- Sleyece (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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.

Given the subject of this article admitting in a CNN interview yesterday that he (or his "campaign") has been editing this page for nearly 3 years, I think it's wise to turn a highly critical eye on any edits made by anon IPs in the coming days. I'm all for anon IPs editing Wikipedia, but when there's clear evidence that a subject is editing his own article, obviously that calls into question the neutrality of any anon IP that shows up during this timeframe and starts spinning info to make the subject appear in a more flattering light. Rockypedia (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Assume bad faith all you want, but please follow policies adding material to a BLP. Namely NOTNEWS, LEAD, UNDUE, WEIGHT, and BLP. 71.203.254.54 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
See above. If you have a close connection to the subject, you have no business weighing in here. Thanks for your efforts. Rockypedia (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Subjects of articles have a right to participate in the talk page, and also, unfortunately, there is no policy that prevents them from editing the article. This may be a COI editor or not, however I agree about the lead as I indicated previously. I suggest that we await other input from non-IP registered accounts. I feel that it is undue emphasis considering the length of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not the article subject. But clearly IP opinions have no value on BLP issues. I'll kindly not participate any longer. FYI I have explicitly not created an account because of users like you Rocky.71.203.254.54 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Your reasons for not creating an account, stated or actual, are irrelevant here. Rockypedia (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
This entire discussion is irrelevant, and Rocky under WP:BRD you need to justify placement of the material on Wikipedia editing in the lead section at quite the prominence that it currently has. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
WP:BRD has been invoked, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. And User talk:Coretheapple has joined the IP in contesting the addition. (You could make the case that since the article was only made this year there's not really an existing stable version; if the article is in flux no version has precedence over another. But I wouldn't buy it.) I tend to agree with User:Rockypedia on the merits, but WP:BRD is an important tool for running this place. As an editor who agrees with the material on the merits I am nevertheless rolling it back, and lets have an RfC or something, and lets not edit war. Herostratus (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rockypedia

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.

RfC: How to handle his campaign's Wikipedia editing?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments17 people in discussion
Consensus is to include the proposed text in the body of the article at the "Campaign for Virginia Governor" section. Winged Blades Godric 07:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

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.

How should the following material be handled:

In March of 2017, Stewart admitted that his campaign, since at least May of 2014, had been editing his Wikipedia page to remove unflattering information and add positive spin, through at least two registered accounts.

(the ref is CNN: "Virginia gubernatorial candidate removed unflattering info from Wikipedia page", URL here).

Should this material (or something like it) be

  1. In the lede,
  2. In the body of the article (the "Campaign for Virginia Governor" section), or
  3. Not included at all?

Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
  • In the body of the article. Clearly relevant. This is always a judgment call, obviously, but I believe that putting it in the lead, as a defining characteristic of the subject, is excessive given the length of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body, with passing mention in the lead -- changing my vote to compromise in order to help achieve consensus. Herostratus (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC) In the lede. WP:IAR instructs us to "maintain Wikipedia"; a major aspect of this is defending the integrity of our data. And one powerful way to do this is by dissuading entities from trying to corrupt it to private ends. And the best way to do that is to offer prominent examples of possible negative outcomes if they try it. Prominent, hence the lede. All healthy and functional organisms defend themselves. Sickly and dysfunctional ones don't. Which type do we want to be? Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Really, anything whatsoever that "offers a negative outcome" is okay if you're defending oneself? I don't believe that. There are limits where some things are not acceptable even to teach someone a lesson. We have WP:WEIGHT for a reason and we should keep to it. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT falls under WP:NPOV, which says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." This means that you can't supersede it with IAR. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not anything. Reasonable things. Not trying to teach a lesson but rather set an example, which is different. And we aren't NPOV about Wikipedia and can't be. We don't go "well, someone has vandalized this article, but to revert would display the POV 'Wikipedia is good and worthwhile' so let's not". Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
OK, but "teaching a lesson" is much the same as "punishing." Has no place in Wikipedia, sorry. Look, we're all friends, we all feel the same way about paid editing and COI. Let's not overreach, please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body. Relevant and notable but does not need to be focused on by 1/3 of the lead. I do not agree with Herostratus that focusing on this issue per IAR is "defending the integrity of our data." I'm actually quite surprised by that characterization. It is not appropriate to make an example out of a BLP. Thank you however for opening this discussion. 71.203.254.54 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body, with passing mention in the lead This has nothing to do with either making an example of Mr. Stewart on the one hand or trying to minimize the controversy on the other. It's just following WP:LEAD, where the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the body of the article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body, with possible passing mention at end of the lead, for reasons given by others. For reasons given by others, this isn't a defining feature and defending ourselves is not synonymous with either vindictiveness, nor having an excessively grand view of our own importance. Pincrete (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • in the body, short mention in the lede. Per Shock BHB and Pincrete. We can properly defend ourselves someplace outside the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body. I agree with the enthusiasm to include this kind of information in articles whenever RS coverage supports it. I sympathize with the desire to put it in the lead. However stuffing this into the lead is bending our standards too far for ulterior motives. Even when those motives are well intentioned. Alsee (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body. A mention in the lead would likely only be justifiable if the incident led to a meaningful real-world impact and the lead section was substantially expanded in the future (say three paragraphs or more). Neutralitytalk!
  • In the body, short mention in the lead. I agree with Shock BHB, Pincrete, Smallbones, and Herostratus, for all of their numerous mentioned reasons. It's notable enough to merit one sentence in the lead. It's factual, it's verified (by the subject himself and reported in a reliable third-party source) - I see no good reason to keep it from the lead. It's supposed to be a summary of the body, and this was a notable incident that spanned years, and was reported as such. Rockypedia (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body Bot summoned, its where it belongs. Wikipedia does not tout other people's bad behavior to make an example of them. L3X1 (distant write) 14:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the lede summoned by bot BlueSalix (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Striking this vote of a banned sock. Neutralitytalk 06:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Exclude This is very interesting to Wikipedia editors, but it seems fairly minor in the scheme of things. His office tried to spin things in a way that made him look good. That is basically every politician alive. Just because they did it to us, doesn't really make it a big deal. Let's also be honest, Wikipedians are vengeful. He broke our rules, let's make him suffer. AniMate 04:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body - I think it is valid encyclopedic material and is appropriate for the article. However, I don't think it defines the individual and I would not include in the lede.--Rpclod (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body- I strongly believe that it is appropriate material for the body of the article but since it doesn't really define the individual, I think it must not be included in the lead.--Kostas20142 (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the body - This certainly is not significant enough for inclusion in the lead. A brief mention is the body is adequate. Meatsgains (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Threaded discussion

edit

Don't have too much more to add. In my view it's a simple issue. Thanks for commencing this RfC - best approach for sure. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess one point: I'd suggest that editors consider that there are other things that could with more validity go into the lead. The "cuckservative" stuff, his overheated rhetoric. I think that is more important than his wiki-editing text. Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah you're right. I mean sure I made the case for including the Wikipedia stuff, but 1) it's admittedly a stretch, and 2) nobody else wants it, mostly. I changed my vote toward the middle, so right now I get 4 for "just in the body" and 5 for "In the body, with a brief/passing mention in the lede". User:Rockypedia instituted the latter with these edits, but I'm not sure that that's proper. It does include the cuckservative stuff too, and I think it's well done... I think it is helpful to the reader wanting a quick answer to the question "What is the entity Corey Stewart?" but that's my opinion. I'll leave it alone myself but I can see a case for rolling that back, considering that this's an ongoing discussion. Herostratus (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I also felt like the lead needed to include his run for governor, as that's a high-profile ongoing action that's getting a lot of coverage, and with the 5 votes saying that at least a short mention in the lead was warranted, along with one more mentioning that it should be included only if the lead were expanded, this seemed like the best course. Rockypedia (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think that expansion of the lead and restricting it to a brief mention helps a lot from the NPOV perspective. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
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.

Does Stewart court bad publicity?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Stewart, like other figures associated with the alt-right, perhaps is provocative on purpose, as a way of grabbing attention. That being the case, if the article is full of negative information about him, maybe that's exactly what he wants, and therefore he wouldn't object to its being "unbalanced". St. claires fire (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you think the article is unbalanced, please outline what you would add or cut on this page and we'll take a look. Please do not push the idea that paid or conflict-of-interest editing is somehow acceptable here, or that the CNN story on Stewart's campaign editing this article is somehow unsupported (re: your edit summary). People take this type of violation of our rules very seriously. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
When I saw the COI tag, I didn't make the connection initially between that and his paid editors; I thought that was referring to the typical kind of politician fanboy editing that goes on with these articles. (For example, pretty much every article about a Virginia legislator reads like a PR puff piece.) St. claires fire (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comments on Civil War memorials and Confederate flags

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why isn't there any mention of this in our article?

Currently the only mention of either "Confederate" or "Civil War" is in the refs where we link this article, which we link for the innocuous statement Stewart is a native of Duluth, Minnesota, which seems like a comically poor reading of what the source actually says. (Yes, I know someone almost certainly had their own idea of what the article should say and found a source that supported it, without regard for what the source was actually all about, and how in most cases this is at least acceptable if not desirable.)

I'm not very interested in getting heavily involved with political BLPs, so I'll leave it for someone else to do.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Stewart has only talked about these issues since he started running for governor in this cycle. Currently all 5 candidates for Virginia governor are lacking significant narration about their candidacies, and the page for the election itself also lacks any prose. So yeah, work is needed all around. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Who cares if Wikipedia "lacks prose"? Remember WP:NOT. This is an Encyclopedia, we aren't writing poetry here. (Just as an aside: Any poetry about the subject of this article, would likely suck hard.) -- Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Recent anon IP edits

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted some POV edits that an anon IP made recently. He resurfaced a few minutes ago and reverted me. I left them a message on their talk apge encouraging them to discuss here. Rockypedia (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anon IP's response:

Rockypedia - your edits substantially rewrote the immigration section of this article, replacing citations to the Washington Post with citations to two magazine articles (National Geographic and The New Yorker). The edits were factually inaccurate and not in accordance with Wikipedia's BLP standards - other issues include: 1. Use of language inconsistent with the rest of the article, and other Wikipedia articles on similar topics; 2. Claims that cannot be validated or corroborated by other sources and appear to be political in nature ("designed to purge the county of undocumented immigrants"); 3. Factual inaccuracy.

As Wikipedia's BLP page notes, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.184.47 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just want to say that there have been some attempts to add negative information over on Nick Freitas' page by random accounts that were created specifically to advance Corey Stewart's campaign. Freitas is a Republican running against Stewart right now.

Considering the history we've seen of Stewart's campaign operatives editing their candidate's own page, is it too much to ask that his page, and the pages of all his opponents (Republican and Democrat) be protected? Or could we have folks monitoring these pages to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen again? Freitas' page isn't all that long at the moment anyway, it just strikes me as extremely dishonest to try to mess with it as an extension of a political campaign. I imagine we're about to see similar hit jobs on E.W. Jackson and Tim Kaine. 2601:5C2:C500:4D3E:D529:2195:58C7:9493 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Can someone make a page protection request here? Rockypedia (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Edits to immigration section

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I made a few changes to the immigration section, while doing my best to preserve Rockypedia's edits.

  1. "After Stewart took his seat as chairman, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution designed to purge the county of undocumented immigrants"
    • I revised that sentence to avoid overstatement, so that it complies with the BLP standards; I also changed "undocumented immigrants" in light of Wikipedia's standard use of the term "illegal immigrants" - note the redirect from Undocumented immigrant to Illegal immigration - and because the rest of the article already conforms to that standard.
    • The revised sentence reads:
      "After Stewart took his seat as chairman, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors in 2007 unanimously passed a resolution targeting illegal immigrants residing in the County."
  2. "the new law allowed the Prince William County Police Department to check the immigration status of anyone, even if they were not suspected of wrongdoing"
    • The cited source actually got this wrong - the original resolution read:
      "Incident to any lawful detention for a violation of a state law or county ordinance, Prince William County Police Officers shall inquire into the citizenship or immigration status of the detained person if there is probable cause to believe such person is in violation of federal immigration law and when such inquiry will not expand the duration of the detention."
    • The revised sentence reads as follows:
      "The resolution directed the Prince William County Police Department to check the immigration status of anyone detained on suspicion of wrongdoing."
  3. Other changes:
    • Added a mention of the county's cutting off of business licenses to your discussion of the denial of public services - see this article from the New York Times;
    • Added an additional citation to a Washington Post article discussing the change from detention to arrest.
    • Added a mention of the 9500 Liberty documentary and a supporting citation. Since the documentary made national news and already has a wikipedia page, I thought it should be included.

--172.58.185.216 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have a problem with several aspects of this edit, which I regard as decidedly POV - the effort to paint Stewart in a more favorable light is pretty plain.
The "purge the county of undocumented immigrants" is the exact phrase used in the NatGeo news article; it's accurate, it's sourced, and the only reason to change that language is to make Stewart look better. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that requires us to use the term "illegal immigrants" when the source says "undocumented immigrants." Please point out that official policy to me.
Saying "the cited source got this wrong" is a pretty clear example of WP:OR. We don't do that here, so your second change is DOA. Your original research also extends to your own misinterpretation of the statue you cited: it clearly says "if there is probable cause to believe such person is in violation of federal immigration law" but your text subtly changed that to "anyone detained on suspicion of wrongdoing." It's not "suspicion of wrongdoing", it's "I think this person might be an illegal, and that's enough to detain them even if there's no reason to believe they're doing anything against the law."
The business licenses addition, along with the source, is fine, and I will re-add it.
The WaPo source is fine.
The 9500 Liberty addition is fine. Rockypedia (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

More Edits Coming From Corey stewart’s Campaign

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone look up User talk:StopbeingBIAS? Just glancing at their edits, they e done everything from making changes to the 2018 Senate Wiki Page to adding in a bogus website attacking one of Corey’s stewart’s primary opponents to their Wikipedia page (and replacing their legitimate website with it in the process!)

My gut instinct is telling me that this is another case of Corey’s Stewart’s campaign creating Wikipedia accounts to meddle in an election he is running in.

Just check out contribs. I can provide the direct links if necessary.--2601:5C2:C500:4D3E:5877:496C:3E4E:3CA2 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

IP number keeps removing NYT description from lede

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This text keeps getting removed: According to The New York Times, Stewart "made his name attacking illegal immigrants and embracing emblems of the Confederacy."[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 20 July 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested per the discussion below; I have also added a hatnote to this article, but for the time being the disambiguation page has been retained at the proposed title, as it's not harming anything. Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

– Likely primary topic in a WP:TWODABS situation. Subject was a relatively high-profile state politician even before his current nomination to a U.S. Senate seat, having drawn national attention during his previous bid for the gubernatorial nomination. The only other "Corey Stewart" is a perma-stub rugby player with a short career. Even over the longer term, this article gets an average of about 350 views per day; the rugby player averages 2 views per day. I would also support moving this article and doing away with the disambiguation page altogether. bd2412 T 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ties to white supremacists

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

An IP account removed content from the lede an hour after it was added (it's totally normal for an IP number to watchlist an article like that, right?), noting Stewart's controversial and widely reported ties to white supremacists. The body devotes considerable space to this, and major RS have run long in-depth stories on this issue, demonstrating first and foremost that it's WP:DUE and secondly that it belongs in the lede. The highest office that this man has held is 'Chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors' yet national newspapers are devoting extensive space to him, in part due to his controversial ties to white supremacists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's a higher position than Beto O'Rourke has ever held. What explains his extensive coverage, also white supremacy? Justify the claims: association with white supremacists and association with outspoken racists and white supremacists which you added. He was associated with Nehlen as were other Republicans until Nehlen came out as a white supremacist at which point according to NYT Stewart disavowed him. I notice you didn't include that. Instead we have In June 2018, Stewart said that he no longer considered Nehlen one of his heroes. Not a very fair summary. 199.127.56.90 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
If O'Rourke's ties to white supremacists were the subject of regular reporting by national RS, you can bet your ass that it would feature prominently on his Wikipedia page. If you want to tweak language somewhere in the article to note that Stewart disavowed someone, you can do that. Instead, you opted to remove reliably sourced content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I said justify those claims not sidestep them. And don't restore without consensus because that's a serious charge and this is a BLP. 199.127.56.90 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
The content is all reliably sourced. It's weird how an IP account happens to revert an edit within the hour, use green for quotes and cite Wikipedia policy (even if erroneously). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Blah blah blah I can't defend my edits so I'll attack the editor. Engage with the content and sources or bug off. 199.127.56.90 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notability in lead

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The opening paragraph of a biography includes why a person is notable. The lead sentence should "describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources." Including "international trade attorney" in the first sentence of the lead is not supported by this guidance (especially as it precedes "politician"). Stewart is not notable as an international trade attorney and he is not commonly described as such in reliable sources. I think that sentence should be changed from this:

Corey Alan Stewart (born August 1, 1968) is an American international trade attorney and politician currently serving his fourth term as at-large Chair of the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia.

to this:

Corey Alan Stewart (born August 1, 1968) is an American politician currently serving his fourth term as at-large Chair of the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia.

Thoughts? -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Home ownership

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

cc Ike54321 and Pemilligan

Just to document slightly more fully as keen to fully address the ToU implications - I agree with Pemilligan that the ownership of a home of historical significance is relevant to the article and merits inclusion. The web is littered with examples of there being coverage of his acquisition that merits us including it here - these being just two.[2], [3]. There are clearly no privacy implications if the information is already in the public domain - and expressly so, given that one of those articles is him arranging a tour for a journalist. Best, Darren-M talk 20:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Look, this is now documented and I have alerted you of this concern. If there is an attack on his family and his place of residence was obtained through the aforementioned Wikipedia page, that's on your hands. - Ike54321 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for responding. I don't really see this as being any different to us confirming (at Anmer_Hall) where Prince William lives there, to be truthful. Notable location, notable person, information in public domain, clear consent from the person for the latter, no issue as I see it. Best, Darren-M talk

- Thank you for your response, however, I believe this to be more than simply a privacy concern, this is one of safety. Mr. Stewart is a relatively well known figure in Northern Virginia and a controversial one at that. Furthermore, the articles you mentioned were published while Mr. Stewart was a rather "small-time" public official (He was the chairman of PWC and had not yet dabbled in Statewide politics). Corey Stewart is no longer a career politician, he retired as of early 2019. Why is this relevant? Well, I think it's rather obvious. Mr. Stewart was not this "fire-brand," controversial politician at the time of these publications, something such as "doxing" or violent attacks were not major concerns. The public availability held within archived web-articles absolutely does not justify the publishing on a contemporary web page such as Wikipedia. In my view, it is incredibly irresponsible to leave the place of residence on the page. His home is a private residence, just as mine, just as yours. - Ike54321 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Copying across a comment from my talk page (introduced as 'Privacy Question / Concern'), to ensure discussion is in one central place:

Hello Darren,
I saw your response and was curious, what if the Public Official doesn't consent to their place of residence being published on Wikipedia?
Thanks - Ike54321 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ike54321 I believe the following would then apply, from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_issues:

Legal issues

Subjects who have legal or other serious concerns about material they find about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as OTRS). Please e-mail info-en-q@ wikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. It is usually better to ask for help rather than trying to change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved in a significant legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article.

Best, Darren-M talk 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help / clarification Darren! Truly appreciated. Ike54321 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Strange to describe a 50ish yr-old as a "former" or "retired" politician

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think this is a necessary qualifier. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Snooganssnoogans, how would you approach it? Sources[4] seem relatively clear that he has 'retired', so I do think a qualifier is needed, irrespective of his age. Darren-M talk 21:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Retired?

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kindof a weird article here.. 12 sources in the lead section and not one of them indicates that Stewart will never return to politics. Washington Post and Washington Examiner articles both clearly indicate he's quitting politics “for the foreseeable future”, not permanently. Clearly he's no longer Chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, but WP:SYN currently exists here when we indicate he'll never be a political player.. Sucker for All (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corey_Stewart&oldid=1256152673"