Talk:Corey Stewart

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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?

• 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)
• 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
• 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. 71.203.254.54 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

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