Talk:Andy Ogles

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Andy Ogles.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Congressman-elect Andy Ogles.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Far-Right Discussion

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.

---

There have been multiple edits citing this representative as being "far-right" from what some editors on Wiki are now considering biased news sources. AP, NYTimes, ABC, NBC are all considered trusted sources by Wikipedia but over the course of the past several years those media outlets have all become exceedingly partisan. Lets contrast this to an edit to AOCs page sourcing Fox News, I'm certain that wouldn't be accepted, why are we accepting sourcing from news outlets that have well-documented bias? see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal

Unironically, Wikipedia has extended the ability for only a select elite cadre of media outlets to be sourced for encyclopedic content -- and if other editors can't see the problem with that, I suppose the sites trust will continue to erode until they do. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSP. All of the sources included (and various other sources which describe this guy's political position as being on the far-right, similar to his house colleagues Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene) are considered reliable and for good reason, because they have long histories of factual reporting. For the record, there's a reason Fox News is considered marginal (not outright unreliable, just marginally so) - check the RfCs in the RSP link. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ser, thank you for the links. I assumed these discussions were organized somewhere but wikipedia has grown somewhat byzantine over the years and a lot of these things are really hard to find. While my comment was more observational in nature and I'm not expecting any policy changes based on our discussion here, I appreciate your response regardless. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears there has been a edit protection request. I would be in favor of this. The lede of a Wikipedia article should provide a summary of the most important and widely accepted facts about the subject of the article. Information about Andy Ogles being far-right has not been verified by primary sources and appear to be based on opinions or viewpoints rather than facts. Including unverified or disputed information about Andy Ogles being far-right in the lede of the article could give undue weight to a particular viewpoint and could be misleading or inaccurate. Would it be more appropriate to include information about how Andy Ogles has been characterized by media outlets or other sources in a separate section of the article, rather than presenting it as fact in the lede? Kcmastrpc (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to engage in a discussion on this, but please do note the IP below who made the edit request is a US congressional IP, so you can understand why I'd be cynical about implementing that exact edit. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 06:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter as such that it's a congressional IP (except in that it was edit warring before the semi-protection, but leaving that aside). The bigger problem is it has not brought up any actual arguments or cited sources or policy, just accused people of vandalism and made unsupported assertions.

There are many reliable sources cited for the far-right characterisation, and it's well in line with the purpose of a lead section in an article about a politician to give a sense of said politician's... politics. It seems fine to me. CharredShorthand (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe there are solid arguments on this matter regarding other controversial politicians ledes. Without additional secondary sources that aren't new media outlets I believe the edit protection should be granted and I'd prefer that we don't retread discussions that resulted in the rejection of what is clearly a violation of NPOV as well. Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Don_Bolduc

Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with CharredShorthand's comments on why this belongs in the lede. Just for what it's worth, the AOC discussion is probably not worth considering here given it was created in bad faith by a blocked sockpuppet, in response to the lede on another page. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is in bad faith. You're not addressing what the actual argument is. The fact of the matter is there's an unfair standard of describing someone as "far-right" when someone who might be equally or more "far-left" doesn't have the same label. Why is it that this kind of editorialization is only applied nearly unilaterally one way? Why wouldn't you be supportive of the label being applied (or not applied) evenly? All of the cited sources are opinion pieces, why not use a more acceptable term such as "Conservative?" Only Objective Truth (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The four sources are news articles by widely recognized reliable sources. See WP:RSP. They are not opinion pieces. We summarize reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

When I said bad faith, I was talking about the previous discussion started by a blocked sockpuppet from June last year on the AOC page, which was in itself an example of WP:POINTY editing. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Note, this issue is being discussed concurrently at WP:BLPN#Andy_Ogles. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The protection should be removed, and the page restored without this lede. There is no consensus on the BLPN page or here, and there are several Wiki policies that clearly state how a lede should be formed, and that is, without bias, without undo weight, and without inline citations. If the body of the article can't support a strong statement in the lede it doesn't belong. This has been discussed on multiple right-wing politicians page, and the fact we have an extended lock on a freshman House members page just shows how desperate people are to falsely label and misrepresent this guy. Even Matt Gaetz doesn't have this false characterization in his lede, despite leading the caucus that kicked off this entire edit war. Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

without bias, without undo weight, and without inline citations

You're mistaken on the third point. See MOS:LEADCITE:

Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

And even for non-BLPs, citing in the lead is not prohibited; it's a matter of the particular article's needs.

The claim is well-supported by reliable sources so it's not that it "can't be supported". CharredShorthand.talk; 10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The practice of selectively highlighting certain reputable sources in the introduction, rather than discussing them in the main text, to shape the narrative is all too often common occurrence. There have been multiple attempts from several editors to try and come to a compromise on this matter, however, certain editors have locked this page down excessively and we are going around in circles discussing this issue without coming to any consensus or compromise. User:Animalparty has made very succinct and clear arguments that have not been refuted, yet, we seem to be at an impasse. His argument is the focus here should not be on credibility, but rather on language usage and context. Conduct a fair and impartial research on the subject. Presently, only a small number of reputable sources (primarily recent) use the term "far-right," and the term is not clearly defined. I've proposed this matter be closed, as I don't know if there are any other points to discuss at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What does it take for the edit lock to be removed? It appears we have consensus. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed that the matter be closed on the Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andy_Ogles closure request board. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The far right label should be removed until it is shown that this is the overwhelming common descriptor, not just that it has been used by some sources. This is clearly a contentious label. Springee (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's just a few to demonstrate: (yes, even Fox News are calling him far-right!) (#16 says "hard right", but they're synonymous really) . In addition, there's a few more describing him as hard-right () and around 60 more sources describing Ogles as part of the far-right group stopping Kevin McCarthy from becoming speaker. I could go on. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Given our Wikipedia definition of far-right, which of those sources support that our definition fits him. Also, what percentage of generally RS's use the term finally, I'm not sure hard-right and far-right are synonymous. They certainly can overlap but that doesn't mean equal. We don't blue link hard right to far right. Springee (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely any issue with Wikipedia's definition of far-right is an issue to take up on the definition's page? reliable sources describe him as far-right. As a run of the mill freshman congressman, there's not as much coverage of him as a whole but 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 19 are deemed specifically as RSs, and the rest (with the exception of Vice and Fox News) are local sources so not mentioned on RSP. As an addition to this, the reliable sources covering Ogles and his Freedom Caucus comrades stymieing Kevin McCarthy's speakership describe him (as part of this far-right group) as being far-right, upping this number. On the final point, "hard-right politics" links to "far-right politics", so I would interpret that as fairly synonymous. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

As this isn't a RfC there is no reason to close the discussion. Springee (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Follow up to my comments above. One of my concerns with cases where we apply a label in an opening sentence or even paragraph, is editors often say, "RSs use the term so we should to". However, a fair question is how many sources use it? It's easy to do a keyword search to find such sources but are they really that common? Two finger in the wind tests we can use is to do a web search for news sites (typically Google news) and see how many hits we get for the name vs the name + "far-right". Another test is to look at say the first two pages of hits (about 20) when we search for just the name and see how the person is described in that first two pages. Doing the # of hits, I get 5010 Google News hits for "Andy Ogles". That drops to 819 if I add "far-right" to the search. Of course we don't know what percent of those hits directly call Ogles "far-right". Regardless, at only 16% we are already not looking good for a contentious label in Wiki voice.

As for the second test, here is what I found after filtering out the obviously not useful hits:

• [1] - local TV station, no mention of far-right
• [2] The Tennessean, says he has "far-right politics" but doesn't directly call him far-right.
• [3] local TV station No reference to far right
• [4] The Hill, doesn't say anything about far right
• [5] American Banker, No mention of far-right
• [6] Reuters, no mention
• [7] Axios, no mention
• [8] TN Tribune, regional paper. No mention of far right
• [9] Bloomberg interview. Summary says nothing about far-right

There were two more news articles in that first two pages but they were paywalled from the Tennessean. Anyway, so in two pages I found only one reference to far-right and it wasn't a direct statement that he is "far-right". If this were his defining characteristic then I think we should see at least a few solid hits in the first two pages. Springee (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources for the article lead, three of the 4 are AP. Not the same writer but the same news desk just the same. Springee (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've struck "far-right" pending discussion now that the closing summary has been changed at BLPN. Discussion can continue here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a strange benchmark to set, given the precedent for including the label in other articles of similar politicians who hold these views. If you search up Marjorie Taylor Greene on Google News, for whom there is consensus to describe as a far-right politician, you get 643,000 hits. If you add "far-right", you get 26,700. That's a 4% record, much lower than the 16% here. That does not mean this isn't the common descriptor for her, and the same applies for Ogles - it's evident from the sources in the closed section that he's widely described as such. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 04:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some of the sources Ser! posted above are syndicated copies of the same AP article, e.g. "CBS" and "WMOT" and "The Hill" are the same AP article. I posted 17 independent (e.g. no churnalism) sources on the BLP page that don't use "far-right" or "hard right", but apparently those are being actively ignored. But this isn't an issue of numbers of sources, nor is it an issue of "but my reliable sources say so!", it's a tone, presentation issue. My objections are not to the words "far-right" being in the article at all, but that the first sentence basically hits the reader over the head with an emotionally loaded, poorly defined term, before anything else, and then fails to demonstrate to the reader why the label applies. First off: "politician" is an occupation; "far right politician" is a qualifier: everyone can agree on the occupation, while the label can be contentious. Secondly, the term "far-right" when used in American WP political biographies is almost always in the very recently elected or campaigning, suggesting that recentism and/or emotionally charged editing has occurred. It is notably not jammed into the first sentences of actual far right, literal Fascists and Nazis like Mussolini and Hitler, but they're dead so I guess we don't need to worry about their Wikipedia page influencing the next election. And lastly, we can find hundreds of reliable sources calling someone something that don't warrant being hamfistedly jammed into the first sentence: one can find many high quality reliable sources calling someone a progressive politician or a gay actor or a black musician or a woman astronaut: these are absolutely objective, undisputed facts, and often very important, even celebrated aspects of the subject's biography. Yet we routinely (and wisely) don't start articles with: "Lil Nas X is an American gay^{[1][2][3][[4]} rapper, singer, and songwriter" or "Kamala Harris is an American woman politician." Rather, their noteworthy adjectives (good or bad) are more tactfully described in succeeding sentences to convey understanding without immediately labeling and othering the subject. Wikipedia articles don't exist as islands unto themselves: if editors systematically treat some subjects differently in tone (i.e. any flavor of "conservative" is okay to shoehorn immediately after the name of conservative politicians, but not any other adjectives for non-conservatives) a bias across articles is introduced and perpetuated. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This makes so much sense, make the change! Only Objective Truth (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

But there isn't consensus for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, be bold. Make the change. The opposing editors here seem to be used to badgering their interpretation of Wikipedia rules to exhaustion and those who are here for objective truth and a factual unbiased encyclopedia have all but given up. This page shouldn't be extended protected, nor should contested facts about a person be in the lede. As --Animalparty! has pointed out below, it appears some editors history illustrates a clear bias and I'd go as far as to argue of them should be disbarred from contributing to BLPs in the future due to their hostile edits and complete lack of decorum or ability to address the perspectives of their fellow editor and come to a compromise. At this point should we be asking for a mediator? Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt as if your sources were being ignored, I genuinely meant to reply to the message with several of the sources I provided above but just never got around to it. Nonetheless, several other articles similar to this one use the term as it's used here: in the first sentence as a qualifier - the aforementioned MTG article is an example as thus. As for the Hitler argument, I'd be more than happy to see it included in the first sentence there too, but I don't usually edit in that topic area. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, several other articles on current American politician have "far-right" shoehorned into their first sentence, largely due to your additions and insistence (e.g. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]). You practice what I call stuffing the lead: shoehorning a loaded, subjective term as early as possible into the first sentence, even if they are widely used in reliable sources. As others have mentioned, this has the effect (though maybe not to you) of appearing partisan and harping a point, of beating viewers over the head with this one fact that simply must be declared before anything else is said about the subject. It is jarring, and has the effect of unduly labeling or othering people. We should introduce politicians straightforwardly as politicians in the first sentence, not "left-wing politician"¹²³⁴, "conservative politician"¹²³⁴, "controversial politician", just as we wouldn't start an article with "gay politician", "female politician", etc., no matter how significant. We tell readers Barack Obama was the first African-American president without clumsily starting off with "Barack Obama is an African-American politician...". We can describe the significant views of the most far right or far left person in subsequent sentences of a lead and article. Again, I have no qualms necessarily about "far" and "right" being in an article (nor liberal, female, Christian, controversial, or any other attribute), but contend Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia if they weren't stuffed into the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I've added these to articles where it also applies in order to remain consistent, aside from the final article you linked which I've never edited before. The MTG article which I referenced was notably one that I was not involved in the editing of when it came to building the consensus that she was a politician of the far-right. You call it stuffing, I call it consistency, and it's clear other editors agree. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, a mediator already noted there is no consensus here and if we are to follow WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO for BLPs, the outcome should be to remove the contentious material so as to settle the matter and put the issue to rest. Until such time that there is consensus `far-right` simply doesn't belong in the lede. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that per NOCON this should be removed from the lead. The is a contentious label applied in Wiki-voice. That other articles do this can be countered by the fact that yet other articles don't. I would also note that this change appears to have been controversial from the start. I don't think anyone can claim this was ever stable/here with consensus. Springee (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe a comment has been left at the closer's talk page, so I'd suggest we wait for a response before doing anything. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 05:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No harm in waiting for a response. The closer did say the BLPN discussion was clear that there was no consensus for the content as presented. The problem with that closing is they also said status quo should remain. But that fails for a few reasons. First, NOCON says contentious claims/labels applied to a BLP should be removed absent consensus. Second, there is a resumption that this represents the stable version of the text. However, it's clear this has been challenged several times since it was added in late October. Thus it's not clear this was ever a stable addition. Finally, per ONUS a change like this, once challenged (which started with the Jan 5 discussion) needs to show it has consensus. Again, no consensus has been established per the closing. So even if we don't agree how to address it, the disputed part of the opening sentence needs to go (again, we can wait for more clarification from the closer). The non-admin closing is correct in noting the possible compromise solution of adding it as an attributed description later in the lead. But absent some type of consensus the next steps are remove per NOCON and ONUS, then either try an attributed statement in later in the lead or start a RfC to get some type of consensus for how to add this content. Springee (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I've got it figured out. If an editor doesn't like a particular passage, just say that it amounts to a "contentious label". All sorts of things can be recast as "contentious labels" -- and then somehow the idea is it will have to be removed. Well, let's be precise: WP:LABEL is a redirect for WP:WTW -- part of our manual of style. Sure, we can argue about style in these terms. But there's no obvious course of action here. Even if other editors accept that something is a "contentious label" -- and assertions of that sort can be evaluated, rather than accepted merely at face value -- the idea that all such descriptions must be avoided is a misconception. It's perfectly fine to be led by the sources in the usual way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs)

Not really but I guess you can think so. Of course, the problem with your POV here is it doesn't address that this should be reverted not only as a contested label with no consensus, but also based on their being no consensus for the content in the first place. Springee (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the suggestions above is to use "conservative". Hey, I think that's a contentious label -- it's not clear what support it has in reliable sources, and it sounds like a whitewash to me. So, it lacks consensus. Now, I suppose we could simply avoid characterising him at all. But then I go back to our core purpose -- we're here to enhance access readers' to information/knowledge. So, I'm not at all convinced we should refrain from our readers here, when we can rely on perfectly good sources to do it well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can find enough other editors that agree that "conservative" is a contentious label then go for it. Enhancing the reader's knowledge is a good idea. We should do that by showing rather than just parroting. Can you point to a case where the shoe is on the other foot and you feel that labeling is the correct thing to do? Of course, since the edit has never had consensus the label part isn't the only issue. Even if the content wasn't consensus we still have a NOCON for the original addition (and it fails ONUS as well). Springee (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the next step on this? Only Objective Truth (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, now that we've resolved the issue with the closure of the RfC, as the text in question has been struck, should we start looking at a possible medium on this? I was thinking something along the lines of Matt Gaetz's page, which describe him in the second sentence as being "widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics", or Don Bolduc, which states he "has been described by newspapers and wire services as a far-right politician" in the second paragraph (though there is more content in these article's leads than the current one-sentence in this one). Given the amount of sources detailed above (and as other users have said they would not object to this description, just not in the first sentence), I was thinking something along the lines of:

"William Andrew Ogles IV (born June 18, 1971) is an American politician and businessman who has served as the U.S. representative from Tennessee's 5th congressional district since 2023 and served as mayor of Maury County, Tennessee, from 2018 to 2022. He has been described by news sources as a far-right politician."

I feel the addition of the news sources avoids the WP:WEASEL issue that might arise from saying "he has been described as far-right". How does this sound to others? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

As a two line lead it would be inappropriate. That would suggest that we are summarizing the whole article as "he is described by (some) news sources as far-right". Is that really all we would say about him? We don't have anything else to say other than "far-right". I mean I guess it's better than a revision saying "mostly harmless". That said, I think it would make sense to add the information into the Election section. "Ogles was endorsed by the House Freedom Caucus, the House Republican Conference's farthest-right bloc. His politics have been described as far-right (no wiki link) in news media." This puts the "far-right" in context where it makes sense. Also, I would oppose linking it to our far-right politics article. The issue is "far-right" is not a clearly defined term. Wikipedia's article highlights some very negative "far-right" positions that may not be reflective in Ogles's positions. Linking to our far-right article can imply Ogles supports things which no sources, even thoughts that describe him as far-right, support. That is a BLP concern. Springee (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is he so frequently described by news sources as far-right that He has been described by news sources as a far-right politician is warranted? If only some are doing that (particularly if only a minority are doing that), we'd run into an issue with representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on him in a fair and straightforward manner. What else have news organizations called him? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Per my scan of the first two pages of Google news hits, no he isn't. It seems that most of the sources that used that term used it during the election season. It doesn't seem as common with more recent sources. Springee (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Then I think it's probably best avoided in the lead. My middle school English teacher's repeated beating into me that good writing follow a principle of show, don't tell keeps coming up. If we're having trouble coming up with a good label, then it might just be best to broadly cover his political positions in the article and then summarize them in the lead—let the reader understand the facts and then come up with how they want to label him themself. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say so? I've highlighted a great deal of sources above that describe him as such above, including even conservative media such as Fox News. There's further examples out there either describing him as such or mentioning him as part of the far-right group that blocked Kevin McCarthy's speakership. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And I've highlighted a great deal of sources that do not describe him as such, even in left-leaning sources like CNN, and here copy them from the BLPN board for future reference. I find the phrase "has been described as X" is rather clumsy, blunt and pedantic writing, even if true, and overused on Wikipedia. At its worst it invites cherry-picking of sources, and at its best can lead to banal trivia like "these sources call him X, while these sources call him Z, while these sources all him far Z..." We can call Bernie Sanders progressive in the lead without needing to invoke "has been called". We wouldn't say "Jerry Seinfeld is an American comedian. He has been described by newspapers as funny." We can still include the words 'far' and 'right' in the article, but with more sophistication and relative context, such as joining with the Freedom Caucus and opposing McCarthy with other members furthest in the right of Congress. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

How exactly would you suggest we do that while avoiding this phrase? I'm looking at other politician's articles to see if there's any general running pattern - for Matt Gaetz it states A member of the Republican Party, he is widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics as well as an ally of former president Donald Trump." as the second sentence, and in John Fetterman's article in the opening paragraph it says Generally described as a progressive, (...). ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that sort of argument is in the vein of wp:OTHERSTUFF. Pointing at another article and saying that is how the other article does it only goes so far. It ignores the harder to find case where we have similar facts and we didn't include such a label in the lead. It also ignores that not every article is the same. If this were a longer 3-4 paragraph lead then I think it would be far easier to put that information in. It would then represent say 5% of the text of the lead. Including it in what is otherwise a 1 sentence lead really changes the proportion of things. Additionally, in this case it would fail LEADFOLLOWSBODY. While we do provide some political positions which are clearly far-right compatible, the article body doesn't dwell on this so it becomes disproportionate to do so in the lead. Beyond that there is also the issue of impartial tone. When we start using value driven labels like far-right, which Wikipedia describes with, "Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism" we need to be very careful with it's use. Is there any evidence this person is a neo-fascist, neo-nazi or racial supremist? It appears they aer more right than a typical GOP member but not any of the neo-x or racial supremacist etc "far-right". I think your Fetterman example fails because Progressivism in the United States might have policy implications but doesn't carry the moral baggage we have piled into the Far-right article. Springee (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the pitfalls of OTHERSTUFF, hence why I'm just using them as two examples and not hard-and-fast rules on what we need to do. I get your concerns about the length of the opening - would it be an ideal solution to expand the opening (which as it is, is only one sentence) and include this info? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of a biography of a living person (BLP) article is to provide an accurate, neutral, and well-referenced account of the subject's life and notable achievements. The lead section, in particular, should summarize the most important information about the person in a concise and balanced manner.

Labeling this politician as "far-right" in the lead of a BLP is problematic for several reasons:

1. Lack of agreement among sources: When only a minority of sources use this characterization, it raises questions about its reliability and represents a subjective interpretation of the subject's beliefs or actions. Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View requires that all information in articles be verifiable and represented in a neutral and fair manner.

2. Definition of far-right: The term "far-right" is not well-defined, and its meaning can vary depending on cultural, political, and historical context. This can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the subject's views and actions.

3. Lack of supporting text in the body: When there is no text in the body of the article to support the characterization in the lead, it creates an imbalanced representation of the subject and raises questions about the reliability of the information.

In conclusion, labeling someone as far-right in the lead of a BLP is not appropriate unless it is supported by a significant majority of reliable sources and is clearly defined and explained in the body of the article. The lead should instead focus on providing a balanced summary of the subject's notable achievements and biographical information. I propose we close this discussion and move on to more productive matters. Also, is there any objection to removing the page protection? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Refusing to include this in the article is not providing due weight, not is it accurate or neutral. Given the amount of sources (far above the threshold needed to use this term) provided and the political positions lining up with this (anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, election denial et cetera), it's only fair to include. As for providing an interpretation of the definition of this term, that's really not up to us. Other editors in the discussion have agreed that this should be in the article, just not necessarily in the first sentence, so no, we will not be closing this discussion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no issues with not including it in the lead. We can show vs tell and as was mentioned above. Are we better informing our readers when we use a little defined term that may not be used with care by the sources that did use it? What of their intended meaning didn't align with ours? Is it better when we imply something about the subject that may not be true to the source? Springee (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

All of this is "original research" -- no less when the goal is exclusion rather than inclusion. Given the extent to which the term is used in reliable sources, failure to include it is failure to adhere to NPOV. When I see this over and over from the same editor, I'm inclined to think that that editor is a POV-pusher. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In accordance with the principles of neutral point of view (NPOV) and verifiability, the inclusion of any contentious or potentially controversial material in a Wikipedia article should be based on reliable sources. In the case of a politician whose views are being characterized as far-right, it is necessary to consider whether there are multiple publications covering this topic with enough weight to warrant a mention in the lead.

If there are trusted sources that clearly outline how and why this politician's views are considered far-right, then it may be appropriate to include a section on this topic in the article. However, if only a minority of sources have labeled this person as far-right, then it might be more appropriate to provide a passing mention of how the media has portrayed this individual.

It is important to note that the inclusion of such information should not be based on original research, but on reliable sources that have analyzed and characterized the individual's political opinions or record. The argument for including this in the lead should be carefully evaluated to ensure that it does not violate NPOV by presenting a biased perspective.

In conclusion, before including any contentious or potentially controversial material in a Wikipedia article, it is important to consider whether there are sufficient reliable sources to support its inclusion. In the case of a politician whose views are being characterized as far-right, the inclusion of such information should be based on a majority of sources that clearly and thoroughly analyze this topic. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you should review OR. We don't have to include every term used by sources, especially in cases where the term is loosely defined and it's use isn't consistent. What we should do is report on the policies/positions that the major politician supports. Springee (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not your job to decide whether or not the sources applied the label "with care". Your complaints smack of you wishing to insert your POV into the article rather than a halfway cogent policy based argument, an overwhelmingly common impression from most of your edits. XeCyranium (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Your opinions on this matter are no more or less valid than other editors, User:XeCyranium. There is a discussion regarding this very subject over on WP:BLPN#Far-right_vs._far-left where it's being correctly pointed out that this label is applied in a non-neutral and unbalanced manner. Additionally, I'd ask that you please remain WP:CIVIL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you've repeated your complaints somewhere more fitting though I'm not sure that makes them any more valid. Either way I'm content with the content of my comment. XeCyranium (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of this edit is not implying consensus for inclusion in the first sentence. This IP edit was reverted, and perhaps it was a misstep to reintroduce it, but we should reopen this discussion before including it in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE to gain WP:CON. Additionally, I don't agree that media is a good qualifier here, as only a subset of media outlets have described him as such, should we qualify that with "some" or "opposition"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2023

Someone keeps vandalizing this page by adding political editorialization by characterizing someone as "far-right" when they are not. Wikipedia should be objective. 143.231.249.133 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason there is still extended edit protection on this page? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

WTVF investigation

@Daniel Case: Thank you for adding the information from the WTVF NewsChannel 5 investigation. The discrepancies certainly warrant mention. However, the amount of text devoted to it should be in proportion to the prominence in the totality of sources on Ogles. Per WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia should not devote extensive details to items merely because they are new or true. The material from the WTVF investigation currently dwarfs Ogles' entire early business and mayoral career, and rivals his Congressional career section, which I think is grossly imbalanced. While this story will likely get more attention in the coming days (predictably Salon and MaddowBlog are amplifying the story, without adding any new reporting), Wikipedia should show restraint in adding new info, ensuring due proportionality. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, biographies must be fair at all times, not distorted with the hopes that other balancing content will be added some time later. Do you think the "Alleged false biographical claims" can be condensed to the essentials so that it does swamp other content? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The proper response would be to add more material about Ogles. It's certainly out there. Maybe more material about what he's done in Congress so far. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

OK ... this should be in conformance with all those policies you cited. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, not quite, but close (the source never says lying). I've adjusted it: as this article expands, and/or more press accumulates, more details in certain areas may be warranted. If you could imagine that it would be inappropriate for the article on Bill Clinton to consist of roughly 25% of Monical Lewinsky scandal, full of names of lawyers, places, times, events etc., especially on the day after the story broke, you can see why breaking scandals in very short articles need to be placed in context. The amount of text and detail that's appropriate in a book length biography or 260 kb article or is not the same as what would be expected in a biographical dictionary or a 30 kb article. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I have added about 10K to the article from various other sources I have found that give details about his pre-2022 political career, such as it is. The section I had written was about 2.5–3K. How much more do you think we need to add so that the entire original section I wrote would occupy a proportionate share of the article? (I have found plenty of other sources) Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Does the repeat of a few of his more controversial political viewpoints warrant inclusion in the lead? It seems redundant, possibly could be viewed as undo weight and violation of NPOV. Kcmastrpc (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's consistent with our articles on other members of Congress, even new ones. I would also argue that his positions are not controversial in most of his district, otherwise he probably would not have been elected. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is now just over 40K. The section as I wrote it is less than 3K. This would make up maybe 10 percent of the article. Does anyone feel that even that would be too much? Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The disputed biographical details are many. 10% wouldn’t be too much. starship.paint (exalt) 05:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I've expanded the content since there are many more sources now, which you can refer to here. starship.paint (exalt) 07:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

“Various claims” and WP:LEADCITE

There have been a number of edits recently requesting citations for contentious material that is in the lead. I don’t have strong feelings about this either way, but because these claims are considered controversial should they not be cited? Additionally, is there enough WP:WEIGHT for this material and prose to be included in the lead? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP, contentious material in the lead usually needs to be cited. However, we don't need excessive citations. In addition, I'm not sure if there is enough weight yet for this to be included in the lead since this is a figure who has only recently gained prominence, but time will tell. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

LEADCITE says statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation, so going off that I added a source for the far-right statement since that was challenged at one point. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Requesting protection for the page.

This page seems to have a lot of vandalism recently, I think it should be locked at least temporarily from editing. GatewayPolitics (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To request page protection, file a report at WP:RfPP. I would usually but I don't know if the amount of edits so far are enough to justify protection. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The page was not vandalized. Someone added a quote that the representaive said, that was backed up by video evidence and known sources, and then someone removed it (im assuming you) likely because they disagreed with the political connotations.

heres your source btw: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/21/tennessee-andy-ogles-kill-them-all-comment-israel-hamas-war/72683259007/ 2600:8806:3105:E500:25E0:E8E:C582:3B42 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

In 2024 He openly advocated for the genocide of all of gazas children, openly inciting genocide. Widely available sources on this including video. This should be on his English Wikipedia page. 2603:7000:A600:ACA:8BB:AB2E:BF2E:D18D (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We already mention these comments, not sure what you're specifically requesting Cannolis (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

NOTFORUM?

Well, for some reason my last edit has been reverted with basis in a policy that did not even apply there. Interesting, for sure, but OK… I posted this link: https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1760129439671726106, which can be helpful when searching for reliable sources about what this politician has sadly declared. (So NOTFORUM does not apply; stop treating IPs as second-class citizens.) Thanks! 2804:14D:5C32:4673:A78:626A:118B:7CE2 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably becuase we don't need people coming and posting X links to TikTok videos of content that is already in the article and reliably sourced.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much this: an IP user rolls up and posts a bare social media link, then gets mad when it is reverted. WP:UGC Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Kill Them All"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XXc0vEpAs Doug youvan (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

https://newrepublic.com/post/179177/republican-congressman-andy-ogles-kill-them-all-palestinian-children-gaza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug youvan (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/21/us-congressman-andy-ogles-stirs-outrage-with-gaza-comment-kill-them-all Doug youvan (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)