Talk:David Jolly/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV Statements

Not everything that gets published is appropriate for a WP:BLP. These articles are held to a higher standard. The following statement from un-named sources is definitely not appropriate, even if Politico is reliable.

"Over the past week, a half-dozen Washington Republicans have described Jolly’s campaign against Democrat Alex Sink as a Keystone Cops operation, marked by inept fundraising, top advisers stationed hundreds of miles away from the district in the state capital and the poor optics of a just-divorced, 41-year-old candidate accompanied on the campaign trail by a girlfriend 14 years his junior"CFredkin (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports facts, but that includes facts about opinions when they're notable. If a reliable source not only vouches for the authenticity of the opinions but considers them notable enough to publish (presumably because not just one person but several), then it's properly encyclopedic. Also, it's not particularly scandalous about any person, living or not, to say that his political campaign had some organizational troubles. It's not like accusing him of illegal or immoral conduct. JamesMLane t c 02:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

House Results 2014

Do we really have to spend $9,000,000 for one blasted seat? Ah well, I guess that is how politics works nowadays. Getting back to what I am supposed to say, David Jolly won the election. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/david-jolly-alex-sink-florida-special-election-2014-104543.html?hp=t1 --Thenewguy34 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit from unreliable sources

This edit isn't notable to Jolly's bio and perhaps more importantly the sources provided (Daily Kos, Daily Beast, and a blog) aren't reliable sources. Since this is a WP:BLP, "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. Please do not restore it, until consensus regarding the reliability of the sources has been established.CFredkin (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about Saint Peters Blog, and Daily Kos is perhaps debatable (but likely reliable), but the Daily Beast is definitely a reliable source (search WP:RSN for many discussions, including here: [1]). So I'd suggest you not remove it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

BascomComm edits and COI

There's an article in The Hill blog about the Jolly campaign (likely his PR Company, if you look at the promotional username of the editor in question) editing Jolly's page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit seems to cover most of it. It's been reverted, and a notation made here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And now that I've read about this via Gawker, I have added this page to my Watchlist. Now we're watching closer than before, Jolly campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

In the statement "...made edits to his Wikipedia page to remove negative information about Jolly...", isn't the word negative not very neutral. The things referenced are negative to some but positive to others. I think it should say, "to remove certain information", or "to remove information the campaign considered negative" or something along those lines. Ordinarily I would just make this change myself but since this article is in the news I thought I would post here first. MB (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I imagine they removed it because they perceive it to be negative. But I think I agree, let's just stick with "they removed information". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not opposed to changing it, but the Buzzfeed article itself characterized it as negative. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Both the source and the campaign itself called the content negative. The campaign described it as a "public negative narrative" in it's statement via their spokesperson, so I quoted that particular phrase in the rewrite. I also expanded the content a bit, including Jolly's response to the incident. Dirroli (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

His connection with organized crime is negative inasmuch as he felt the need to attempt to scrub the extant article of the information. If he had felt it was beneficial, he wouldn't have attempted to hide his connections. Damotclese (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin has repeatedly removed content regarding Jolly's campaign editing this article. I have restored it.[2] They claim it's undue even though there's virtually no difference between their version and mine, other than them removing some of the topics the campaign admitted removing, and eliminating some of Jolly's quote. So if my version is undue, then obviously so is theirs. Summarizing a much more detailed incident in just three sentences is clearly not undue, and Jolly's full quote is necessary to provide full context to readers. So there's one sentence about the campaign's admission, one sentence about what the campaign removed, and one sentence to provide Jolly's reaction quote. That is a very fair and brief presentation of the most importants facts. Also, CFredkin has also repeatedly restored the spokesperson's name even though she is not notable. Dirroli (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This event is of questionable notability to Jolly's bio, particularly since it's based entirely on the actions of his campaign spokesperson. I'm willing to stipulate some mention of the event for now. However, I think the mention should be limited to a brief statement of the incident and a brief statement of Jolly's response. The additional content being inserted here is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. I also think it's inappropriate that it removes mention of the specific person who precipitated the event (so readers can judge for themselves how this reflects on Jolly).CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the edit should not be restored until there is clear consensus here to do so.CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a source for claim that it was Bascom herself who did the edits - all that was confirmed was it was from the "campaign." I've edited the article to reflect that, unless someone has a source or thinks I've misread something. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, The David Jolly U.S. Senate campaign removing negative content from the David Jolly Wikipedia article is unquestionably notable, particuarly since reliable sources have covered the story and Jolly himself issued comments about it. It's clearly a notable incident in his life, whether he made the edits himself or some of his employees did it. It makes no difference; it's his campaign. As I clearly explained, the content is brief. Perhaps even too brief. I had no idea who this guy was before I heard about it on the news, but there's much more to the story than the mere three-sentence summary: the admission, what the campaign removed, and Jolly's quote. So it's very fair. And his spokesperson is not notable at all, so why in heaven's name do you find it so important to include her name? Do you have some connection to this issue or to her? And where in the sources does it say that she is the one who made the edits to the Wikipedia article? In any case, there is barely a difference between your version and mine with regard to undue. The only key difference is that you simply removed parts that need to be in there for context. Dirroli (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Bascom's name shouldn't be included. The original Buzzfeed article that broke the story noted that Bascom is his spokesperson, and the name of the account in question used her consulting firm, which does work for the campaign (which the story mentioned as well). So it's definitely relevant and worth mentioning here. As for the rest of the edits, both versions are very similar. Maybe someone can post a suggested paragraph here for comments. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

But Bascom being Jolly's spokesperson does not make her notable, in terms of Wikipedia notability. I would agree that she should be mentioned if there was certainty, per reliable sources, that she in fact made the edits herself or ordered one of her employees to do it. But we simply don't know that at this point. And CFredkin repeatedly inserting content claiming that Bascom was the one who made the edits is an egregious BLP violation. Also, you're absolutely correct... my and CFredkin's versions are very similar, so that's why it's totally illogical for CFredkin to say that my version is undue but theirs isn't. Dirroli (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the notability guidelines with content guidelines. Please see WP:NNC. Notability guidelines do not apply to content in articles. What we know from sources are that: a) Bascom is the spokesperson for the campaign b) she was the person who confirmed the edits made c) her consulting firm was the name of the editor who made the edits to WP d) her consulting firm has been hired by Jolly. All of those are based on reliable sources, so I don't see why none of that info should be included. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but none of those things warrant including her name unless we're going to add all the details about all those connections (plus the fact that she's Jolly's cousin, which I noticed in the sourcing). But using her name solely to indicate who made the admission on behalf of the campaign isn't necessary because it doesn't tell readers anything about her connection to the incident beyond that. In other words, if we're going to mention her name, then we would also need to add in all the puzzle pieces so readers will get the full context. And doing that would of course only expand the content and perhaps lead us into actual undue territory. Also, my prior reading of BLP policy shows that it most certainly does address issues about including the names of non-notable people, and essentially says to only include them when it's necessary or for context; for example, it talks about including the names of family members who are not notable, or non-notable living people who have been accused of wrong-doing. The bottom line is that I believe the BLP rules regarding non-notable people overrides NCC itself, particularly in a case like this where wrong-doing is involved. And this article is about Jolly, not Bascom. Dirroli (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, it's clearly hypocritcal to try to apply WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE when, as FuriouslySerene has also told you, your version is virtually the same as mine (except for your BLP violation and contextual removals). Dirroli (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll also point out that Dirroli's edit changes "confirmed" to "admitted" which is clearly WP:POV in this case.CFredkin (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You must be joking. The campaign did admit it! And what is the headline of the primary source?![3] It's "Florida Senate Campaign Admits To Scrubbing Candidate’s Wikipedia Page". See the word "Admits" in there? When someone is accused of wrong-doing and then they confirm they did it, that's called an admission. So give us a break. Claiming that it is a POV violation to state that someone "admitted" something, especially when they obviously did, is utter nonsense. Dirroli (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, you still have yet to explain why you repeatedly inserted the unsourced claim about Bascom ("Sarah Bascom confirmed that she had made edits to his Wikipedia page to remove information about Jolly")? She (Bascom) made edits? Says whom? This BLP violation has been raised multiple times by FuriouslySerene and me, here and in edit summaries, yet you have completely ignored it. So why did you keep adding that claim when no sources verify it? Dirroli (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this source notes that Bascom is also Jolly's cousin. Not sure if that's relevant, but thought I'd throw that out there. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The cousin part is in the Google cached version but seems to have disappeared from the current blog post. We should leave that bit out of the article unless we have another source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that too about her being his cousin, which I found interesting. However, I don't see any necessary purpose for including it. A lot of political campaigns have relatives and very close friends in key positions. Dirroli (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with Dirroli it's not particularity notable, or at least not one of the most notable things going on this situation. Interesting that it's no longer in that blog post. Bascom is referred to as Jolly's cousin elsewhere (here and here, for example). Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interesting. He blamed his actions on his staff, presumably after he ordered them to "fix" that little problem [redacted] What is probably more accurate is that [redacted] likely ordered the embarrassing information to be scrubbed with the hopes that editors would fail to notice or, if having noticed, would consider the proposed removal to be acceptable. As an effort to assemble an encyclopedia, embarrassing facts aren't legitimately grounds for summary removal. [redacted] Damotclese (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Appropriate language for Wikipedia reference

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.

---

Please specify the preferred language for this article:

A) On April 5, 2016, Jolly's U.S. Senate campaign admitted that they had removed content from Jolly's Wikipedia article that presented a "public negative narrative" against him, and accused an unnamed rival campaign of adding "propaganda" to the article. Jolly's spokesperson acknowledged the campaign deleted information about his previous lobbyist career, his connection to the Church of Scientology, his support for same-sex marriage, and his political contributions to Democratic candidates. Regarding the incident, Jolly said, "It was a careless staff mistake...I stand by my full record, relationships, and life experience, and believe every day that voters and the community are best served by having as much information as possible, regardless of whether it comes from critics or supporters".

References

B) In April 2016, Jolly's U.S. Senate campaign spokesperson Sarah Bascom confirmed that the campaign had made edits to his Wikipedia page to remove information about Jolly, including references to the Church of Scientology and his lobbying activities, alleging that it presented a "public negative narrative" against him, and accused an unnamed rival campaign of adding "propaganda" to the article. Jolly called it "a careless staff mistake" and said that he stands by his record.

References

-CFredkin (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• B - It's the most concise and neutral.CFredkin (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is entirely premature. As far as I can see the bringer of this RfC has made no reasoned argument for their version in the discussion above. I have no idea why CFredkin thinks their version, which appears to be B), is more "BLP" than a). I suggest that CFredkin withdraw this, and actually explain what they are upset about using the Talk page, and work toward consensus. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not valid RFC at this time I agree, what we're seeing are Scientology owners/operators attempting to scrub the extant collaborationist's connections to the Scientology enterprise -- for obvious reasons. The RFC is not warranted at this time, the extant article is informative, accurate, well-referenced with legitimate citations, and Scientology's efforts to remove the accurate coverage violates WP:BLP guidelines. Recommend RFC tag be removed summarily. Also we may need to impose some page protections if Scientology's efforts increase to the point of wasting more editor time. Damotclese (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• A - I am the creator of version A. As Jytdog correctly points out, it is almost beyond belief that CFredkin claims his own version (B) is "the most concise and neutral" even though it is virtually no different than mine (A), other than his version removing 2 of the 4 notable topics Jolly's campaign removed from his Wikipedia article (Jolly's support for same-sex marriage, and his political contributions to Democratic candidates), and reducing some of Jolly's apology quote, including the most vital part ("community are best served by having as much information as possible"), which precisely explains why Jolly says the article shouldn't have been scrubbed. The B version merely has Jolly calling it "a careless staff mistake" but eliminates why he thinks it was a mistake, which is the most important part. It's like asking a riddle but not giving the answer. So, these reductions of version B removes needed context. Also, CFredkin refused to address most of the key issues that were brought up in the "Neutrality" thread above, issued multiple warnings to me on my talk page, and reported me at the edit warring noticeboard, where he falsely claimed that my version violates BLP, POV, and UNDUE, even though his version and mine are practically twins, and he doesn't say one word in this RfC about any BLP, POV, or UNDUE violations in my version. Please also note that the version CFredkin kept restoring in the article said that Bascom herself is the one who actually made the edits to Jolly's Wikpedia article, even though the sources do not say that, which both FuriouslySerence and I told him multiple times, but he completely ignored. Yet, in his B version in this RfC, he finally removes that BLP violation. On a final side note, my verison A expands and corrects the first two citations. Dirroli (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not valid RFC - I agree with Damotclese that this RFC is not valid at this point in time. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with other editors that this isn't an appropriate RfC, and that further talk page discussion was warranted first. My suggestion above was to start a discussion, not an RfC. For what it's worth, I prefer that version B actually mentions the campaign spokesperson in question, which is relevant to the story, and I dislike the use of an entire quote from Jolly, which I think is unnecessary (the quote isn't particularly unique or interesting, and is overly sympathetic to him). However I think version B is too short and missing some pertinent information. This story was fairly widely covered in the media. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:FuriouslySerene: Is there alternative language you would propose in the section above?CFredkin (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• B - Agreed, this would be better proposed as a talk page discussion however, version B is more concise and covers all pertinent details without giving undue weight. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Definitely not a valid RFC at this time - I agree with other editors above that there should have been a discussion about the subject first. The edit warring should also be dealt with as it is patent that there are no grounds for BLP, POV, and UNDUE, as prima facie, the main difference is in the layout, for the casual reader. Whiteguru (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Concur - not a valid RFC at this time - Put me down on the side of preferring a discussion about the subject prior to RFC. Also recommend summary removal of RFC tag. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Potential point of clarification.... the discussion regarding this content is in the section prior to this one. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that there are four statements that the RFC is not valid at this time. I don't understand why the RFC is said not to be valid, unless the objecters wish to provide other wording. The on-wiki discussion began on 6 April, immediately after the off-wiki (press) discussion of the conflict of interest editing. The RFC was posted on 10 April. There was discussion of the content of the reference to the COI editing. As a result, it isn't obvious to me how the RFC is not valid. It doesn't appear to be non-neutral or biased in itself, and the objecters have not offered a third version. So I don't understand the objection. However, with the number of objections to the RFC being approximately equal to the number of !votes, the RFC is probably uncloseable at this point. What is wrong with the RFC? Since the question of the validity of the RFC takes precedence over the RFC itself, I will defer from !voting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert in my view the purpose of bringing in the community via an RfC is to help resolve a dispute after editors working locally actually try, but cannot come to agreement on the Talk page. The OP made really no effort to reach consensus here. They edit warred on the article, and made one strong declaration and a brief comment, then threw up this RfC. I have no idea even now why they find their version so superior nor what terrible flaw is in the other version that rises to a BLP violation. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Jytdog's characterization of the situation here. Regardless, the purpose of a WP:RfC is to attract more attention to a dispute and solicit outside input. I believe that's definitely warranted in this case. I'll also note that this whole situation was precipitated by the fact that I and another editor resisted the attempts by Jolly's campaign to remove sourced content from and add unsourced content to this article. When the campaign was called out by Buzzfeed for COI editing, they (the campaign) alleged that the other editor and I were part of a paid effort to attack Jolly's article. At that point, Jytdog and another editor, attracted to this article by the Buzzfeed article, added myself and the other editor named in Buzzfeed to an SPI investigation. I aggressively disputed the evidence of their allegation and called out Jytdog for inappropriately deleting the comments of myself and the other editor from the SPI case and for refusing to support his allegations there. Ultimately they were forced to drop us from the investigation. In my view Jytdog's complaint about this RfC is motivated by sour grapes over the ill-conceived SPI allegation.CFredkin (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course you disagree. And almost nothing you write above is accurate. You were added to the SPI in this dif on 20:28, 9 April 2016 by someone else. My comment above did indeed come after that, on 09:09, 10 April 2016. The SPI was finally CUed on 19 April, here. The two things are entirely separate, in any case. What a sloppy piece of writing that was. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. And so I guess I imagined this. And all this commentary at the SPI prior to this RfC (expand Discussion about other possible accounts 2). And this where you deleted my edits from the SPI.CFredkin (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

more mischaracterization. unproductive drama. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• B Why is this not a valid RFC? While there are recommendations they are not requirements. A RFC has been started and as an editor who could not care less about American politics I see no problem with its wording and presentation. A is undue and B is a better presentation of the relevant information. AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• B This version is easier to read than A. It contains the same information as A and offers a point of view with greater neutrality. Tale.Spin (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• A , possibly 'pruned' slightly, it is much more informative about was deemed 'negative' information. I do not undersatand why B is deemed more neutral, what is neutral about not mentioning what they sought to hide? Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

Protection -- thank you

Thank you for applying protection, it's a shame but at this point in time it's appropriate. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though, the admin restored the article to a version after CFredkin started the edit warring with this edit, instead of to the version before it. Dirroli (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bit like a law of nature around here: WP:THEWRONGVERSION Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha, well just a version that was in place after the edit warring began. I wouldn't care which version was restored, as long as it was prior to the start of the battle. Dirroli (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. :) It seems to be increasingly difficult to make progress in pages when ideologies get involved. Damotclese (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)