Talk:Denver Riggleman/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Denver Riggleman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Bigfoot erotica
C.Fredthe dude wrote bigfoot sex stuff, so i see little contention to adding it here, given it's what this guy is most known for so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlewsClews (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @BlewsClews: The introduction should summarize the rest of the article. The Bigfoot writings are a small portion of a campaign for office. Clearly he is best known for being a politician. If you disagree, feel free to present a range of independent reliable sources that devote extensive coverage to his writing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: Such sources already are present in the article. The inclusion of this information does summarize the very substantial part of this entry's section "2018 U.S. House campaign" which includes this source already: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/politics/bigfoot-porn.html BlewsClews (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @BlewsClews: the source you cite contradicts the information you've been trying to add to the article. The source clearly indicates that Leslie Cockburn, a political opponent of Riggleman's, "accused him of being the author of Bigfoot-themed erotica." Cockburn's accusation "prompted a frenzy of jokes on social media and a denial from the Riggleman campaign." According to the rest of the article, Riggleman has written a book about Big Foot, but it is not erotic. Cockburn was evidently basing her accusation on an Instragram post that Riggleman made in jest. In any event, there are no reliable sources indicating that Riggleman has ever authored Big Foot porn. It's a comical campaign moment and certainly doesn't belong in the lede of the article. Marquardtika (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Removing the "erotica" bit, I fail to understand how once that is done for accuracy, including this in the intro doesn't make sense. It is still one of the most noted things about the man, and takes up substantial space of the entire entry. It deserves inclusion in the intro. BlewsClews (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:10YT. This is simply not a defining characteristic of Riggleman. It's a criticism from an electoral opponent that got some media coverage because it is so absurd and salacious. There is not persistent media coverage of this. If anything, the section in the article's body should be trimmed for giving too much weight to something so silly. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)