Talk:Eric Greitens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The lead

I removed the following sentence from the lead per WP:BLP - "On April 11, a report was released that alleged that Greitens had committed sexual assault in March 2015." - because the source used The New York Times, does not state Greitens had committed sexual assault in March 2015. The only instance in the article where "sexual assault" is mentioned is in one paragraph where Greitens...said that the relationship was consensual and that any claim of violence or sexual assault was false. And the paragraphs in the article related to the date of "March 2015", do not say anything about sexual assault. I don't have an issue with the legislative report being mentioned in the lead, but lets stick to what the sources actually say. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Recommended for Semi-Protection/Please Don't List End Date Yet

I love that Wikipedians salivate over who wins the race to update new events like this. I love that so many wiki-dorks will lose the race, and forever have to live with the failure of NOT being the one who got to (Ooh, how exciting!) update the encyclopedia(!) when Greitens left office!2601:204:D502:1837:50A5:12C:7C33:EDE4 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems obvious given his resignation. Already seeing some vandalism on site. Also, please don't add the "term_end" date or "succeeded" field until 6/1 at 5 PM, as he remains governor until that time. Mrfeek (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Aye. Just wish it wasn't gold-locked; admittedly, I'm too lazy to request that a comma be inserted, given that it's a minor copyedit at best.. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Please change

On May 29, 2018 Greitens announced that he would resign from office effective 5 pm on Friday, June 1, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Suntrup|first1=Jack and Kurt Erickson|title=Embattled Gov. Eric Greitens resigns|url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-greitens-team-must-turn-over-documents-from-his-dark/article_b3674fa9-5972-529e-b0a2-4c6ca010dc42.html|publisher=St. Louis Post-Dispatch}}</ref>

to

On May 29, 2018, Greitens announced that he would resign from office effective 5 pm on Friday, June 1, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Suntrup|first1=Jack |first2=Kurt |last2=Erickson|title=Embattled Gov. Eric Greitens resigns|url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-greitens-team-must-turn-over-documents-from-his-dark/article_b3674fa9-5972-529e-b0a2-4c6ca010dc42.html|newspaper=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |date=May 29, 2018}}</ref>

— Anomalocaris (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit: Effective "5 PM local time" --Jersey92 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both  Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Is the subject in this movie, Dark Money (film), [1], [2] ? --Malerooster (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dark Money (film), cast

What sources are needed to show Greitens is in Dark Money (film)? Previously used:

• Peng Chen (September 20, 2018). "'Dark Money' filmmaker: political ad decision will be a 'really interesting experiment'". Columbia Missourian. Retrieved 19 November 2018.
• Tony Messenger (August 30, 2018). "Messenger: From Montana to Missouri, dark money is bipartisan scourge on American political system". STLtoday.com. Retrieved 19 November 2018.</ref>

X1\ (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The first source above is about comments by the filmmaker, and says a dark money group supported Greitens' positions, though doesn't say that Greitens is in the film. The second source mentions the film's focus on Montana and an attorney who lost a dark money case there; it says Greitens later hired the attorney, but not that Greitens is in the film. —ADavidB 01:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculously unbalanced

The balance of prose devoted to positive or exculpating information versus criticism is outrageously absurd. Why does the introduction for an article about Eric Greitens talk about the St. Louis city prosecutor at all, much less for a full paragraph? There is more than twice as much space devoted to slandering her (again, in the introduction for an article about Greitens) than there is to the specific criminal charges she brought against the person who the article is actually about.

In the article's body, there are separate sub-sections for each of the two whole years he was governor, and each of those sections is ridiculously long. Compare this to the page for someone like Hillary Clinton, where each term in the Senate gets a subsection, and each one of those terms gets fewer words than the subsections here do for a single year. His not-quite two years get substantially more words than her eight years. Here are facts: he was elected Governor as his first political position, he served less than one half term, and then resigned amid pressure from his own Party in light of multiple criminal investigations. It is unconscionably slanted to blow up the material about his >2 years in state government well beyond what would usually be found for a decade's worth of public service at the national/international level while leaving the material about his scandals and wrongdoing so abrupt by comparison. This has clearly been done to minimize his public downfall, and given how many Greitens operatives have been proven to be editing the article, it's likely a sustained effort to control the public record if he tries to make a come back. This needs to be dealt with.

24.207.186.202 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)MOB

I've trimmed the the lead/introduction section. —ADavidB 08:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed it further. The introduction still takes notable pains to suggest that Greitens is the victim of a conspiracy. It's questionable whether that has place in the article at all, but it certainly doesn't belong in the introduction, where the relevant summary information is that he left under pressure from his Party under shadow of allegations that didn't proceed to trial. There are two separate sub-sections of the article body that extensively deal with controversy over Gardner's propriety. Most of that isn't appropriate for the article either, but at any rate, partisan controversies over a resignation are a level of in-the-weeds detail that doesn't belong in an intro, so at the very least it should stay in the body. Here was the old text, with my notes:

In February 2018, Democratic St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner charged [There only reason to mention the specific attorney and certainly her Party affiliation is to insinuate that he was the victim of a partisan conspiracy] Greitens with felony invasion of privacy relating to alleged actions associated with an extramarital affair he had before becoming governor. He was later charged with campaign-related offenses. All charges were dropped in May 2018, but Greitens resigned from office on June 1[3] after the Missouri Legislature commenced a special session to consider impeachment. Gardner's lead investigator, William Don Tisaby, was charged with seven felonies for perjury and evidence tampering in Greitens' case; Gardner is under criminal investigation for prosecutorial misconduct in the Greitens case.[4][5] [Highly detailed information about potential consequences of the resignation for other people may arguably have a place in the "Aftermath" section, where some information about partisan controversy may be appropriate, but it certainly doesn't belong in the intro for an article about Greitens, which a) should be entirely about Greitens, and b) is supposed to be a broad summary of information. Again the only reason it's here is to insinuate that the charges are false. I added a clause that neutrally states that Greitens and his supporters maintain his innocence, which is the furthest level of detail necessary]. 24.207.186.202 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)MOB

mentioning the tisaby indictment in the summary

As of June 2019, the prosecutor who charged Greitens is the subject of a criminal investigation. The formal indictment of the lead investigator in the Gardner/Greitens case from June 2019 already concedes that the perjury and evidence tampering committed by the prosecution "could substantially affect, or did substantially affect, the course or outcome of the Greitens case.” I feel it's relevant to mention that there is a criminal investigation into the prosecution, this has been unequivocally affirmed by the special prosecutor as late as August 15, 2019. See other pages like Bob McDonnell and Ted Stevens, you'll find mention of the aftermath (investigations into prosecutorial misconduct) Ultimately, the top section should be a summary that's representative of the entire page. I feel that this is pertinent.

Here's the indictment: https://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/perjury-indictment-of-william-don-tisaby/pdf_ea91cbf1-5994-58e8-a517-a25825a6a537.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FJ329 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues with the investigations are already mentioned in the Indictment and Voluntry dismissal subsections. If included in the lead, a single sentence should be sufficient, to the extent it shows significance to Greitens. The indictment you linked makes no direct mention of Greitens. —ADavidB 04:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clearer. You're correct that the indictment doesn't mention Eric Greitens, it is an indictment of the lead investigator in the case and does mention in several places that the prosecution team committed crimes that affected the Greitens case. I think you are right about leaving most of it in the section below and adding a single sentence to the lead, makes it cleaner. Thanks FJ329 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

More bad faith edits

After a while of being fairly okay, the intro section has again been filled in with a bunch of unnecessary information intended to insinuate conspiracy theories about his ouster. Beyond this, it now has patent falsehoods in it. While the Missouri Ethics Commission did not find evidence that Greitens knew of wrongdoing as an individual, it did find wrongdoing in the campaign and it specifically said he is responsible for that wrongdoing whether or not he was prove to know about it, as all three papers of record in the state reported: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Kansas City Star, and the Columbia Missourian--he was then fined for several campaign finance violations. What's more troubling is that the claim that this was an exoneration is a talking point among professional Greitens surrogates. This page is clearly being edited by people employed by Greitens to pave the way for his rumored come back, and I will be reporting this for outside review. 174.86.30.121 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)MOB

MEC order

MEC fine included in wikipedia. Refer to cited information. The MEC's report does explicitly refer to both a fine and an acknowledgment that the MEC found "no evidence of any wrongdoing on the Part of Eric Greitens." CNN covered this in their coverage. Miz2003 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Just the news story

Last week, a story with several relevant developments was published. Greitens himself has been publicly discussing the subject matter. JTN's story includes several dozen pages of primary documents from court filings to videos. I think the characterization of the story is honest and accurate. I would welcome others' opinion but I think it is a recent & important development to the page. I'm not suggesting that the allegations against him be removed, simply that there is balance in what is allowed on page. Happy to discuss further. Heres a link: https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/missouri-case-felled-gop-governor-boomerangs-george-soros-backed Cheers, Miz2003 (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The content you are attempting to add is grossly WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I have strong doubts as to whether the source you're providing meets WP:RS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

1. If these details are unbalanced, I think we have to remove all of the allegations that make up several sections on this page. 2. If there is one factual error please highlight the specific error. I cross checked each detail with the court transcripts and the primary source documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miz2003 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/C2%20Tisaby%20Indictment.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/A3%20K.S.%20Koster%20Relationship.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/Court%20Transcript%20--%20SneedNewman.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/A4%20K.S.%20Nude%20Testimony.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/Traumatized.pdf Miz2003 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel that the edits are fair, all of the allegations (some of which have been disproven) are still listed in explicit details. The documents above seem to support the specific text. Cbeth0190 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast and Just the News are not credible sources. Also, if this edit is reverted, you need to make your writing encyclopedic: don't use ampersands in sentences and spell out numbers under ten. Bkatcher (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources are incredible. Just The News include all of the primary documents to support their arguments. They are source cited in the news story. I suppose, I would ask you to point out a single factual error of the text I added. There were details that were uncorroborated from both The Daily Beast and Just The News, I did not add them for that reason. Miz2003 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the encyclopedic tone. I will change that. On the consensus question, do we have consensus that all the facts are correct? Please note that the sources cited have included original primary sources in their reporting. I cross-checked each fact before adding, but I welcome help if I missed something. Has anyone found any factual errors? Miz2003 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus that the material be added to the article. At least two editors believe the sources do not meet WP:RS (and the related requirements for WP:BLP) standards, and another editor believes that the material violates WP:UNDUE. Unless a consensus emerges to the contrary, do not readd the material to the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted User:Miz2003's edit yesterday. For the record, I concur with previous writers here that WP:UNDUE is present in this user's edits and that the sources do not meet WP:RS. I ask that this user consider the following:

1. He says he was exonerated is not the same as him being exonerated. There is a big difference. If he had been fully exonerated, it would be a major news story in major news outlets. It's not.

2. Still want to push this? Kay. Find better sources. Just the News is not a reliable source. Daily Beast is known for being biased and not being a good source for biographies of living persons. If better sources haven't covered what you're wanting this article to say, that should tell you something.

3. And finally, the most important thing: do not name his victim in this article. Though it has been done here and there (thanks to a shock jock), that is a horrible thing to do. Two years ago she asked for privacy through her attorneys. Whether or not you agree she is a victim, see WP:LPNAME.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39- Please explain why Just the News is not reliable. Public records show that the company was founded recently & is regularly cited on national news. It is run by career journalists who had by-lines in CNN, The Hill, Associated Press, etc. If you actually read the story it has all the court documents & evidence in the story. It appears that your editorial history on this page has been consistently negative against the subject. Miz2003 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Miz2003, thanks for asking for more clarification. One thing you can read: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The first story you referenced on this talk page was coauthored by John Solomon, who is known for writing the very things Wikipedia articles seek to avoid. I don't know about Just the News stories being "regularly cited on national news." I see some questionable grammar on its about page that doesn't scream "quality journalism"... I hope that's enough of a start for you. I advise you to proceed with much thought before you edit the article and reply on the talk page. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The allegations against John Solomon are not proven & entirely unrelated. The text initially cited in this article was completely source cited including court records & primary sources to support their statements in this particular piece. The story was highlighted on Fox News by Gregg Jarrett on Lou Dobbs Tonight. See here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-urtsC6R58. I would encourage you to share any factual errors or an unsubstantiated claims-- I specifically included only parts that I dug through and confirmed by the primary documents. Looking forward to your feedback. Miz2003 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this info about John Solomon does indeed affect whether his work should be used here. The story featured on Fox News was the one coauthored Solomon, so that doesn't work. In terms of bettering your understanding of why that source is not a good reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, I can also point you to WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:REPUTABLE. I can also say that primary sources are not king... As you keep encouraging editors to pick apart your work further: Which of those primary source documents has the victim saying it may have all been a dream? I've looked at them but I'm having trouble locating that statement. Is this a different statement than the coverage I've seen elsewhere? I have seen a source that WIkipedia does deem reliable, PolitiFact, available here, investigating that "it was all just a dream" claim. And I've seen where the victim says it was not a dream. Everything I've seen about the "dream" claim seems to have been an imprecise word choice made by a victim being interviewed about a traumatic event -- and not the (spoiler alert!) Bobby Ewing is alive at the end of the Dallas season kind of dream. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead

I've done some work on the article, especially the lead, in the last few days. The lead seems to be of appropriate length for an article of this size and scope, but the final paragraph has focused a bit much on various prosecutors and investigative bodies (sorry for my poor phrasing; not my usual area). If anyone feels it is appropriate to further amend the lead so it reflects the subject more, I look forward to seeing what you do. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Miz2003, you incorrectly cited WP:UNDUE with your edit that removed vital information from the lead of the article. Of course a lead about a politician who resigned will say why he resigned. You also removed a source about his resignation, leaving part of the lead unsourced. That is borderline disruptive; please refrain from doing so again. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39 See pages of other politicians who resigned from office. The details of the allegations surrounding the subject are mentioned in the lead. Look at Richard Nixon, Eliot Spitzer, etc. I think the summary adequately covers the allegations & scandal. It's also extremely unbalanced to omit mention that all charges were dropped, if you are going to leave it in the lead. Miz2003 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Right... and the lead says that charges were dropped... so... --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39: I would actually agree here with Miz2003's edits to the first sentence specifically. In addition to the above pages on Nixon and Spitzer, other government officials who have controversies attached to them tend to not have those controversies described in the first sentence – for example, Jim Mattis, Donald Trump, Al Franken, Bill Clinton, etc. Reading MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST, I think including "after a string of corruption allegations and felony charges" is too broad and that part should be taken out. Keep the fact that he resigned and the dates of course, but the fourth paragraph describes the allegations and the charges rather well on its own. Central Midfielder (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Central Midfielder: Miz2003's edit was reverted because s/he removed a reference, inappropriately citingWP:UNDUE in making that edit. It was the most recent in a history of editing this article without consensus, adding unreliable sources, etc. Your pointing to sections in the manual of style is more helpful. The scope of Nixon's career was such that it can't be compared to Greitens as Greitens has held one office; Nixon did many other notable things and held other offices. Clinton was similarly more accomplished politically and his tenure did not end in his resignation. The Trump article is protected and he has not resigned or left office, so the jury is still out on his lead, but it'll probably follow the standard one for presidents; Jim Mattis' resignation was a very different thing; Spitzer is closer to apples:apples. I also looked at two others (Anthony Weiner, Al Franken) and it does seem like the first sentence could be edited as you say. But the details of his resignation should absolutely remain in the lead as they are in other articles, as Miz2003 has edited against and yet argued for on this talk page. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39: Yeah, totally. I just wanted to say that I can see how it's UNDUE to mention "string of corruption allegations and felony charges" in the first sentence, since to most readers that implies guilt, when he personally seems to have been cleared of wrongdoing. And that's why, I think, other articles also try to stay away from being too specific in the first sentence. I do agree that we shouldn't necessarily compare articles since every individual has their own life story and, obviously, the details of his resignation need to remain in the lead. Central Midfielder (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Central Midfielder: It's best not to address it in the first sentence at all, then, as one party will (and has, in the lead) claimed exoneration while multiple reliable sources don't quite back that up--but people can read on if they want the details of all that. I think the lead is in good enough shape for now. Thank you for your input! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39: You're right on that aspect as well, of course. I don't believe exoneration for one second − just trying to be impartial and factual. Central Midfielder (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Central Midfielder: GOtcha. I just made a few other changes to the lead (fresher eyes than when I was looking at it about a month ago). I don't know that it communicates the complexities properly, but until another development happens, I'm not sure it can be updated in a balanced fashion. Please share if you have further recommendations. And thanks for discussing here too! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39: I think how it reads is good, thanks for putting in a lot of work on this article! Central Midfielder (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resignation

Under the "Affair and invasion of privacy charge" section, Greitens's resignation and prosecutor's office deal is repeated twice, once under "Voluntary dismissal of criminal charges" and once under "Impeachment session and resignation". Same citations are used and the language is almost identical... Seems reasonable to keep that information under "Impeachment session and resignation" and not repeat it twice in a matter of a few paragraphs...

Greitens also seems to claim that there was no plea deal and that the dismissal of charges wasn't a part of a deal. Not the most reliable source, I know... But probably worth including or at least retitling the "Voluntary dismissal of criminal charges" to "Dismissal of criminal charges".47.205.220.85 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you were reverted for changing the URL in one of the sources, and there's been a lot of IP vandalism happening in the past week so don't take it personally. I'm gonna assume good faith and that the edit to Riverfront Times was a mistake. Thanks for pointing out the repetition. A lot of the information, of course, overlaps when it comes to the resignation and the reasons for his resignation, but I agree with you that it should probably not be repeated twice within a few paragraphs and placing it in the resignation section is better in order to follow chronology. On the second matter, I don't think it's a good idea to include the Evans News Report link that you posted, because I don't see how it is a reliable source. But I also agree that dropping "voluntary" is a good idea. It's a more neutral heading if nothing else. Central Midfielder (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References