Jump to content

Talk:Gentner Drummond

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 19:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Wife

[edit]

Currently married to Wendy Drummond,[2] but in 1991 was married to someone named Catherine.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the Tulsa World archives and found the same thing. I can't find any divorce date, but around 2007/2008 reports on their philanthropy switch from listing Gentner and Catherine together to just Gentner. I also couldn't find a marriage date. I did find a marriage announcement for Gentner and Wendy from 2010 through. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political Giving

[edit]

Drummond's unusually bipartisan political giving and specifically the alleged donation to Biden was a huge focus of the 2022 Republican primary and the subject of millions of dollars of competing ads. Also it's unusual for a Republican candidate. I wholeheartedly agree that would be inappropriate to cite the Daily Caller as a basis for reporting, but here it is cited as an example of right wing media response and the scope of attention his giving drew, which is a permissible reason for citing such material per wikipedia guidelines. Clowncar1 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presumably accidental airbrushing and streamlining of the donation pattern obscures its distinctiveness--e.g., longstanding opposition to major Oklahoma elected officials like Coburn and Inhofe--and seems to tell an incomplete version of the picture. it also leaves out bona fide donations in state races as recently as 2018. It wasn't just the retracted biden donation that was the subject of controversy--it was also the opposition to Coburn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowncar1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."" In the section in question there are two citations to the FEC which are actually WP:NOR issues; they are primary sources and we want to avoiding using primary sources in favor of secondary sources. Stringing them together with the WP:DAILYCALLER source is pretty close to WP:Synth and with a WP:Deprecated sources. The only favorable source is the Tulsa World article, which only references his 2013 donation, which I still included in the article but moved into the 2022 primary section. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the Oklahoma State equivalent of FEC filings has the same WP:NOR issues. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Original Research tag to section until consensus on talk page reached. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out. It is too much based on primary documents and besides, how is this not WP:NOTNEWS? Political attacks get thrown around. I'm going to trim more of the back-and-forth politicking that is not encyclopedic from the 2022 election part too. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THis wasn't politicking this was a major issue and it's a hugely distinguishing characteristic from virtually every other statewide office holder in oklahoma. The Daily caller article was offered as an example of it being covered in the conservative media, again, not as original reporting. FEC records are routinely cited on wikipedia and not considered original reporting: search FEC.gov on the wikipedia domain and you will get thousands of hits including the same usage as contemplated here. finally what is with the airbrushing of his widely reported professional controversies--this should not be image control for a candidate if these were things that were material political considerations and widely covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowncar1 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise there is no reason to remove the reference to a dynasty. the term dynasty conveys operative continuity across generations, like is meant here. it's not a ranching family in that some ranched and some banked--the point isn't that they ranched together but that there is remarkable, impressive cross-generational continuity.

removing the molly tibbetts reference is not correct--the description was very non-pov and cited both national and local news sources attesting to its significance: major figures weighed in which did not, for example, endorse in the second primary--further attesting to the significance of the widely reported and heated controversy.

Finally it does not make sense to speak of a political career when one has not held office any more than it would to speak of an athletic career if one had merely tried out. the point of the political giving is that it was widely reported on, the subject of millions of dollars of ads, and it is very unusual for an oklahoma republican. arguably it was the dominant expression of his political views for decades leading up to his run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowncar1 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted some good faith edits that try to achieve the consensus. Search wikipedia--the FEC and similar government websites are not considered a forbidden or discouraged primary source and are cited on the pages of a number of politicians and political candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowncar1 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm a little concerned the use of "scion" and "dynasty", since they aren't used by the source cited, might be WP:NPOV issues. What do other editors think?
Second, I agree on including the Tibbetts references. There are multiple sources covering the issue.
Third, "political career" is used for consistency with other articles.
Finally, if the political giving was widely reported, cite the reporting. The issue with citing FEC docs is you're not citing reporting, you're WP:SYNTH the FEC sources with reporting to make your point. Remember, from WP:NOR, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that all of these edits are in good faith. I would leave out some of these campaign issues but if you both think they should be included, I won't force the issue. I do agree with TulsaPoliticsFan about SYNTH with the FEC. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at the "scion" and "dynasty" sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good. fifth-generation should capture the sense of familiar longevity the other terms convey without WP:NPOV issues. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think something like sworn testimony that he urged a client to lie in 2013 relates more to his legal career than his 2018 campaign. Also it's obvious that the jury award wasn't about an attorney's conduct, that's how the american system works and it's an empty-nothing-burger of a quote. Likewise it's a bit empty to say he was the subject of attack ads and subsequent media coverage--the reporting on the testimony and the widow scandal preceded the attack ads. Clowncar1 (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC) also, witness participated in the trial as a juror and attorney, just not a litigant TulsaPoliticsFan-check the article.[reply]

I think it's important to clarify that none of these scandals resulted in attorney misconduct charges or malpractice suits for WP:NPOV (WP:NPOV is especially important since we're covering scandals and living persons). I'm not convinced that "it's obvious that the jury award wasn't about an attorney's conduct" to a lay reader with little experience with the American legal system. This is an international English wikipedia and assuming familiarity with the American legal system hurts the article quality for non-American readers. None of the sources give dates for attack ads, so its hard to verify (WP:V) which one came first four years later looking back at media coverage. You may be right that the reporting predates the attack ads, but we don't have any WP:RS to verify that.
As for the location in the article, if you feel strongly about including it under legal career, we can leave it there. But since all the coverage is in the context of the 2018 election, it seems to me that is the better place for covering the issue. Especially considering the incident was only reported on after the campaign. Also I think you mistyped the last sentence and I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "witness participated in the trial as a juror and attorney, just not a litigant." If by witness you mean Drummond, he was definitely not a juror and attorney. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I'm concerned that we need to be more careful in the coverage of the scandals. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (Emphasis added). A lot of these scandals lack multiple WP:RS and may need to be removed if there aren't additional sources. We also need to keep in mind "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is too much and I intend to cut it down. Aside from the "scandals" themselves, the article currently includes various attacks made at a debate. Why do we have that? I believe much of this is WP:UNDUE and a BLP problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be a bad idea to move some of the content to the election pages? Neither article (2022 Oklahoma Attorney General election and 2018 Oklahoma state elections) currently discusses the primary at all and just summarizes results. The Mollie Tibbetts scandal seems notable for the 2018 primary page (local coverage+national coverage+murder has own wikipage) and the McGirt decision was a huge part of the 2022 primary with substantial coverage.
Legal Career Section: I don't think either the 2013 legal scandal or the 2015 one meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE currently and should be removed. As for the 2019 federal suit, I think it's probably WP:UNDUE absent evidence of more coverage by WP:RS. The PPP loan stuff is interesting, but there really isn't any accusations or controversy in the article so it reads WP:UNDUE to me as well absent further coverage.
Political Career Section: For the 2018 section, I suggest we move most of the election commentary content to the 2018 election page, keeping just the short results summary on this page. It's a historical election page, so some summary of the primary would be in line with style and less likely to incite vandalism.
I'm hesitant to move the 2022 election content to the election page now since its an ongoing election and ongoing elections usually don't summarize primaries. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu TulsaPoliticsFan the scandals are not mere attacks in a debate but factual reporting by the state's leading newspaper on such matters as sworn testimony that Drummond encouraged someone to lie to a court, reporting on a federal lawsuit involving the destruction of 40,000 trees (uncontested and Drummond's rationale is offered), and the widow allegations which were reported on factually and then were the subject of a lot of campaign discourse. keep in mind too, that this is a relatively small state which in recent years has few fully staffed newspapers, so there is only going to be so much reporting, as opposed to say state politics in larger state or media market like New York, Texas, Missouri, Florida. The sourcing and citations here are consistent with those of other Oklahoman and small-state politicians. As for debate attacks--it seems more than reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia principles to cover campaign controversies which have a biographical dimension and a newsworthy, verifiable claim. This is consistent with coverage of other candidates and their races. For example, a common critique of Drummond (by editorial boards, opposing candidates, other attorneys) relates to alleged unethical or dishonest behavior evidenced by specific factual circumstances. Including the objective reporting on that--like reporting on Trump's alleged racism or insurrectionary tendencies--and the given defense would seem to provide important context for objectively understanding a political figure. I think it's reasonable to keep as much in as possible--all of this is balanced and encyclopedic and includes Drummond's responses where they exist. I hope we can leave in as much as possible. Thanks both for your help in building a comprehensive and balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowncar1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:Publicfigure issue I have is that reporting on scandals like this need to have multiple sources for verification in order to not violate WP:BLP.
For example, Jose Cruz (Oklahoma politician) resigned after a sexual assault scandal. It was reported by The Oklahoman, NonDoc, Oklahoma City Free Press, and local broadcast news for OKC. There are multiple sources, all in agreement on the facts, making it easy to verify and include. The paragraph on Cruz's scandal is shorter than some of the paragraphs we've ended up with and includes 3x the sources.
Here, we have largely one source presenting each scandal creating WP:BLP issues. Editing to try and keep the one source scandals in line with WP:BLP (which is impossible considering WP:PUBLICFIGURE) is creating WP:UNDUE issues. In its current form, it probably violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I'm open to including the information, but I just don't think its currently well researched enough to overcome its issues.
While it's possible additional research could overcome the WP:BLP issues, it may make the WP:UNDUE issue worse. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clowncar1, please cite wiki policy. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. WP:BLP is stringent about not just including allegations, such as regarding unethical or dishonest behavior, without really strong sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but I don't get removal of the discussion of the sworn testimony about his encouraging a client to lie. The sourcing seems strong--there was a judge's decision quoted and sworn testimony which was reported on by the state's biggest newspaper. The existence of sworn testimony (which was acknowledged by a judge acting in an official capacity) that a candidate for the state's top legal role encouraged a client to lie--violating both the law and professional ethics--is undeniably consequential and it's hard to imagine what more documentation would be needed beyond sworn testimony, a quote from the party, a quote from the judge and reporting by the state's biggest newspaper (in a state where extraordinarily few outlets have a capitol bureau). I'm open to discussing it fairly--I included Drummond's response, but it seems germane, noteworthy, and capable of being covered in a fair manner on the facts presented. Moreover, it ties into the prominence of the noted Drummond family, for whom TulsaPoliticsFan created a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowncar1 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valuing your perspective, I've made further edits in response to your suggestions (esp.WP:Undue), but again, User: TulsaPoliticsFan User: Muboshgu please see the points below and above which are responsive to all of the concerns raised. In general, I think both of you have done a superb job of contributing to this and other pages, so this argument is made by someone who appreciates your contributions and aims to make this page as comprehensive and accurate as possible.
To your point there is actually strong sourcing: reporting by state's largest newspaper, sworn testimony predating Drummond's political candidacies by years, a decree from an Oklahoma Judge (quoted). One citation is not once source, as is frequently mentioned in so many words on these talk pages (cite counts are not the same as sources etc.). There is zero verifiability concern. In the interests of fairness, Drummond's side absolutely should be and is also covered and the reporting should be on the existence of testimony. The existence of the testimony is not challenged by anyone and Drummond's response to it speaks to its significance.
The two large newspapers in the state actually often share political reporting these days and from databases it appears this story may have also ran in other state newspapers, attesting to editors' assessment of its newsworthiness. The newsworthiness of sworn testimony from a prominent lawyer's own client (i.e., made under penalty of perjury) that her lawyer, who years later is seeking the highest legal office in the state, urged the client to lie while in private practice is obviously and transparently newsworthy, just as sworn testimony from the past pointing to a sheriff candidate allegedly being involved in criminal activity would be...it directly relates to the office Drummond now seeks and his credentials for such position. Finally, the fact that it comes from a family member who he represented as a client and relates to the "pull" of the Drummond family is also newsworthy as he brands himself as part of a prominent Oklahoma family with a legacy of stewardship and has gone into the family businesses (that being the family for which User: TulsaPoliticsFan created the page. A lesser issue, which still points in favor of newsworthiness but not as much as the ones I've mentioned, is that also goes to a persistent campaign critique of unethical behavior raised now in multiple primaries.
Again, this certainly should be handled sensitively in keeping with WP:BLP. User: TulsaPoliticsFan has made edits with that in mind, which I think could be sensibly incorporated.
If you think this can be covered in a more appropriate way that doesn't sacrifice accuracy or obscure its relevance, please propose language. If briefer coverage would mitigate WP:Undue concerns, this could certainly be abridged, but to sum up, this 1)raises no verifiability concerns, 2) gives both sides, 3) relates directly to the office he seeks, 4) ties into basically every aspect upon which Drummond has premised and branded his candidacy (his legal experience, his opposition to alleged elite corruption, and his family's values and legacy). Clowncar1 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There appears to be a periodic effort to launder the description of his legal career from controversies involving his attempts to (per sworn testimony from his relative and client) leverage his prominent name and disingenuously shutout media. I don't know if this is motivated editing or what but it seems a consensus emerges and then someone pops back up to whitewash the depiction. Clowncar1 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN archive [4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need consensus to reinstate any disputed material per WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS. You did not obtain this in the last discussion in the previous section. You had two editors objecting to the material there, and I agree with their position from my comments at BLPN . Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your attention to this article. I've made some edits in good faith, hoping to arrive at a consensus (including adding reporting on another incident). The previous language, from a contributor who has added lots of good things to this article, is incorrect and it's reasonable to be concerned that a number of motivated editors could create the appearance of consensus in favor of bad language.
It's important to read the source material, digest the context so as to represent it correctly, and get the terminology right. The proposed language says his tactics "have been criticized [spelling corrected] by Oklahoma media outlets". But these were generally news reports about factual matters, not editorials and the criticism came from not just the media, but from jurors and his own client who gave sworn testimony (seemingly newsworthy) that the state's leading law enforcement officer told her to lie to the court. It's not his "tactics" but his "ethics" that have drawn criticism (none of the critics address tactics as tactics).
The emphasis is not "undue". The stories cited in this section regarding his representation of family members speak to his integrity and truthfulness as an officer of the court: this was a central issue in two elections, as well as germane to his professional and ethical responsibilities as attorney general.
thank you again Clowncar1 (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues with the recent edits you made. First is your insertion of the quote that Drummond "has displayed interests adverse to our legal interests and our policy interests" to explain why Standing Bear conditioned his support for Drummond on Drummond's promise to never again bring a case affecting the Osage Mineral Estate.[5] That quote was in another paragraph and is in response to whether he believes Drummond could "repair the tattered relationship between tribal nations and Oklahoma". Your inserted quote to explain his motive is WP:OR because it implies a conclusion not stated by the source. Second the insertion of details about the divorce case[6] is WP:UNDUE and doesn't satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Only one major RS reported the details, The Oklahoman.[7] FOI Oklahoma is a blog by a transparency advocacy group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gentner_Drummond&oldid=1256150693"