Jump to content

Talk:Greg Gianforte/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Not Wikipedia bio

Generally a cut-n-paste of corporate promotion is not a good fit for Wikipedia. Some of it was reworked already, and I tried some more. For example, doubt he had much to do with brightwork (did not decorate boats?), clouds (did not observe weather?) nor solutions (not a chemist?). W Nowicki (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Creationism page of Wikipedia states that "Creation science refers to the pseudoscience movement in the United States.[1]"EcoRover (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IN the news

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Billings Gazette retracts endorsement of Gianforte: http://billingsgazette.com/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion-we-re-pulling-our-endorsement-of-gianforte/article_34d90b42-545b-5e10-9355-605b7c5cb11f.html?=dtgrsdz

Missoulian Rescinds endorsement of Gianforte: http://missoulian.com/opinion/editorial/missoulian-rescinds-gianforte-endorsement/article_ab947a9d-9220-5dc5-9193-f1ae9ef03c60.html

I have just modified 3 external links on Greg Gianforte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

YEC and Social Security

@Snooganssnoogans: I strongly disagree with your edits regarding Gianforte's support for young Earth creationism and the section regarding "Social Security" (which has nothing to do with SS).

Concerning the YEC section, my reason for removing it is not because it says "pseudoscientific" (even though I think it's unnecessary and POV) as you claimed. I removed it because it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The article mentions Gianforte's contributions to the YEC museum three other times in the article. And you think it doesn't mention it enough? Also, describing the museum's beliefs has nothing to do with Gianforte. This article is about Gianforte, not about YEC.

Regarding the "Social security and retirement" section, all you're doing is adding a quotation about Gianforte talking about why he thinks people should not retire. And for some reason, you say that this his position on Social Security, even though Gianforte only says that Noah "wasn't like, cashing Social Security checks, he wasn't hanging out, he was working." He is only using Social Security, as an illustration, to show that retirement is a recent development in history and that people are better off without it. His political position on Social Security (whether he supports it, supports expansion, or supports elimination) has nothing to do with the quote. In fact, that quote is not even political. Why are you considering his position on retirement a "political position"? (YEC is also not a political position).

You realize the Gianforte is a current political candidate? His article definitely should not be biased in his favor, but it also should not be an attack piece put together by Rob Quist's campaign. Your edits are making the article a political attack piece (and I am not accusing you of a COI). If we do not solve this dispute, I will report this article either to WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You have not responded, even though I pinged you and you have been editing in the meantime, so I removed your inappropriate contributions. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Gianforte comments on both retirement and social security. Nothing is misrepresented; in fact, his whole quote is presented for readers to read for themselves. Bizarre scientific illiterate beliefs are commonplace in the political positions sections of politicians who happen to hold scientifically illiterate beliefs. I think it would be perfect if you'd take this to dispute resolution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Gianforte only states that "He wasn't like, cashing Social Security checks, he wasn't hanging out, he was working." SS is clearly just a way of illustrating that Noah did not retire. This is a sneaky attempt to cast Gianforte as opposing Social Security when he says nothing about it (saying the words "Social Security" does not automatically qualify a quote to be about SS; the context clearly shows otherwise).
The YEC info is mentioned three other times. Of course we should not whitewash an article, but this is going too far in the other direction. I will go to WP:DRN. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: On second thought, I will go to WP:NPOVN. My concerns about this article are NPOV, and WP:DRN states that a long talk page discussion is required to request assistence there. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I just did a run-through of the changes made to this article over the last 30 days or so. Basically, this version is the result. I did chop out all the little subheadings on each individual policy position and did a bit of rearranging and cleanup, a few minor rephrases here are there. As it sits, the content is accurate, verifiable, and though I think it's a bit quote heavy and in places a bit redundant, it is not in too bad of shape. I think it is reasonably fair, if anything, it leans slightly favorable. We will probably all need to be on vandal patrol though. If the comment sections of local papers are any indication, we will be seeing vandalism such as "Gianfarty" show up any day now (sigh). Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Content

The content below was removed from the article:

1)"Gianforte opposes the sale or transfer of federal land."

According to the source (Independent Record): "Gianforte takes a hard line against the sale or transfer of federal lands."

2) "Gianforte has stated that he supports government enforcement of nondiscrimination for workers, but not for customers."

According to the source (Billings Gazette): "Clarifying his position on rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, Republican candidate for governor Greg Gianforte endorsed nondiscrimination for workers Friday, but not for customers."

I don't see the issue with either.Amberwaves (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a complete misrepresentation of what just happened. You removed reliably sourced text and replaced the text with those sentences above. If your text is reliably souced, then please add it. Just do not remove other reliably sourced text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
How is this a mis-representation? You removed the content above. However, it doesn't sounds like you have an objection to the content per se. I provided explanations for my removal of the content you added in the edit summaries.Amberwaves (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Your explanation for the removal was false: the content that you removed was in those sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In 2 instances, I believe the content is not indicated in the sources. In the third instance the reference doesn't warrant inclusion in the article summary.Amberwaves (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
One solution here is to add the |quote= parameter to the source citation and insert the precise content used. Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Assault on Ben Jacobs

He looks like ge just assaulted a reporter. Need to add as sources become available. Casprings (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

http://thehill.com/media/335052-reporter-alleges-that-montana-gop-candidate-bodyslammed-him Casprings (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Next report with audio: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/greg-gianforte-bodyslams-reporter-ben-jacobs-montana?CMP=edit_2221

Waiting for the video. Javert2113 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The trolls will be posting and vandalizing the article... probably should protect the page for confirmed users to edit only... Cllgbksr (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely, as I've said earlier: let's protect and, if needed, lock this page. (After all, the wrestling jokes are only so funny.) Javert2113 (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thought this should be put here for when it's agreed the article needs to include this info

On May 24, 2017, the day before the election, Gianforte allegedly physically assaulted Ben Jacobs, a political reporter for The Guardian newspaper, who was covering the election.[1][2][3] and knocked him to the ground. Gianforte's staffers have disputed the claims citing Jacobs was blocking Gianforte's exit which resulted in tripping. However, an audio recording of the incident and eyewitness reports by another reporter who was present[4] appear to support Jacobs' claim that he was "bodyslammed" by Gianforte[1]

It's far too early to determine the importance of this. The facts are also not clear at this point. In fact, it sounds like the reporter may have trespassed. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.Amberwaves (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is obviously the most significant event of the campaign, with immediate coverage from CNN[1], ABC[2], Time[3], WaPo[4], USA Today (already in article) etc. The reporter is not a crank and writes for a respectable outlet, even if it has a left lean. Whether it belongs in the lede is a different issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's massively important, and may lead to the filing of criminal charges. It should be included.PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. There is an actual audio recording and eyewitness reports. This is not random speculation.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The current content in the article is plenty sufficient to address this until definitive information becomes available and the importance is known.Amberwaves (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Definitive information is known. By not including the eyewitness report, the statement by Gianforte is being given equal weight as the statement by the reporters, which is a pretty bad case of forced both-siderism. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
How is a recording not definitive? | MK17b | (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
While a story regarding an alleged assault might not merit inclusion in the lede of most articles, given the timing and the fact that this person is essentially noteworthy solely because of the election, I believe it absolutely should be in the lede. Blauney (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

refs

  1. ^ a b Wong, Julia Carrie (25 May 2017). "Republican candidate 'body-slams' Guardian reporter in Montana". Guardian. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
  2. ^ "Reporter alleges Greg Gianforte 'body slammed' him in Bozeman". Bozeman Daily Chronicle. 25 May 2017. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
  3. ^ Jacobs, Ben [@Bencjacobs] (2017-05-24). "Greg Gianforte just body slammed me and broke my glasses" (Tweet). Retrieved 2017-05-24 – via Twitter.
  4. ^ Levinson, Alexis [@alexis_levinson] (2017-05-24). "All of a sudden I heard a giant crash and saw Ben's feet fly in the air as he hit the floor" (Tweet). Retrieved 2017-05-24 – via Twitter.

"incredibly small"

The phrase "incredibly small" is blatantly opinionated and not proper for an encyclopedia article. I don't have privileges to edit this article. To anybody who does have such privileges: Please edit that wording. [Comment posted May 24, 2017.]

Changed | MK17b | (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Audio + Buzzfeed Reporter Account

How are we not mentioning audio and account from Buzzfeed News journalist (formerly NRO) which appear to clearly contradict campaign's official statement? | MK17b | (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking Amberwaves, honestly wondering, why should a campaign statement with clear incentive to deceive, receive more prominence than recording of actual incident? | MK17b | (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Support: This is obviously important, and should be included in the lead as well. It's front page news on almost every media outlet, and may dramatically change the race. It's a no-brainer.

Add if multiple high-quality sources use the same language: Don't be lazy. Read a few high-quality RS on the subject and use the language that those sources use. The Audio and Buzzfeed won't stand scrutiny. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: Multiple national WP:RS are covering this.Casprings (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point I'm not going to argue against inclusion of some mention of this incident. The current version seems neutral and sufficient. Speculation is not warranted here.Amberwaves (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not 'some mention of this incident'. Mentioning that there is an audio recording of the incident seems crucial to the event. | MK17b | (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The existence of an audio recording in and of itself isn't relevant and neither is speculation about what it means. Let's wait for definitive statements by reliable sources that aren't directly involved.Amberwaves (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
A reporter from Buzzfeed news was present at the scene. Not sure why her statement is not good enough.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong supportWithout this audio recording the incident would not be receiving significant media coverage the night before the election. It is crucial to the election outcome and of course needs to be included in this article. Including the fact their is an audio recording in the public domain does not adversely affect the neutrality of the article, it is the evidence for this incident taking place. carls12 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS sources clearly state that the audio backs the reporters claim

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/greg-gianforte-bodyslams-reporter-ben-jacobs-montana?CMP=edit_2221

"Scanlon’s account appears to be contradicted by audio of the abortive interview recorded by Jacobs. The audio does not capture Jacobs being asked to leave or lower his recorder, but does contain an apparent reference to the Guardian’s previous attempts to report on Gianforte. “I’m sick and tired of you guys,” Gianforte said. “The last guy who came here did the same thing. Get the hell out of here. Get the hell out of here. The last guy did the same thing. Are you with the Guardian?”"

Can we please stop reverting claims that are clearly supported by WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian is not an objective or reliable source here by a long shot.Amberwaves (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the Guardian on a Guardian reporter's allegations. It is more reasonable to use language from high-quality RS that happen to be uninvolved in the event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That is a completely ridiculous position. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Amberwaves will be blocked shortly for blatant edit warring. We can continue after that.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Go with The NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/gop-candidate-in-montana-house-race-is-accused-of-attacking-reporter.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share "In a statement, Mr. Gianforte’s spokesman offered a strikingly different version of events — and one at odds with Mr. Jacobs’s recording."Casprings (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)@Casprings, Amberwaves, and Snooganssnoogans:Again, for the third time, strong support of inclusion in the lead because this is headline news on CNN. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. That works for me. I'll restore that.Amberwaves (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Fox News and other reporters in the room said that Gianforte was lying" ?

lying about what? Kingturtle = (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The spokesperson statement. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Foxnews account: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html

"At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of "I'm sick and tired of this!"

Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. He then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left.

To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff's deputies. "Casprings (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Gianforte not an engineer

The lead sentence says, "Greg Richard Gianforte (born April 17, 1961) is an American engineer and businessman." But actually Gianforte has never been an engineer. He does have a college degree in engineering, but that in itself does not automatically make him an engineer. For example, a person who has a college degree in psychology is not necessarily a psychologist. By the way, Gianforte is currently most well known as a politician -- which isn't even mentioned in that lead sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.66.92 (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not base articles on the WP:OR of an anonymous contributor (or a registered editor, for that matter.) See news stories which call him an engineer: CNN says "Gianforte, an engineer and businessman,..." The Blaze says "Gianforte is an engineer and businessman.." National Public Radio quoted the candidate ""I look forward to taking my engineering skills, my ability to do math and the ability to find common ground with people with different views to have a good outcome for both sides, back to D.C. to work with Donald Trump, to drain the swamp and make America great again," Gianforte said to applause." The Missoulan] said "An engineer and an entrepreneur, Gianforte has also been a philanthropist through the Gianforte Family Foundation, donating to causes that further employment, education and entrepreneurship, as well as arts and culture, family programs and Christian outreach. A heart of faith and the mind of an entrepreneurial engineer is an appealing combination in a representative. " Your claim that he "has never been an engineer" is unsupported. When he got an engineering degree he qualified to be called an engineer. Reliable news sources have called him an engineer. You will have to provide reliable sources which support your opinion as to what one has to do to be called an engineer. Otherwise, leave the "engineer description in the article. Edison (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Montana is a state that requires licensing to be called an engineer. https://d6s74no67skb0.cloudfront.net/course-material/MT101-Montana-Rules-Statutes-and-Ethics-for-Professional-Engineers.pdf Morty C-137 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources referring to him as an engineer outweigh your interpretation of a primary legal document. And you could at least cite what section and on what page in a 96 page document you base your claim on. Edison (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Having paged through your document, it describes the requirements in the state for one to be called a "Licensed professional engineer" with the right to offer consulting services to the public, and to sign reports and to stamp his seal on blueprints. I agree with you that there is no evidence he was licensed as a professional engineer. The document notes that one can work as an engineer in his own company, doing engineering work for himself. Missoula News, by the way, said "Gianforte is an electrical engineer." the Spokesman said "Quist’s main opponent is Republican Greg Gianforte, a Bozeman engineer and entrepreneur who in 2011 sold his software company for $1.5 billion." Edison (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war regarding intro section

Would it be acceptable to reduce the leading mention of the assault to a single sentence, and leave the rest of the explanation to later in the body of the article? At least for now. People hearing about this will come to the article, and having something there lets them know Wikipedia is covering the incident. On the other hand, it is a bit much currently. Whenever this stops being a current event, we could discuss it again. —Guanaco 02:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. That works for me.Amberwaves (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with the compromise. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This is being widely covered in a variety of media outlets now, it is deserving of a paragraph in the lead as it is primarily what this small-time politician is now (in)famous for. TheValeyard (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the long-term impact, a sentence is enough in the lede for now. He hasn't been (formally) accused of anything. WP:NOTNEWS, and we should be extra careful because he is a candidate in an election tomorrow. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Has been widely reported with an on the record statement from Fox News reporters. I'll add the content to the body of the article, instead of the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It belongs in the body of the article, not the lead. There is literally no other detail about the special election in the lead, so there it is undue weight to put it in the lead.XavierGreen (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh there's no question it belongs in the lead. @XavierGreen: please self-revert. I believe your removal of that text is against consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
And why does it belong in the lead, when literally no other detail regarding either of his campaigns is mentioned? If there were other details regarding his gubernatorial campaign or his current congressional campaign mentioned, i don't think it would be a problem. But to single it out alone in the lead is clearly undue weight, since it only constitutes a relatively small portion of the article itself. The lead is not supposed to be a "news style lead" |per the manual of style, just because the issue is hot in the news right now doesnt mean it deserves a place in the lead of the article.XavierGreen (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I commented below: Talk:Greg_Gianforte#Proposed_compromise.2C_again. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From MOS:LEAD:
  • "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
  • "All but the shortest articles should start with Introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies,..."
  • "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves."
  • "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective."
I'm thinking a candidate being cited for assaulting a reporter the day before the election does seem kind of historic.... Shearonink (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Focus on the Family

In my personal opinion, the header should include Christian fundamentalism, not just a generic header of Christianity. There's a big different in belief between Gianforte and Barack Obama, even if they are considered both "Christians" on Wikipedia. Focus on the Family and Answers in Genesis clearly fall under Christian fundamentalism. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Your personal opinion has nothing to do with it.Amberwaves (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This isn't an opinion, they are proudly Christian fundamentalists. They believe that the Bible is literal, and are Young Earth Creationists. It is a much better summary, and in much fewer words. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@PerfectlyIrrational:no Oppose. See WP:LABEL. Fundamentalist is right there. Amberwaves is right. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "allegedly"

The Wikipedia article says Gianforte "allegedly" assaulted reporter Ben Jacobs. The word "allegedly" is not appropriate because the assault has been reported as fact in a news article published by Fox News, which is a well-established news outlet. Indeed, the Fox News reporter witnessed the incident. In that news article, Fox News reports the following: Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands; Gianforte slammed Jacobs into the ground; Gianforte punched Jacobs; and Jacobs did not show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html


According to Wikipedia's BLP policy:

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.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

In this case, Greg denies the allegations, even though multiple major newspapers are publishing the allegations. So per this example, the word "allegedly" should be added.

Doughnutguy (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • If FOX unequivocally says a Republican politician assaulted someone, there is a decent case for debating the "allegedly" and perhaps inserting "already found guilty by the Supreme Court of Fox News (Hannity dissenting)."--Milowent • hasspoken 04:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's now a criminal charge, and all criminal offenses are alleged until proven guilty. We can't say Gianforte committed a crime unless he's been convicted of that crime in a court of law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not a closed door matter like an affair though. The victim, multiple onlookers, and the audio recording all corroborate the same version of events.

"Allegedly" dilutes the facts. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Allegedly" is highly misleading and legally inaccurate. There is concrete evidence + he admitted to the act himself. Anyone who re-inserts the word allegedly is doing so for a political agenda (probably pro-Trump), not for Wikipedia's factual accuracy. --Politika92 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Restrictions outlined

Page is under 1RR—not 3RR—and is also subject to the consensus clause. Edit accordingly. Admins will take a dim view of any and all edit warring. Thanks. El_C 04:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Language Regarding Alleged Assault

Considering that Gianforte has not been formally charged, arrested or brought to trial, and that his campaign has accused Jacobs himself of physical provocation of the incident, the following language at the end of the introduction is biased, non-neutral and misleading:

"On the day before the 2017 special election, Gianforte was accused of assaulting a reporter. If convicted, Gianforte faces up to six months in county jail.[6]"

I have removed it. Please keep the article free of partisan speculation concerning legal matters, before the facts are available, especially if it violates Wikipedia policy on articles concerning living persons and libel. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: this removal diff -- How is that non neutral? The subject was charged with a misdemeanor assault by the appropriate authorities and was issued a citation. This is no longer speculation or an "alleged" assault. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You are legally misinformed. Unless and until Gianforte is tried and convicted of a crime, it is indeed an "alleged" crime. Gianforte was not arrested but was issued a citation to appear in court. I repeat, unless and until he is tried and convicted of a crime, it is an "alleged" assault. In the U.S. legal system, all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

As I also mentioned, his campaign has accused Jacobs himself of physically provoking the incident, which is not mentioned in the article. This all constitutes non-neutral and possibly libelous language which violates Wikipedia policy.

At the very least, even if the first sentence is preserved regarding the alleged assault, the second sentence containing speculation on Gianforte's possible sentence, if convicted, should most certainly be removed and kept out of the article. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The language removed was reflective of the statement from the Sherif's Department: Update on assault investigation:
  • On the day before the 2017 special election, Gianforte was charged with assault by the the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office following an incident involving Gianforte and a reporter. If convicted, Gianforte faces up to six months in county jail.
I concur that the speculation on the potential sentence should stay out, but the rest is a matter of public record. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I like this version better than mine, but I'm fine with either. —Guanaco 06:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed compromise, again

Gianforte's Congressional campaign became embroiled in controversy after he allegedly assaulted reporter Ben Jacobs of The Guardian on May 24, 2017.

This is the single sentence I'd like to use for the header. It avoids any possibility of libel, and it's brief enough to avoid giving undue weight. It also doesn't sweep under the rug the fact that this is a serious current event affecting him. Or, we can keep going back and forth with different people using their one revert. —Guanaco 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest structuring it as "he was cited for allegedly assaulting reporter" — this makes it clear that it is a formal criminal allegation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I'll go ahead and make the change, unless there's objections? —Guanaco 06:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, it's already done. —Guanaco 06:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I like the above version with the addition of what's currently in the lead.
  • Gianforte's Congressional campaign became embroiled in controversy after he allegedly assaulted reporter Ben Jacobs of The Guardian on May 24, 2017. Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault by the Galantin County Sherif's department following the incident.
It conveys what happened (the controversy) and the reaction by the authorities, which is a matter of public record. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I advocate the following wording for the description of the criminal case in the lead paragraph. It is short, neutral, includes the most important facts, and does not presume guilt.

On the day before the 2017 special election, Gianforte was charged with assault by the the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office following an incident involving Gianforte and a reporter. If convicted, Gianforte faces up to six months in county jail.

I changed it to K.e.coffman's version. Hopefully it's okay. There's one other issue besides the text: the paragraph break. As a matter of style my personal opinion is to keep the break. Easier to read. —Guanaco 06:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I recommend keeping the break as well. Since the para contains two sentences, it's no longer a stretch to keep the break. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I reinstated the edit: diff. That's what the subject is notable for, so it is DUE in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, there would be a serious balance issue were it not mentioned in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth

For anyone wanting more info on this, a couple links. Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC):

Three newspapers, all owned by Lee Enterprises, withdrew their endorsement of Gianforte:

Also, here's the actual law on this:

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

All Donald Drumpf should be replaced with Donald Trump as its vandalism 198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took a couple tries for some reason. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

Focus on the Family is not an extremist organization. The words 'and extremist' should be stricken RIGHTMOON (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how to do this right (one of my first edits) but I agree with the above. Extremist is an overstatement or opinionated description of FOTF.Theunladenswallow (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have once again added the crucial legal term "allegedly" before the following: "assaulted by Gianforte with a body slam." All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

This is not my opinion but a basic fact of United States Law. The relevant Supreme Court case that definitively upheld this principle is Coffin v. United States (1895).

Someone with the necessary authority should edit-protect this article if this repeated vandalism cannot be prevented or repaired in a timely manner. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that alleged must remain and that failure to do so is a serious BLP issue. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Early voters changing their votes

I find this very much suspect: "The Gazette also commented on the fact that Montana is one of a few states that does not allow early voters to change their votes and called for a change to the law". I looked at the source and indeed it does say that, but is that characterization correct? Honestly, that sounds very strange that any states let you change your vote. I found a CNN article naming seven states where you can change your vote and four where you could not. (Montana was not one of the four.) Another article cites FoxNews as saying there are only eight states where you can change your vote, but that one of those eight was incorrect and there are, in fact, only seven[5], while the vast majority of states do not let you change your vote. So unless someone has something better, we shouldn't cite the Gazette's claim as fact when they appear to be incorrect. --B (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ben Jacobs "Altercation"?

This subject heading is misleading based on the current facts. "Altercation" refers to a dispute or argument, implying two sides. It is clear from the accounts of Jacobs and witnesses (including two Fox News reporters), as well as the audio recording, that this was not a noisy argument--this was one party behaving volently toward another party. I strongly suggest changing this to "Ben Jacobs Assault," or "Alleged Ben Jacobs Assault."

NPOV does not entail distorting facts. 128.135.100.100 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed to "alleged assault on reporter" which I think hews closer to what the sources are saying. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
How is the assault section not a subsection of the 2017 race? If not then why is under politics at all? | MK17b | (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with a "headline" saying he views retirement as unbiblical?

That is literally what he said and all three subjects are intertwined in his mind. --Bojackh (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The same reason why 'Healthcare' head doesn't say 'Healthcare opposition to Obamacare'. The headline is the topic and the content of that section outlines his position. | MK17b | (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper Endorsements - Size

How is Billings Gazette largest in state if Missolian prints more daily? | MK17b | (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Concession speech statement on alleged assault

The Washington Post says "Gianforte admitted to the attack and apologized for it" (link). His statements, "I took an action that I can't take back, and I'm not proud of what happened. I should not have responded in the way that I did, and for that I'm sorry, Mr. Ben Jacobs," (source) appears to contradict his previous statement, that Jacobs grabbed Gianforte's wrist, pushing them both to the ground. Woebegone (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Effect of thuggery on voting

This article should probably include some information about how the timing of the attack happened during the election cycle -- that is, since many voters voted before learning about the attack, would they have changed their minds, in light of this new information? This might be one of those imponderables, and I think contributors should be thinking about the subject of violence in the political sphere and the changing nature of the GOP, which used to be the party of business and national defense, and is now the party of violence, attacks against the media (by Trump w/words, by Gianforte with fists), attacks against the middle and lower classes. If Gianforte becomes a poster boy for GOP violence, for criminals in office, should there be a separate article for that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We can't just write a political essay about it here, and besides newspapers that interviewed Montana voters on the street had several Gianforte voters who said the incident didn't change their mind. I guess main-stream media's not really popular among them. But if there's no quantifiable information about how it affected voters, it shouldn't be added. PS. I'm sure the Democrat congressman grabbing student journalists by the neck and wrists after being asked a question in 2010 fits with your narrative. Well, maybe it would fit teh See also section here :) --Pudeo (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If, in future, it emerges among reliable sources that there's a poll done, among voters, asking them would they have changed their mind if they had known that they were voting for a lawmaker who was a lawbreaker, that information should be included. What I find particularly disturbing is the pattern of Trump-inspired violence against journalists, ie "fake" media, treating reporters as if they were the "enemy", and such behavior runs counter to accepted norms in democratic society.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that even the wording used by Pudeo - "main-stream media" is in conservative circles considered a "sneer word" or epithet. THAT aspect has been covered quite thoroughly, and op-eds on sites like CNN have been addressing it. The issue is having enough of them or other coverage (such as notable news reports about the discussions of conservative violence and rhetoric towards real journalists) that it can be shown reliably that the aspect has relevance, since defenders from conservative tribalist circles will oppose any coverage of it. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
All of this is speculation and until there are reliable sources with exit polling analysis ect, it doesnt belong in the article. It could very well be that voters knew and just didn't care, or it could be that they didn't know. But until there are reliable sources, it doesnt matter because its just speculation and as such doesnt belong in the article per Wiki:CrystalBallXavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
There IS some reliable reporting on the size of the mail-in vote that was in before the incident occurred, which might be viable if someone wants to look it up and write some neutral wording. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes there is some data about mail-in ballots but nothing definitive as yet. Montana doesn't allow absentee voters to change their vote after the ballot has been received.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Assault part of header is undue and recentism

The assault incident is given way too much weight in the lead, and is an example of WP:RECENTISM. I propose simply adding a clause at the end of the current sentence and cutting the rest out so it reads:

On May 25, 2017 he was elected in 2017 special election for Montana's at-large congressional seat, defeating Democratic opponent Rob Quist despite allegedly assaulting a reporter a day prior and igniting a media firestorm.

Instaurare (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism Removing "Alleged" and Adding New Claims

I will continue to add the word "alleged" as many times as necessary. I will also continue to remove repeated vandalism adding new and outlandish claims, such as that Gianforte allegedly "started punching" Jacobs, which is a fabrication that Jacobs himself never claimed originally.

Once again, please edit-protect/lock the article if the trolls can't be kept at bay. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Alleged? That's newspaper-speak, suggests facts are uncertain, but this is Wikipedia, and it's clear what happened, that Gianforte body-slammed Jacobs, police charged Gianforte, Gianforte apologized, so it's hardly "alleged" at this point. Using the word "alleged" is POV saying the facts are in serious dispute; they're not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You are ignorant of the law. In the U.S. legal system, all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will continue to replace "alleged" unless and until he is proven guilty in a court of law. Period. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not alleged, now that Gianforte openly used it as a cornerstone of his victory speech. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You are ignorant of the law. In the U.S. legal system, all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will continue to replace "alleged" unless and until he is proven guilty in a court of law. Period. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That he commited assault is alleged, he is innocent until proven guilty. He has been charged, but not convicted.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes but that's the policy in a courtroom -- this is Wikipedia -- and it ain't merely alleged any more when there's plenty of evidence of what happened, a charge by the police, an apology, and plenty of reliable references to back this all up. If, in Wikipedia, we write that the attack was alleged, it makes it sound as if it may not have happened in the first place -- which is like POV on steroids. It happened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources that don't use "alleged"? You're using WP:SYN to make that determination, instead of following what is stated in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Think about it this way: newspapers have to use the word "alleged", out of a fiduciary duty and also out of fear of getting sued. Readers understand this requirement; they're used to seeing the word "alleged" and understand its meaning in context. But this is Wikipedia, a new context: and here, in Wikipedia, using the word "alleged" gives readers the false impression that there's roughly a 50-50 chance that the event happened. In the Wikipedia context, the word "alleged" introduces unnecessary ambiguity. The event happened. 100%. The police charged Gianforte with the crime of misdemeanor assault. Gianforte apologized. It happened, not "allegedly", it happened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has the same duties that newspapers have in regards to slander and defamation. This artical cannot say that Greg Gianforte committed assault (a crime) until he is convicted. Until such a day where he is convicted, the word alleged has to be attached to the word assault when mentioned here.XavierGreen (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This tempest in a teapot can cool down now. I rephrased a couple of sections into fairly standard form. In essence, he was cited for assault, (that particular charging document is commonly called a "citation" -- combining a Notice to Appear and a Complaint) because he was alleged to have assaulted the reporter (or the reporter alleged that he had been assaulted by Gianforte). No one is cited for "alleged assault" -- that's mixing two different concepts... one is charged with assault because they are alleged to have assaulted someone. Hope that makes sense. And we will all know in a week what round two is going to look like (who knows, he might plead, probably the fastest way to get it out of the news cycle). Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Gianforte has not been seated in House

Gianforte, while having been elected on the 25th, has not yet been seated in the House of Representatives, meaning the right-hand bio should read "Member-Elect" instead of "Member".ScorpiumX (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Aye. Can't find a date for his swearing-in, though. Probably soon, but until acknowledgment, he's the Representative-Elect, and hasn't assumed his office yet. Javert2113 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a date yet - Ron Estes was seated immediately after the House received a message from the Kris Kobach's office certifying Estes' win. ScorpiumX (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


I admit, though, the statutes of Montana may state differently than what I know, but no office is acknowledged, so far as I know, before one is seated or takes the oath. Javert2113 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a state statute issue, it's federal law. The US Congress has the right to review the qualification and admission of its members... they (once) refused to seat William Andrews Clark, for example. Not that punching reporter will likely disqualify Gianforte in the Congress, nonetheless, he isn't in until he's sworn in. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: News coverage explaining that Gianforte cannot take his seat until the election results are certified as official following what is called the canvass. It will occur on June 15: [6]. Montanabw(talk) 16:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war over 'alleged'

This needs to stop. I agree that "alleged" is optimal, per BLP. However, I do not believe that the current wording requires alleged: "citation for alleged misdemeanor assault." (italics added). If we said "he assaulted" it would be a clear BLP violation and we would have to say "allegedly assaulted." However, in this case this is an assault charge or citation, not a direct allegation of assault in Wikipedia's voice. So its optional and we shouldn't be edit-warring over it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Only one editor is edit-warring and was doing so (and unambiguously announced via multiple edit summaries) before I came to this page. The editors (presumably other page watchers?) who have sent wiki-thanks to me for removing the word twice should speak up here as well, as I believe removal will have consensus. Putting "alleged" where Justanother... wants is both syntactically bad and factually wrong. It is a terrible sentence to phrase it that way, and also not alleged. If there were a facebook post or blog entry that someone heard he was charged/cited or some other hearsay that might be the colloquial usage of "he or she alleged that..." as in a witness statement or complaint; but that is not the case here, nor is that the argument Justanother... is making. He or she is arguing the legal sense of the word, "allege" meaning "brought to law" and is mistakenly making the argument that everything related to the case before it is resolved is treated as "alleged" -- this is simply wrong. Say a drunk driver crashed into a building. A news report would say, "An allegedly drunk driver crashed into a building." But it wouldn't say, "A building was allegedly crashed into" because that's not alleged, that's factual. Or say this was not a misdemeanor, but a felony and instead of being merely given a citation he was brought into custody: we wouldn't say he was "allegedly brought into custody" if that actually happened, would we? TL;DR: The assault is alleged and that is reflected in the article accurately. And, per Justanother...'s argument and BLP it should stay "alleged" with respect to assault per se. However, any mention of the citation for the crime/misdemeanor cannot be called alleged -- both by the rules of English language and the rules of English common law. JesseRafe (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with JesseRafe's view of things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the world would end if "alleged" was in there, but I agree that it's not necessary. Keep in mind that this is a 1RR article and editors can get in hot water even if they fall within the boundaries thereof, if some hot-tempered admin wanders by and wants to show what a tough guy they are. Better to discuss here. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
On this Talk page, there are several other well-reasoned explanations of why it's correct to use "charged with assault" in this sentence and "alleged assault" elsewhere. What we're dealing with is one editor's overzealous effort to use "alleged" in every case regardless of context. Dlthewave (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments above re "alleged" and "allegedly" are scattered in various discussions in different contexts and are do not show consensus concerning this particular language in the article. That's all I'm saying. I think the editor in question is raising a good-faith issue and it should be dealt with here, not in edit summaries during an edit war. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with both of those assertions, both that there is not consensus that the citation/charge itself is not "alleged" and that the editor is acting in good-faith. He/She has in no uncertain terms declared their intention to edit war. JesseRafe (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I left a warning about edit-warring on Justanothereditor98027's talk page yesterday which he or she did not respond to. No choice but to ARV them as they refused to chime in on this discussion and have made no attempts to determine consensus or build collaboratively. JesseRafe (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think the sentence should read Gianforte was allegedly given a citation for alleged misdemeanor assault by the alleged Gallatin County Sheriff's Office after he was alleged to have attacked The Guardian's alleged political reporter Ben Jacobs. Just to be on the safe side. clpo13(talk) 18:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder about the correct board. I almost always am just reporting vandals and SPIs I forget about the other ANs. Report is here if anyone wants to say anything there. JesseRafe (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring has allegedly begun again on the alleged statement about the alleged charge regarding the alleged attack. Also adding that people in the US are allegedly presumed innocent until proved guilty. Allegedly. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 09:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Right. In my opinion, using alleged twice in the same sentence is too much. So in the case of a court's summon, where the defendant per definition assumed to be innocent, I think the phrase 'on a charge of' is preferable to 'alleged', while keeping the other 'alleged'. Also, in what context is it necessary to point out that the defendant is presumed innocent? PS. I see that my edits have been reverted, without explaining that or why in the edit summary. Someone is making WP:AGF difficult. Lklundin (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Infobox

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, but I simply added some content to the infobox that is factually correct (see this) and User:JesseRafe acts like he/she owns the page and they control every edit made to it. This is not vandalism, and he/she does not seem to understand that the parameter "succeeding" actually exists when someone is taking office in the future. If this change is fine, then please tell User:JesseRafe so he stops wasting everyone's time. JocularJellyfish (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Per my understanding of Template:Infobox_officeholder: If you're using the general officeholder template, then the "succeeding" parameter is to be exclusively used "For President-elect or equivalent". If you're using the Congressperson template, then "succeeding" is used for one not sworn in yet but then "predecessor" is not used. One or the other. Another hint is that your edits make the "succeeding" and "predecessor" parameters point to the same person, which is a redundancy unwanted in an infobox. Discretion should always be used when filing out these parameters, not fill in every gap. I'd also kindly ask you to be civil and assume good faith. Rationales for undos/reverts and any removal of content are always given in my edit summaries. JesseRafe (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, you make the above argument that the one parameter you wanted included in the infobox is because that is for blank-elects who are not sworn in, but then in the very next edit add a template suggesting the subject is a current Rep and have added him to the Montana electeds template. It can't be both. He's either sworn-in or not. And if not, then he's not currently the Rep for the district. JesseRafe (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
In regards to the redundancy in the "succeeding" and "predecessor" lines, I left the latter in the box simply because it will be used in the future as soon as he takes office. And regarding your comment on the template, it was the only template among many (current representatives, Montana representatives, etc.) that wasn't updated with Gianforte's name. So, I added his name to it and added the template. If you want, the templates can be hidden until he takes office. JocularJellyfish (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@JesseRafe:, any reply? JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reminder about the consensus rule

Just a reminder that not only 1RR but also the Consensus required provision are in effect in this article. Please edit with care. El_C 06:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Petra Academy

A look at the current list of board members at https://www.petraacademy.com/board/ shows that Greg Gianforte is no longer on the board. I contacted the school and they informed me that he resigned about 6 months before the election, which would presumably have been shortly after the Oct 16 date of the previous citation to the Petra Academy's board page. I have no other written source for the date or circumstances of his resignation. I also emailed the academy and recommended that they try to update this wikipedia entry so that readers no longer think he is so closely linked to the school as he once was, but presumably they either have not done so or do not know how to go about requesting the change. I leave this merely as a suggestion for someone to follow up on.66.190.3.150 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the sentence since it's no longer supported by the source, but I'm having trouble finding any information whatsoever about a resignation. We can only use information that has been published by a reliable source, not a direct request or statement sent to Wikipedia by the school. Unless there's something very interesting or unusual about his departure from the board, we would say something like "former Petra Academy Chairman of the Board" or "served as Chairman of the Board of Petra Academy from {year) to (year). Dlthewave (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

POV in the (alleged) Gianforte assault

Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NEUTRAL, that is, giving weight proportionately to different sides of an issue, based on the strength of the sources. So 50-50 in some cases can be biased: for example, to give equal weight to arguments that the Holocaust existed, with arguments that it never happened, as if both viewpoints were equally valid, is highly POV. In the Gianforte case, to give equal weight to (1) Gianforte assaulted Jacobs and (2) Jacobs initiated the assault by shoving a microphone at Gianforte -- that's highly POV. All accounts (except Scanlon's) suggest that Gianforte initiated the assault -- which is why Gianforte, himself, publicly, apologized for the assault, why Gianforte got a citation from the police (Jacobs didn't), and to veer from this properly balanced view of things is POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

You spelled 'assault' wrong in the last paragraph of the assault charge section.

Why is this article locked? 69.121.7.133 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done It was locked due to persistent disruptive editing. — IVORK Discuss 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It was locked due to repeat vandalism like this: [7] Morty C-137 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Mugshot Released

It appears the mugshot has been released. Is this something that can be added? Not sure about usage so I just wanted to add this.

See: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/judge-releases-congressman-gianforte-s-mugshot/article_af6ccc66-e32d-5b76-9c46-fec7f41e9069.html and https://twitter.com/wabermes/status/918221545679470592

76.75.8.26 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if the photo is part of the public domain (works by the US govt are, but I'm less sure about county govt). I did add a reference to the article which shows the mugshot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I've added it to the article, as his jail booking mugshot photograph was released to the public domain by a Gallatin County District Court Judge on Wednesday 10/10/2018. --Critical Chris

Location of assault not mentioned in article

Why not add the location of the assault? Currently it is not mentioned in the article, which seems a serious omission of basic information. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, add it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Instances of Editorializing in "Creationism"

If someone would like to double-check my revision (which was just reverted by another user) I'd appreciate it. I tried to edit out fairly obvious editorialized phrases which criticized Gianforte's views as "pseudo-science" and as standing against "overwhelming scientific evidence." Such claims are 1) not the point of Wikipedia (which should be to provide objective info on a subject and not to argue an opinion on that subject) and 2) not drawn from the sources cited in the article (the source admits that Gianforte holds these views. It does not put a value judgment on those views). The second part of my edit corrected a misquotation (Jack Horner did not say it was "not a museum." He said it was "not a science museum") and yet because of this other user's reversion of my edit, the misquotation stands. Feedback welcomed. Rettyretro (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump's praise of the assault

I added a short paragraph about Trump's praise of Gianforte's assault since it received significant media coverage and reactions from other leaders. My edit was subsequently trimmed by an anonymous editor, suggesting my language (which reported Trump's comments) was editorializing, so I added a bunch of additional sources and official reactions, citing mainstream media. Please review.--DarTar (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of "See also" section

Notwithstanding the criminal trial, Gianforte reached a civil settlement with the victim of his assault that included a donation to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Please, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, explain your edit to revert this "see also" link to Committee to Protect Journalists. -Critical Chris

The Committee to Protect Journalists is specifically enumerated in the article and should be restored as per WP:NAVLIST and MOS:SEEALSO in the Manual of Style which states "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." -Critical Chris
I have restored this "see also" section link to the Committee to Protect Journalists to the article. Could we please discuss this here before you revert it again? -Critical Chris
Seems reasonable to have the section link to the Committee to Protect Journalists on this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Please do not re add this without consensus.--Malerooster (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I invite you, User:Malerooster, to explain your reasoning for deleting this "see also" link to an organization that is explicitly mentioned in this article, with a properly-formatted WP:RS reference citation, a link which is consistent with WP:NAVLIST, and WP:SEEALSO. I have already invited the other editors, user:Mélencron, and user:Rms125a@hotmail.com, but they have not shown themselves nor explained themselves. Only user:Tomwsulcer has weighed in, and he has concurred with my prior edits to include this "see also" link. -Critical Chris 20:40 ET, November 16th, 2018
@Critical Chris, just gain consensus for going against MOS and you can add what you want. Right now, both MOS and consensus are against you. --Malerooster (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
We do not add links to see also which already appear in the body of the article. I am not entirely sure Critical Chris has read the guideline he is espousing; c.f. As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Izno, WP:NAVLIST alludes to the inclusion of topics in a see also section "similar to that discussed in the article." Though, I will concede I do note the "generally" guideline you point out. In light of this style guideline, what would you say to the inclusion of links to: Freedom of the press in the United States, Safety of journalists, which were deleted by an editor here? -Critical Chris
I don't think Gianforte's whole life is reasonably linked to some attempt to damage freedom of the press or safety of journalists (I think those should definitely be at the article on the organization to which he donated), but if I were to suggest one link was appropriate, it would be 'safety'. But again, I don't think either is particularly reasonable.
When you sign your name, please ensure you include a timestamp (use 4 tildes instead of 3). --Izno (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The link in the See also section should be included in this climate of hostility to journalists, particularly when Gianforte is a poster boy for slamming journalists to the ground -- and he's a congressperson to boot with power to help or harm journalism through legislation. Keep it in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Your attitude here, Tom, reminds me of someone trying to right a great wrong. If that's why you are here, Wikipedia is not for you. As has been pointed out, the link I removed does not need to be present in the see also section because it is already prominently in the article-proper. Now, there might be some reasonable discussion about 'freedom of press' and 'safety of journalists', but as I said earlier, I think it would be inappropriate WP:WEIGHT to include these as see alsos (with less objection to 'safety' and more objection to 'freedom'). --Izno (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling skills

It has been said in numerous WP:RS that Gianforte is capable of executing a Body slam. This wrestling move involves picking up your opponent, turning them onto their back in the air, and forcefully throwing them to the ground. Is there any evidence that Gianforte has any wrestling experience? Is it normal for a 57-year-old tech executive to be able to perform a move like this without straining something?

I do not believe that Gianforte really executed a body-slam against Ben Jacobs. And indeed this article doesn't say he did; but the Jacobs article does. There is faked video on YT that shows him trying to do what might be a body-slam; but no actual slam is shown. The Fox reporter who witnessed the incident is quoted here as saying that he "grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground". Well, that's not a body-slam - in a body-slam, you grab your opponent by the leg and waist, lift him off the ground, and turn him over, before throwing him down. The neck is not used (and that sounds like it could be quite dangerous).

So is this guy an experienced grappler? Is he capable of a body-slam? Does he have the muscular strength to lift another man off the ground? And did any body-slam happen? None of that is attested to in this article. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any known video of Gianforte's assault on the reporter. The characterization of "body slam" is that of the victim, the Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs. That is well-sourced here in this article, and has proper context here as being a contemporaneous statement Jacobs made immediately after the assault. Critical Chris (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I see now that the video is faked. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Net worth in infobox

I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers 04:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Gianforte/Archive_1&oldid=1142356998"