Jump to content

Talk:Jeff Fortenberry/Archive 1

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

Wrongly worded statement under Tenure. Reworded, but open to better wording.

Under the section labeled "Tenure," the sub-section "Foreign Affairs," states, "Fortenberry claims to be 'uncommonly well-informed on international issues'." A citation is given to an editorial by the Lincoln Journal-Star, a newspaper.

I thought that was odd that a Congressman would make such a claim, so I went and read the article. Congressman Fortenberry did not say that. The newspaper offered that as the editors' opinion of the Congressman. It needs to be reworded, but I'm not sure of the most appropriate way to reword it. I went ahead and rewrote it as "Local opinion leaders in Nebraska consider Fortenberry to be 'uncommonly well-informed on international issues." I used the same citing reference. Does anyone else have any thoughts on a better way to word it? If you do, I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks, --RHWoodman (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See my edit and edit summary. General Ization Talk 04:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
My edit summary sounded like I was being critical of you. I wasn't; I realize you were trying to fix a gross mis-statement. But replacing the mis-statement with another statement that can't be verified using our cited source isn't really a fix. All we can verify is that the paper said that in their 2010 endorsement; we don't know what "local opinion leaders in Nebraska" thought then, much less what they think now, seven years later (and your edit made it sound like that is their current opinion). General Ization Talk 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Your edit is much better than mine was, and I will bear in mind your comments going forward so that I can do a better job of editing. --RHWoodman (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeff Fortenberry. 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) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeff Fortenberry. 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) 20:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Fortenberry. 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) 10:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Fartenberry section addition

The Washington Post has stated the following: "the American Association of University Professors understood it as a threat and has an open petition on its website urging Fortenberry to repudiate the actions of his chief of staff." This appears to be notable enough to be considered for inclusion in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.196 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Who won?

Did Fortenberry win in 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.238.200 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

New controversy section

I added a new section about Fortenberry's controversial signing of an amicus brief to Texas vs Pennsylvania. Given that his signing has been called an act "sedition" by other elected officials and that he and the other signers have received a public rebuke from the Speaker of the House, I believe the issue is notable enough to warrant its own section. It is also possible that Fortenberry and his colleagues will not be seated in the House because of their actions, so this section should be watched closely. However, if someone has a suggestion for where else it might be placed in the article, I'm all ears.Tjbliss (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved this language to the "House of Represenatives" section because this is about a political position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjbliss (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Convicted felon in introduction

The description of Fortenberry as a convicted felon has been removed from the introductory sentence several times. It is both factually accurate and centrally relevant to his public career. It is a common format

Is there an argument against it?

PantsB (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, many. See WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, MOS:LEAD, MOS:FIRST and WP:RECENTISM, among others. Also see a very detailed discussion and an WP:RFQ just wrapping up at Talk:Jussie Smollett in which this exact same issue was discussed. The consensus there does not govern here, but that should give you an idea of how such a consensus might evolve. Also keep in mind that the burden to seek and find consensus is on those who wish to add disputed content, not on those who wish to remove it. General Ization Talk 01:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
As to the "common format", WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is rarely a strong argument here, especially when you are talking about applying a label to a person who is already quite notable that implies that their conviction of a crime (just days ago) is a defining characteristic of the person, in a biographical article that is expected to provide a fair and balanced overview of their entire career. "Factual accuracy" is not enhanced in the least by adding this epithet in the first sentence of the article (which already discusses his conviction neutrally in the lead), and it remains to be seen how "centrally relevant" the conviction will be to his public career. I don't have any sympathy for him or excuse for his behavior, but our feelings about our subjects or their behavior should be irrelevant to the principles we uphold in writing about them; in fact, that is one of the central pillars of our work. General Ization Talk 01:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
None of those policies apply. Fortenberry is a convicted felon; that is not a POV, it is undeniably factual. If asked "Who is Jeff Fortenberry", the two most notable characteristics he has - especially in tandem - *are* he is a member of the House of Representatives and a convicted felon. A member of Congress being convicted of a crime of corruption is notable in and of itself. Pretending that has not become central to his notability is, frankly, not credible. Contrast this with the (uncited) "economist" descriptor that you have uncritically replaced "convicted felon" with. Fortenberry is definitively not notable for being an economist (and from what I can tell it is a stretch to claim he ever was one) but you have replaced the factual characteristic with a large amount of supporting coverage (and fundamental import) as not notable in favor of a characteristic of questionable provenance that is definitively not notable. I think perhaps you protest WP:NPOV too much. PantsB (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
All of them apply, just as they do to every Wikipedia article, and WP:BLPs most specifically. As to your edit summary, Fortenberry cannot be said to be "historically notable" as a convicted felon, because he was only convicted this past week. See WP:RECENTISM, and as I previously suggested, review the discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett. No one is "pretending" anything; see that the conviction is accurately (and neutrally) reported in the second paragraph of the lead. We can repeat the same exercise here if you have time (plan to commit about a month, I'd reckon), but I strongly anticipate the same outcome. I did not insert the "economist" label (it was replaced with the label added by the previous editor which I removed, and was restored when I did so), and that can be challenged if you like, but I don't think that's what you're really concerned with here. General Ization Talk 03:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
What User:General Ization said--and I believe each case needs to be looked at individually. The mere fact that something happened doesn't necessarily mean it should be mentioned in the opening sentence, for instance. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Fortenberry/Archive_1&oldid=1136838990"