Talk:Josh Hawley

January 6th

Why isn't there a section on his role in challenging the election results? 98.246.61.221 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is. See the last paragraph in the lead, as well as the sections #Role in the 2020 presidential election and #Storming of the U.S. Capitol and public reaction. – bradv^🍁 22:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Hello, I find the description page to very bias and is discriminating against his character and not weighing both his attributes or accomplishments but rather trying to paint him as a criminal from left ideology. 24.19.142.153 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See WP:NPOV as well. Cannolis (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Do Shay Beg , you're question is being considered 64.5.74.197 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

Add at the end: On account of his raised-fist signal encouraging protesters at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Hawley was mentioned in the 8th public hearing held on July 22,2022 by the Congressional Select Committee for the January 6 Investigation. His encouraging gesture was contrasted with a video showing Hawley running from the rioters that stormed the Capitol building a few hours later, on the same day of his “raised-fist” gesture, provoking the laughter of many in the audience. (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/07/22/josh-hawley-video-january-6-running-dlt-vpx.cnn). Later, this incident became the target of comedic postings in the internet. EdmuPSC (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is definitely going to be contentious, and even if it's WP:DUE the language would have to better follow WP:NPOV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawley Ran

There should. D a section addressing how the J6 committee showed videos of how he ran from the capital in fear of his life after agitating the crowd of criminals who invaded and ransacked the capital building. 70.106.199.193 (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The video and the wide attention it got are now in the article: diff. There has been a lot of RS coverage of the story but unless that continues or grows, it is TOOSOON to give the matter a section of its own, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the existing coverage of the "run" is enough. IMO that whole section is bloated and should be trimmed; we need to report what he did, but there's no need to quote everyone who ever criticized him. In particular the extended blockquote explaining a newspaper's rationale for criticizing him is overkill, and I am going to trim or delete it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hawley did not run away from the protesters in fear of his life. The video shown by the J6 committee only shows Hawley running. The full ccv footage as shown on Tucker Carlson shows that Hawley was the last person in a long line of people who were being lead by security staff to another area of the building. 2001:569:5307:6F00:2461:3BC9:5CEF:ADBA (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't push the narrative of the progressive left. PK070205 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

Add under subtitle Foreign Policy another subtitle for Sweden and Finland. Within that subtitle add text describing how Hawley was the only US senator to vote against accepting Sweden and Finland into NATO, August 3rd, 2022.

Cite: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3586658-senate-ratifies-accession-of-sweden-and-finland-to-nato/ Mriveraoman (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration! Mriveraoman (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This has been contentious on other articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Against Sweden & Finland joining NATO

He was the only senator voting against Sweden and Finland joining NATO. Worth mentioning? [1]-- Bancki (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bancki: This is in the article in the section "Tenure." Wikipedia tries to summarize what RS said about this topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange Sorry, you're right, I should have seen it without asking, I'll delete this topic I started without reason.-- Bancki (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bancki: Your suggestion was a good reminder of the importance of Hawley's NATO vote. It is quite understandable that you didn't notice the brief treatment of the matter, deep in the section on "Tenure." Increasingly, press about Hawley (including this incident) centers on his possible 2024 candidacy, which should probably get its own section in the article soon. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Presidency ambitions for 2024

Increasingly, RS talk about this. Can an editor more experienced with politicians' articles suggest how the article might add a section about it.

References

HouseOfChange (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sentence about sheriff in death of Tory Sanders

I propose a change to a sentence about the sheriff in the first paragraph in the 'Death of Tory Sanders' section. There is a sentence reading "Hutcheson, who himself faced and later was convicted of a variety of federal and state charges, led a team of police and jailers who repeatedly pepper-sprayed and tasered Sanders throughout the day." The part about Hutcheson's later convictions should be moved to a new sentence at the end of the paragraph, because the charges are not about Sanders's treatment. I was misled into thinking that there was a connection with Sanders when I read the sentence. Gvros8 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

Hello,

I would like to edit the “Political positions” section, in the sub-section “Foreign policy”, adding this paragraph in the section “Russia”:

Hawley was one of the 11 Republican Senators to vote no to the $40 billion emergency military and humanitarian aid package for Ukraine that the American Senate passed on May 19, 2022. The measure met an overwhelming bipartisan approval. Hawley cited concerns about the United States’ economic difficulties: “Spending $40 billion on Ukraine aid is not in America’s interests. That’s not isolationism. That’s nationalism. It’s about prioritizing American security and American interests.”

SOURCES:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/us/politics/senate-passes-ukraine-aid.html

2. https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1526323883980242949?s=21&t=7zLS5jf9h2e1fsaYnmX32w 82.54.59.113 (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Added I added a version of this to the Political positions / Foreign policy / Ukraine section. The Hill had a better quote from Hawley's statement, the suggested quote above is edited. Hawley cited concerns about everything he could cram into a short tweet. Not just economic difficulties.

By the way, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote an acid editorial about Hawley's positions, and this vote against Ukraine aid, calling it "an embarrassment for Missouri":

If Hawley truly thinks helping fend off a hegemonic superpower bent on swallowing its neighbor and imposing dictatorial oppression in Europe isn’t a U.S. interest, he owes it to Missouri voters to articulate clearly what is. ... While his Republican colleagues overwhelmingly joined Democrats in a show of national unity against Russian aggression, Hawley joined 10 other senators in isolationist opposition. The vote no doubt will boost Hawley’s approval ratings among tyranny advocates in Russia....

I didn't include reactions to Hawley's vote (such as this one) in my edit. -- M.boli (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Bring together in a new section Hawley's opposition to US policy on Russian expansion?

Maybe there could be a refactoring of this article to bring together Hawley's reactions to the Russian war against of Ukraine. Or mabye more broadly his lack of concern about Russian expansion and concomitant opposition to NATO.

• The article mention's Hawley's statements about Ukraine and NATO in the run-up to the 2022 invasion, which were opposed to U.S. foreign policy that admitting Ukraine in the future shouldn't be bargained away.
• Hawley blamed the Russian invasion on Biden and the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
• Hawley was the one senator opposing Finland and Sweeden's admission to NATO.
• He sometimes says that the real focus of the US should be to counter China, not Russia.

Right now this stuff is sprinkled throughout the article. All these are of a piece, consistent with Hawley's positions. This isn't OR on my part. But some work would be needed because the connections tend to be noticed in opinion articles, making it harder to cite. -- M.boli (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Intern

Two editors, User:AlsoWukai and User:GreenFrogsGoRibbit, were arguing quite frequently over whether the term "intern" should be wikilinked in this passage (emphasis added for this exposition):

Before becoming Missouri attorney general, he was also a post-graduate intern at St Paul's School in London, an associate professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, and a faculty member of the conservative Blackstone Legal Fellowship.

It's at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the lede. Rather than conduct an Argument Clinic, principles and other are invited to discuss the matter here. Herostratus (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Herostratus, for the same reasons that "law clerk" and "valedictorian" are wikilinked, the same should be done for "intern". There's no serious reason why those two statuses are wikilinked, but "intern" is not. AlsoWukai has a history of edit warring that has resulted in him being sanctioned over and over again, whereas prior to this moment I have never faced such sanctions. This is because nonproblematic users Editors of Wikipedia generally understand why "law clerk", "intern" and "valedictorian" ought to be wikilinked with no controversy. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty impressive effort in not actually giving a reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Me: It should be wikilinked, because we winkilink status people obtain hence why we wikilinked law clerk on the very page. NatGertler WHY ARENT U GIVING A REASON!!!! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See, now you're giving a reason. Before you were saying it's the same reasons as those other things, without saying what that reason was. You ducked it. You gave a statement that could be countered with we didn't wikilink it for the same reason we didn't wikilink "associate professor" or "faculty".

And you were also saying that the reason was because you were nonproblematic and the other editor had some history of being sanctioned, which did not address the question in the least.... not to mention that you are a "problematic editor", given the WP:edit warring that was taking place on this very page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I would argue we should wikilink those aspects too. I believe your hypothetical counterargument is a case for more wikilinking not less. I didn't say the reason because I thought it was implicit and obvious. That I didn't need to justify why those other editors chose to wikilink, because it was understood why they did. I agree it was wrong to call the other edit problematic, but I also believe citing his history was right given that I've never been involved in an edit war before, he has a history of it. A first-timer versus an experienced perpetrator of this act are different. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Who had been blocked in the past might well go to who should have known better than to edit war; it doesn't speak at all as to who has the correct edit (if anyone). In this case, yes, the other editor has been blocked 4 times as many times as you have, but that deserves to be in the context that between their two accounts, he has done about 20 times as many edits as you have.... so they're not only less frequently problematic, they're far more experienced than you. Which is not to say that their edit is correct necessarily, but it shouldn't be shrugged off either. When it comes to the talk page, as WP:TPYES suggests, "It's the edits that matter, not the editor".

Really, I think this edit is in a range that it doesn't matter. "Intern" is not an obscure term that the reader needs defined (we wouldn't wikilink saying he was a student, for example), nor is it so central to who this person is that it's a likely topic for the reader to want to bridge to (in contrast to being the particular state's attorney general.) But on the other hand, the article is not so overlinked that we desperately need to start peeling things out. I can certainly see being on either side of this and choosing to make that edit, but save edit warring for more important stuff (and then skip it then, too, and move to discussion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I bought up their edit war sanctions to point out that unlike me, this user frequently gets into illicit conflicts on Wikipedia. It's not they should know better, it's that frequently there reverse reasonable edits to the point of punishment, I'm just the most recent case. So yes, it does cast doubt on their judgment and dispels WP:GOODFAITH for them, though I still rest on my primary argument to defend my edit (i.e we wikilink statuses all the time). To justify their frequent bad behavior, you cite the number of their edits as if that holds any relevance. Their experience is plagued with frequent sanctions spoiling the whole package. You'd have a good defense if it was 20x my edits with no negative admin attention whatsoever, but sadly for you, that's not the case. You also claim they are frequently less problematic, which is ahistorical, unreasonable, and borderline droll. It's tantamount to saying someone who has been arrested 4x at 50 is less problematic than a first-time offender charged at 25. It's just objectively false, one is a habitual offender who law enforcement has frequent experience with and the other isn't. The same applies here, it is just objectively false to say someone (your friend) who admin has had to deal with 4 times in the span of 4 years is less problematic than someone (me) who admins had to deal with once in two years, but I understand that given his past, unreasonable arguments are all that can be leveled.

Now onto my primary argument, you said we wouldn't wikilink that he is a student but this argument fails because we've already wikilinked alumna which means "former student of a particular school, college, or university" so under your theory we'd have to remove that wikilink and probably the valedictorian one "top student" we already have too. What's the limiting principle here? Your argument that his being an intern isn't central and therefore can be removed could easily apply to the law clerk and valedictorian wikilink. My primary argument remains strong, that there's no strong case for removing the intern link without removing a bunch of wikilinks on this page which is clearly unfair to all the other editors who added this. His internship was just as long as his clerkship, both deserve wikilinking. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I sometimes repeatedly undo edits I dislike. But have you considered that I've been thanked for my edits 572 times, compared to your nine???? I deserve good faith! Anyway, I accept your argument to link "intern". I had merely considered it too common a word to link. AlsoWukai (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

OKAY!! Then we agree, I'm sorry if I was too harsh in my arguments against you as well as for edit warring with you rather then talking it out. I hope you can forgive me. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I bought up their edit war sanctions to point out that unlike me, this user frequently gets into illicit conflicts on Wikipedia. No, not frequently. In fact, I over-counted their past blocks, as I missed the one that had been undone as erroneous. The last block before this incident was over two years ago. Those blocks arose over a dozen years of editing rather than your 2.5. Percentagewise and frequencywise, Wukai's edits have been far less likely to get them blocked than yours have. And a person who has had their blocks expired is presumed to be a valid editor here. In the future, unless you have need to seek investigation of an editor, I suggest you try to keep your eye on the edits themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just meet each other behind the school and settle this, OK? This is the sort of thing the mods handle. If there's a bad actor loose you should to alert the mods, its your duty really.

Anyway in all this nobody has noticed that that he wasn't an intern at St Pauls, it is a secondary school so he couldn't have been. He was a teacher. Here we have a person named Izzysexton2108 (three edits, all to this article) who changed "teacher" to "post-graduate intern". (Hawley was actually a teacher there, the sources for this being National Review and [2] the Guardian, unlikely to both be wrong.)

So, it was either vandalism, or a person who had wrong information. Either way it's not true. It's been there since March of last year, year and half, in a BLP. This is the baseline reason for BLP, Hawley could in theory sue us. Mnmh. This article is edited a lot, so it's harder to catch vandalism. I don't know the solution for that. Looking out for it rather than worry about marginal wikilinks would help I think.

FWIW the lede (which has gotten bloated with info like this being put in, should be trimmed back to an earlier version) makes it seem like the teacher was after he'd been practicing law for several years, which actually it was before he was even a lawyer.

Anyway, the issue is moot, somebody make the change back to teacher please. I don't think we need to wikilink that. Herostratus (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to teach. It seems Hawley taught one year at St. Paul's as a Colet Fellow. Colet Fellows are recent U.S. college graduates teaching at St. Paul's, in part to assist students who want to apply to U.S. college. Colet Fellows also teach regular classes. The odd postgraduate intern language came from a statement from St. Paul's following the January 6 attack. A spokesperson for the school said:

Like people the world over St Paul’s has been shocked by the scenes taking place in America and those resisting the delivery of the legitimate election process. Our records show Josh Hawley came over from the United States for 10 months as a postgraduate intern 18 years ago. We are relieved that democratic process is now prevailing in the US Capitol.

Overall it seems unambiguous that Hawley spent a school year teaching in England. In addition to changing the intern language to teach, I removed mention from the lede. As @Herostratus notes, it's placement in the lede narrative created the implicature that Hawley taught law at St. Paul's.

The Guardian reference about the year of teaching is already in the article, by the way. So if more description of this teaching year is needed, that might be a good place to look. But I don't see why it would be needed. -- M.boli (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Replace the section in which it states that he is serving in the senate alongside Roy Blunt and change it to say Eric Schmitt RealLooktea (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done of course. Apologies for the editor who responded without thinking. -- M.boli (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And thank you to the several other editors who came along after me and completed the job properly. -- M.boli (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Foreign policy positions

Perhaps it's worth noting that he voted against Finland and Sweden's accession into NATO: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00282.htm 675930s (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done The 95-1 vote (Hawley was the 1) was quite striking. This was already in the wikipedia page, in the tenure section. However Hawley's consistent opposition to NATO expansion was not represented in the foreign policy positions section. So I collected the examples into a new heading. -- M.boli (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Josh Hawley Audio voice recording

I've been applying voice recordings for all 100 sitting U.S. Senators and Josh Hawley is one of the few remaining ones I have not been able to apply an audio recording for as I do not have high enough editing access. If one of you with high enough editing access would be willing, I have already uploaded a short, concise, non-ideological recording of Josh Hawley explaining his opposition to a bill that I feel would be of benefit to this page via the Wikimedia Commons audio section under the tag 'Josh Hawley'. LosPajaros (talk ) 03:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 06:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

John Hawley running

The unedited footage has shown that he wasn’t the only one who was evacuating, in fact there were several lawmakers who were running to. Therefore I suggest changing
“Later that day, video showed Hawley running through the Capitol, fleeing the rioters.”
to
“Later that day, video showed Hawley and other lawmakers running through the Capitol, fleeing from the rioters.” Wolfquack (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello? Wolfquack (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an article about other lawmakers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:COI Wolfquack (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The paragraphs in question are about Hawley's public expression of solidarity with the rioters, which received quite a lot of attention. Adding the context that other lawmakers also fled from the rioters probably won't affect this article one way or another. Also it hardly needed "unedited footage" to be known. But the noteworthy aspect w.r.t. this article is that Hawley did so and the discovery of the video was a newsworthy event. -- M.boli (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's claim about Hawley merits a mention, also the pushback his claim received, e.g.[3]

But it’s misleading to say, as Carlson did, that the video was “edited deceptively” and a “lie.” At the hearing, Rep. Elaine Luria never suggested Hawley was the only senator who fled the Capitol that afternoon. In fact, she made it clear many senators were forced to run “from the mob.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 13:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue taken by Carlson is that only Hawley's running was released on video by the committee. —ADavidB 13:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Which might be a reasonable concern in an article about the committee. (Or might not; any perception of Carlson as a speaker of truths has not exactly been burnished lately.) This is not that article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding the context that other lawmakers also fled from the rioters probably won't affect this article one way or another.

@M.boli Wikipedia is about improving an article, not keeping old content because “it won’t affect anyhting”. WP:OBVIOUS apply pretty well in this case. Wolfquack (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fake quote from segregationist publication

On July 4, 2023, Hawley tweeted a quote that he attributed to Patrick Henry, but which in fact originated in an article _about_ Henry published in a segregationist newspaper in 1956. I think this could probably be mentioned in the section on theocracy, since the quote in question was effectively advocating for one. [4] 2600:1014:B087:81C7:2044:CD2C:57FB:A0C (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The event is getting some significant press coverage; I added 2 sentence about it to the theocracy section as suggested. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1014:B087:81C7:2044:CD2C:57FB:A0C Is this a serious argument that Hawley is reading 60 year-old back issues of "segregationist newspapers"? Also, what makes a newspaper "segregationist"? Was segregation the raison d'etre of the papaer? Was it a regular newspaper that reported on all topics, but the editorial board held segregationist positions? Or were there articles or editorials that supported segregation, which were commonplace in the 1950s, that have been cherry picked to smear Hawley for political reasons? Either was this is a vague, misleading sentence. 2601:19C:8101:1EB0:9045:78FC:AC39:C04C (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

LGBT Section

I looked through the sources regarding his positions on the LGBT community but it none of it appears to overly focused on LGBT people in general. Most of it looks like just his legal philosophy regarding textualism. I think the current section improperly characterizes his stance. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ? - TheBigRedTank (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced to reliable sources that expressly talk about same-sex marriage and discrimination against gay people within them. Only one of the sources that I can see (I can't access the first source) even mentions textualism. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Politico article (Source 238) purely talks about "the end of the conservative legal movement". This is a direct allusion to textualism and that he believes Congress should be the branch of government to enshrine/deny LGBT rights as it is not expressly written anywhere thus far, except through Supreme Court decisions "made ... almost entirely by unelected bureaucrats and courts"

The CNN article (Source 239) directly mentions textualism "To me, the principle of textualism, which is rooted in the separation of powers, is that the courts are bound by the meaning of the words at the time they are written, and any updating ought to be done Congress. This amounts to a form of legislation".

The Business Insider article (Source 240) he directly says the Glucksburg test is "the standard the court should use going forward". The Glucksburg test of that rights be deeply rooted in history is a common textualist legal philosophy for finding common law rights under the Ninth Amendment. He further goes on "that Obergefell was wrongly decided". Its not hard to assume that someone who thinks that Roe, a major decision against textualism, thinks that another case that diverges from textualism in a similar manner to Roe (Obergefell) is wrong.

Which of these sources show this to be purely about the LGBT community and not his legal philosophy? - TheBigRedTank (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. The sources don't need to be "purely" about the LGBT community; if it's reliably sourced that he opposes LGBT rights, that's what goes in the section. It doesn't matter if he's doing it for textual reasons or not. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the sources themselves show that he is opposed to LGBT rights as more he supports textualism. I think the distinction is very important. - TheBigRedTank (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ser! If there are two sources and you can only access one, how can you say it's atteibuted to "reliable sources"? 2601:19C:8101:1EB0:9045:78FC:AC39:C04C (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

2601:19C:8101:1EB0:9045:78FC:AC39:C04C, there are three which are mentioned in the above comment. Aside from the one I can't access, the other two are classed as reliable sources per WP:RSP. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see in the references anything about Hawley's opposition to gay marriage being related to so-called "textualism". They say Hawley didn't like the SCOTUS decisions which made same-sex marriage a right. Absent any evidence, we certainly won't put it in Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Center.

SPLC used as a reference determining what a "hate group" is? When such poor quality references are used, this article, and Wikipedia generally will have about as much credibility as, well the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you want to imply a group is bigoted, you can go to the SPLC and see what they report for background and use it after investigating and cite those sources. But to just repeat a highly negative categorization without additional comment screams unfair hit-job to anyone not already ideologically aligned with the far left. 2601:19C:8101:1EB0:9045:78FC:AC39:C04C (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Indeed the referencing and description of the event deserved improvement. I have done so. I also think this incident should be moved to the LGBTQ section. -- M.boli (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove paragraph on Blackstone Legal Fellowship from early career

After a bit more consideration, I'm not persuaded the paragraph on Hawley's 2013 participation in the Blackstone Legal Fellowship belongs in this article. The content is that Hawley participated in and spoke at an ADF program. Opposing LGBTQ rights (which they call the "homosexual agenda") is one part of ADF's broader conservative Christian interests. Which include, e.g., abortion. The same source which reported this participation also noted that Hawley's talk appeared to be on topics other than LGBTQ rights.

Other than to attribute the anti-gay-rights slice of ADF's agenda to Hawley by a transitivity, what is the purpose of this paragraph in this article? It is in his Early Career section, but this one participation tells us very little about Hawley's career. It doesn't directly say anything about his positions or policies.

Further, Hawley's own anti-gay-marriage positions are well-attested from Hawley himself, which are referenced in the LGBT rights section later in the article.

I feel this paragraph serves no real purpose. -- M.boli (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Erin Morrow Hawley article

I see that a dedicated article to Erin Morrow Hawley was deleted because of 'Too Soon' and 'Not Notable' back in 2017. Subsequently she became the First Lady of Missouri in 2019, and that clearly is a notable status. The reason I ask is that I just heard about her during a discussion on national TV and I then came to Wikipedia to learn more but found nothing (that is anecdotal evidence of her notability). I'm bringing this up on this talk page with the hope of generating consensus and with the hope of encouraging some energetic editor here to take initiative and to finally get her article out of the 'too soon' ash bin. She is now objectively notable. TopazSun (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Erin M. Hawley is not among the First ladies of Missouri, and in any case only a very few are notable with Wikipedia articles.

Hawley may be notable for her law work. As an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom right-wing advocacy organization Erin Hawley participates in prominent legal actions to deny fundamental rights. She is currently a lead attorney in the suit to outlaw a safe abortion drug.

Here is her professor biography at Regent University.

I am agnostic on the question of whether Erin Hawley is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article based on her legal work. But basing that claim on "First Lady of Missouri" fails on several counts. -- M.boli (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References