Talk:Marty Jackley

Controversies section

I've removed the "Controversies" section from this article. First, we don't usually have a dedicated section for controversies (see WP:CRITS for details). Second, adding unduly negative information to the article is against WP:BLP#Balance ("Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints"). And third, the two cases that are mentioned are not really related to Jackley at all. He is only mentioned once in one of the subsections, and that is tangential. Just because a lawsuit is controversial and has taken place in South Dakota doesn't mean that it should be included in this article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius! I appreciate your help, and I have a few questions I'd like to receive your feedback on before attempting to reintegrate these issues into the page. 1) I'll start with the last thing you said: "he is only mentioned once in one of the subsections." This does not appear to me to be true: both subsections mentioned AG Jackley multiple times, in the first subsection (Folkens) by his personal name and in the second subsection (Mette) by his title (Attorney General). What did you mean by this? 2) You said that "Just because a lawsuit is controversial and has taken place in South Dakota doesn't mean that it should be included in this article." I definitely agree. Both of the issues I listed have been discussed multiple times in South Dakota's largest newspaper the Argus Leader, which has included examples of public dissatisfaction with Marty's role as Attorney General in handling these issues, and which has also cited Marty's response to these accusations through agencies he presides over, responses which I included in one of the sections (the Folkens section - I admit that I had forgotten to include Marty's public responses to the Mette case and Taliaferro's/Schwab's case in the Mette section, a mistake I will definitely amend when reintegrating these issues into the page). I attempted to maintain neutrality, but clearly failed. Could you please detail the sentences or instances in which I broke the guidelines detailed in WP:BLP#Balance and give me suggestions as to how to amend those mistakes? This specific discussion may benefit from being moved to its own NPOV section on here, though I will await your response before doing so. 3) I've read through WP:CRITS and believe the issues I raised should be broken into their own sections, not into a "Controversies" section as I originally did. This was an oversight on my part. Thank you for the correction. I'm considering titling these sections "Brady Folkens' death" and "Mette rape case", neither of which are biased, either per se or taken in context. What do you think of these titles? Thank you again for your assistance - I'm clearly new to this. Shaneytiger (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with the sources. Wikipedia is all about the sources - we only include information that is present in reliable sources, and we balance our articles according to the prominence of viewpoints in those sources, weighted by their credibility. Looking through the sources in the controversy sections, the only one that counts as reliable per our definition, and that mentions Jackley personally, is this one in the Argus Leader. This is just one source, and even the source distances itself from the allegations - note the wording "what Haber calls a pattern of cover-ups" rather than "a pattern of cover-ups" or even "an alleged pattern of cover-ups". The motivation for Haber's allegations seems fairly transparent - he is just trying to strengthen his candidacy for the position of Attorney General in the upcoming elections. We shouldn't let Wikipedia be involved in such electioneering. Wikipedia isn't a place for righting great wrongs.

You should bear in mind that just having the controversy sections there will cast a negative light on Jackley, and we want to avoid casting him in a negative light when that isn't what the balance of reliable sources say about him. I would say that reasonable criteria for including information like this would be a) the issue must be about Jackley personally, not just about the Attorney General's office, b) it should be mentioned in multiple reliable sources (not blogs or personal websites, etc.), and c) it must be balanced with the rest of Jackley's life and achievements, e.g. his early life, career path, and notable positive cases. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand: would it be correct to say that not only the facts that I include but the narrative that I create both need to be corroborated by reliable sources? And that this was the essential source of the problem? If so, thank you for your patience, I definitely understand, and I will consider this matter more deeply before moving forward with revising this page. Shaneytiger (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's right, if I understand what you mean by "narrative". Everything needs to come from reliable sources: the facts, the way the facts are joined together, and the balance of points of view. And also, you should carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons if you haven't already - it is the duty of every editor to make sure they do no harm to living people through their Wikipedia edits, especially at important times like leading up to an election that a person is a candidate in. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance! I understand and will take up the Wikicratic oath. I've also updated my signature =) Shaneytiger (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

@Koncurrentkat and Therequiembellishere: Edit warring is bad. Also bad is that I see discussion only happening through edit summaries. Use this talk page to hash out whatever the issue is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)