Jump to content

Talk:Raphael Warnock/Archive 1

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

He has a party, yes?

The only place I see a partisan affiliation listed is in the infobox. He's running as a Democrat, right? That should probably be in the lede and in the 2020 campaign section...Marquardtika (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, I added it. I'm not sure why you didn't WP:BOLDY do so yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

2002 arrest

I removed mention of it as WP:UNDUE. Media reports and court records show the charges against Warnock were dropped at the request of law enforcement and investigators said he was “very helpful” with the probe. They blamed miscommunication and apologized for the arrest. [1] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, with it becoming an talking point by his opposition, might it be WP:DUE to debunk it in the article using that ref? No mention at all will simply enable the claims that he got his article whitewashed (similar to the K. Harris accusations), where establishing the facts in the article clears it up for concerned readers who want to verify if the opposition's accusations are valid or not. Schazjmd (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, perhaps. I don't think it's necessarily DUE just because it's a new political attack. But certainly if it is included, this AJC source would need to be there for context. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
How about if we address it this way, using the AJC source? In August 2002, Warnock and another minister at a church-run camp for inner-city youth were arrested when they insisted that a lawyer or parent be present during law enforcement questioning of minors. The Maryland Deputy State's Attorney blamed "some miscommunication" for the arrest, and said Warnock and the other minister were "very helpful with the continued investigation". Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The amount of mention seems to me also to be evidence of WP:UNDUE -- if it is about the attacks on him during the election, it belongs more in the election section than the "Religous Work" section. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversies?

Why does this article not describe any of the various controversies in which Warnock has been involved, including endorsing various controversial comments by Rev Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farakhan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.222.143 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have no citations. kencf0618 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warnock-praised-farrakhans-nation-of-islam-important EytanMelech (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Poor sourcing and err0rs in information about child-abuse scandal

Under "Religious work", the article claims: "One report indicated that he had intervened to ensure that an adult was present while a juvenile suspect was being questioned." The article does not, in fact, claim that—it states: "Warnock said he simply wanted police to interview the suspect, a juvenile, with an adult present." So, to be clear, Warnock made the claim, not the "report". Further, "one report indicated" doesn't strike me as a good foundation for information in a Wikipedia article—unless there are multiple RS discussing this "report" (i.e., the report itself is the subject of multiple articles). I propose striking the sentence. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros, I changed it to "Warnock said". I'm also adding to the charges getting dropped the acknowledgment from the deputy state's attorney that it was a "miscommunication".[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Warnock political and policy positions

Muboshgu Please discuss on talk page before reverting good-faith edits. I cited as sources the NYT, AJT, Newsweek, and there is nothing about what I included that is in any way "POV"—I have simply stated Warnock's policy positions, all of which have been widely reported on in mainstream news sources and are obviously essential to understanding the topic. The NRA is pouring significant funds into the campaign, and if there is anything cited from the WFB that is any way factually incorrect—or even suspect—I urge you to specifically state your objection to its inclusion. I am frankly incredulous that you're trying to censor a politician's publicly stated policy platform from a section on his campaign, and urge you to reconsider. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no rule saying one needs to discuss before reverting a problematic edit. In fact, WP:BRD says to do just that. In this case, I think I can fix the POV issues that I saw myself and will attempt it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Ekpyros, I just see that you reverted my revert. You should not have done that. You do see that discretionary sanctions are in place on this article, yes? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu I didn't say there was a rule—this isn't, to my knowledge, a legalistic argument—I simply asked politely if you could discuss on this page before summarily reverting good-faith edits that form a positive addition to the article. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I am here, discussing politely. The abortion rights part is fine, and is restored. I took out the whole gun part, not because the text you added was problematic (it was fine, aside from the NRA clause), but because the source used to back it up was POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I added a sentence on his opposition to concealed carry based on this 2014 article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo

I checked the Flickr and there's way better photos of him than the one currently used in my opinion... he's only 51. I personally think a smaller version of https://www.flickr.com/photos/190241126@N08/50335870747/ would be better until an official portrait is released or something. I'm not sure what the comment on that page is about; the current non-extracted photo is tagged PD and was reviewed fine and Flickr PD declarations are accepted on Wiki Commons afaik. Idk, just my two cents. Heartfox (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Just wait until his senate office releases his official senate portrait and use that. No need to change his image all of a sudden because of the new attention he is getting when an official portrait will be released soon imo. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur. Once he begins his senatorial career the photo taken during his ministerial career shall undoubtedly be bumped down in his article. kencf0618 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The original photo was clearly better posed. It was all-but-perfect. I object to the change to the current image. Master of Time (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC and The Reverend

Per MOS:HONORIFIC, I believe it is inappropriate to include The Reverend as an honorific prefix in the infobox. (It's also currently inconsistent with the first sentence of the lede, which does not include the honorific.) Since there is a comment indicating that it shouldn't be removed without consensus, I'm starting a conversation here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support removal per MOS:HONORIFIC, which says In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included. You can't get much clearer than that. KidAd talk 23:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
KidAd, infoboxes and the lead are the exceptions. See my statement below. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment My view: If including honorifics in infoboxes violates guidelines, there should be a parallel discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder to discuss the future of the parameter in question. Having looked at other reverend infoboxes, I see that inclusion appears to be the norm (by no means an exhaustive search, though), but I don't feel strong enough on the issue to leave a !vote. Urve (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Titles, styles, and honorifics are routinely included in biography infoboxes. From MOS:SIR:

    The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The infobox heading includes pre-nominals, name and post-nominals as separate elements. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name. Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent...

    This does not contradict MOS:HONORIFIC, which states: some may be appropriate in the lead sentence of a biographical article. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support: MOS:SIR doesn't apply here because it's specific to "Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady." Under a STRICT reading of MOS:HONORIFIC, the title should probably be removed. That being said, I agree with Urve's comment that it seems most reverends DO have the title mentioned, and I would support a change allowing honorifics in the infobox, especially if its something they are often referred to as (For example, many early sources and religious sources discussing Warnock include the honorific). 16:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Tartan357. Also MOS:HON clearly states that: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." He is consistently addressed as the reverend even after his projection. Here are a few other reasons why "The Reverend" should stay within his infobox:


(1) He's not even a senator yet; only multiple outlets have projected that he will win the election, nor has it been certified yet;

(2) He's still a reverend. Just because he is a soon to be senator does not change that fact. If MLK Jr. was a senator he still would be entitled to the prenominal "The Reverend;"

(3) No one has had a problem with it up until the senate projection that he has "The Reverend" in his infobox even though his relationship with the church has never changed;

(4) The argument that this is contrary to the norm is ridiculous since pretty much every other lawmaker has some sort of prenominal in their infobox except for those from the U.S. for some reason; and

(5) It makes no sense to remove it and it does not hurt to keep it. Most people learn about Winston Churchill's prenominal only because it is in his infobox, and removing "The Reverend" from Warnock's infobox will only create more confusion as most readers will not read past the introduction and infobox of a page and why they did not see that within his Wikipedia page, even though almost everybody addresses him a The Reverend. Most people do not know that lawmakers in the United States are addressed as "The Honorable" and there is no easy way to figure that out on Wikipedia, while on the other hand it is easy and provides actual valid information that may be useful for some that one can immediately know that the Prime Minister of Canada is addressed as "The Right Honorable."


Those are the reasons that I can think of from the top of my head, but if it does not hurt to have it in his infobox, and it actually lets most readers know that he is a reverend, instead of hiding it somewhere deep within the article that only 1% of readers will ever lay their eyes on, then I think we should keep it. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Last Democrat elected prior to him. Zel Miller.

I believe that was in 2000 not 1998. I was gonna change it but I want to make sure I’m not just being stupid and confused. Sqorg (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sqorg, 2000 United States Senate special election in Georgia says you're right. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe you're correct, Miller was initially appointed to a senate seat in 2000 by Georgia's governor and subsequently won a special election to that seat later the same year. Warnock is the first Democrat to win an open senate seat in Georgia since Max Cleland in 1996.OgamD218 (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Sqorg (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Protocol determining seniority of two senators elected in the same election.

Whoever changed the seniority protocol to say "that it runs alphabetically." Please stop. Alphabetical order does not determine seniority in the United States Senate of two candidates elected to the Senate in the same election cycle, and the previous article used as the source is not factual.

Per Congressional rules "Of the two Senators from a State serving at the same time, the one who was elected first--or if both were elected at the same time, the one elected for a full term--is referred to as the "senior" Senator from that State. The other is referred to as the "junior" Senator.

This is taken from the official House Rules on the house.gov website. Source: CRS Guide to Legislative process in the House — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crsbcn (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sentence concerning the execution of Troy Davis

There is near edit war over this sentence in the article:

Warnock has long opposed the death penalty, having advocated for death row inmate Troy Davis, who was executed in 2011 for killing a police officer despite evidence that supported his innocence.

The concern is over the last part (...despite evidence that supported his innocence.). I, and at least one other editor, have concerns with this particular phrasing. I believe it gives the impression in WP:WIKIVOICE that Mr. Davis was executed wrongly, which is problematic because he was executed after his appeals were denied. The courts didn't find this evidence to "support his innocence;" therefore, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to give that impression. Now, what WP:RS says is also important. The current phrasing is pretty consistent with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution which says,(...Troy Davis, who was executed in 2011 in the slaying of a police officer despite evidence that supported his innocence. However, the Reuters source isn't quite the same; it says, ...ordering a new hearing for Davis to assess what his lawyers said was new evidence showing his innocence. The Reuters source attributes this to a claim of his lawyers, which is what I think we should do here. Reuters is arguably more reliable than AJC anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No, Reuters is not better and its words are not inconsistent with the consensus text you oppose. And it is not "the concern". It is your concern. SPECIFICO talk 10:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Of course Reuters is the better source of the two. The Atlanta Constitution piece is a profile of Warnock, a friendly one I would add, that contains one sentence on the case. Enough to effectively give a kudo to Warnock. The Reuters piece is entirely about the case. Therefore it carries more weight; a lot more weight. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC) PS And yes, Spell Checker is correct that the "consensus text" gives the impression that Davis was wrongly executed. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
How about supported the possibility of his innocence? Or "suggested" rather than "supported". At the least, it seems like the current is too much close paraphrasing to AJC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This was raised in the dirty senate campaign against Warnock as a recycled racist dogwhistle wink-wink. The longstanding text is just fine and further detail is in our Troy Davis article or in the googler. I guess OP doesn't think executing a guy where there's a newly discovered reasonable doubt is wrong. Well almost half of Americans in phone polls think capital punishment is wrong even if a murderer is guilty, and the article text says nothing about Davis' guilt or innocence. It does not say "despite evidence he was not guilty." Very disappointing to see this longstanding consensus rehashed. Maybe those who are concerned about the sourcing can do a little research and add from among the dozens of impeccable RS discussions of the incident. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, put aside ideology for a moment. This is not the place to discuss the merits and demerits of the death penalty or the particular political attacks from either his last or current election campaign. Do you not see an issue with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing when the AJC source and our article both contain a police officer despite evidence that supported his innocence verbatim? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
That SPECIFICO thinks that the senate campaign against now Senator Warnock was dirty has zero relevance here. The present wording is quite close to saying "despite evidence he was not guilty"; in fact, "innocence/innocent" are stronger exculpatory words than "not guilty". Muboshgu's suggestion is a slight improvement. Actually, my wording was more than fair to Warnock and to Troy Davis's defense. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a copyvio to use half a dozen words. Note that these same editors object when identical words are not used to support article content on other articles. See, most recently, the Marsha Blackburn whitewash campaign -- 24 inches and counting on my screen. "Supporting" does not mean "concluding". The test of conviction is that there should not be evidence reasonably supporting doubt as to his guilt. That was the basis for the request for a new trial. So supporting is the central point and it is accurate. And I have not stated my opinion as to the death penalty or this case. I am just pointing out that the presumption of innocence and the public sentiment against the death penalty and the facts of this case clearly explain why Warnock and dozens of other mainstream respected figures called for a new trial. And that's consistent with longstanding consensus and I do not see any other editors jumping in on the side of a POV shift of our NPOV text. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
"WP paraphrases, it doen't [sic] cut and paste verbatim copyright violations all over the place." See here for context. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to propose some other wording that does not change the meaning and will pass the RfC that would be required to change the longstanding consensus. And don't forget not to disparage Warnock, a living person. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of Marsha Blackburn's page belongs at Talk:Marsha Blackburn, not here. Those nine words copy-pasted need to be changed. Goodtablemanners what was your wording suggestion? I don't see it in there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For Muboshgu and others involved in the discussion, it was the wording that I used on April 13: Warnock has long opposed the death penalty, having advocated for death row inmate Troy Davis, who was executed in 2011 for killing a police officer despite debate about the evidence against him. As I said above, more than fair to Warnock and Davis's defense. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

What's needed is the minimum change that addresses Muboshgu's issue with copyvio. The text now proposed conveys an entirely different meaning. I really must again ask those interested in improvement of the wording to give a close read to the Troy Davis page, give a google to see other sources and presentations of the facts, and do a self-check to be sure to understand the applicable US and Georgia state law. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I support Goodtablemanners revision. It's a good balance between the Reuters and AJC source. Additionally, the current edit is in fact a copyedit of the AJC, which is not a good thing. Otherwise, Muboshgu's suggestion of of changing supported to "suggested" is a step up. It appears as though SPECIFICO is overstating the consensus of this phrasing since its never been discussed in-depth before. Since this text is being disputed, there is no consensus for it per WP:EDITCON. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to confine the effort to those two sources. Have you done the research I suggested above? Please comment on content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 07:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO you refer to current text as "longstanding consensus." Has the sentence been discussed before, or are you just saying that because it's been there a while? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking it up I see that the edit in question was first made on December 16, 2020 by Mrbill66. I didn't see any discussion of it on previous talk pages, though I think it was reverted then reverted back a time or two shortly after it first appeared. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Your proposed text above is WP:SYNTH, which I'll ask you please to read closely. The proposed text makes it sound like Warnock was merely refusing to agree with the trial court's verdict. That would be pointless and would reflect poorly on Warnock, sounding as if he would object to due process without any basis other than his own opinion. Where is the sourcing for "debate" anyway? RS present the central point not that Warnock was intervening because he does not want to see any person executed. Editors who examine the abundant additional sources and facts reported therein will learn that there were several independent developments that occurred and there was new evidence found, all of which cast a reasonable doubt on Troy's guilt after he was sentenced and any replacement text, should reflect that and not change the meaning to disparage Warnock.
@Muboshgu: Sorry, no attempt to discuss Blackburn here, and I have no personal opinion as to capital punishment. Context matters however, and IMO most of the inappropriate POV text that finds its way into our articles is from subtle twists of language that are published on our pages. My intention was to cite an inconsistency in the applciation of PAGs. I knew that Ernie was about to appear here and was hoping to prevent him from bringing up Blackburn as he did above. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raphael_Warnock/Archive_1&oldid=1094629470"