Talk:Roger Stone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Roger Stone plead guilty to lying

There is a curious paragraph "Roger Stone plead guilty to lying.....".

It doesn't make sense to me, Stone went to trial, he didn't plead guilty. I think it should simply be deleted, but as I don't understand how it got there, and what it might be referring to, I didn't want to simply remove it without discussion. Magil8216 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. Still not sure how it got there. Magil8216 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Worked on Donald Trump's campaign.

There are no sources or citations listed for Stone working on the Nixon, Reagan, Trump campaigns. Kadenj (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Stone left Trumps campaign on August 8, 2015

This needs a citation. The Trump administration said today that he was not part of the campaign. Let's get things right. I'll let the users either cited the example(s) or I'll edit myself with lock. Kadenj (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bundling citations

I don't think bundling so many citations is a good idea here; there are a huge number just to support the "nicknames" in the lead. At least one of the Toobin citations broke and it makes citing those sources elsewhere in the article more difficult. Qzd (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Video can be imported?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WiNdrz9Jnw

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A family of Hungarian and Italian descent?

I don't think we should say he comes from "a family of Hungarian and Italian descent". This source says his father "was born in New Canaan, CT, June 29, 1929, a son of the late Noris J. and Edwina (Favreau) Stone".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Lindenfall (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In an interview, Stone said his father was second generation Hungarian, but genealogical information indicates that the Stones have been in the USA since the nineteenth century.[1][2] They were originally French Canadians, who translated their name from "Laroche" to "Stone".[3]. For what it's worth, IMDb says "He is of English, French-Canadian, Italian, and Hungarian descent". I can't see any Hungarian ancestry. It seems clear that Norris and Edwina were born in the USA. But maybe there is more to it...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree on the source-less removal, though I do see Italians in that tree. However, that genealogy source is user-generated and unreliable.Lindenfall (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the genealogy is a hoax?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland That's rich! My wife managed to trace her lineage all the way to Adam and Eve, whom she considers fictional characters of Christian mythology, so: yes. (Aside from that, the Geni site does not require sources, so is no source at all.) Lindenfall (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Roger Stone a reliable source?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, but that's just my opinion. His self-confessed modus operandi reflects falsa enim dicam, si coges. But, I digress. Lindenfall (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Convicted felon"

Yes, he is. But in the first sentence of the lede? That is absolutely NOT the thing he is best known for, so it doesn't belong in the lede. --Calton | Talk 07:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

See O. J. Simpson as a simple example. It is perhaps the signifying point of his career; that most of what he did was illegal. He finally got caught and convicted. At the moment un-sentenced, he is liable to serve the rest of his life in prison. I'd say that's significant. Trackinfo (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a TERRIBLE example for a variety of reasons, starting with the straight-up falsehoods you just stated. Heisman Trophy winner, professional football player, holder of NFL records, inductee into the College Football Hall of Fame and Pro Football Hall of Fame, Hollywood actor: how much of that was "illegal"? He finally got caught and convicted: what, did his roles in the "Naked Gun" movies finally catch up to him?

After that start, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the reasons why this analogy is nonsense. Now, do you have a) evidence for your claim about ROGER STONE -- the subject of this article -- being "best known" for being convicted of a felony, as opposed to the LONG history of the shit he's done; b) rationales which are not obviously false from the start? --Calton | Talk 10:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparing others in the category of "People convicted of obstruction of justice", such as Stone's fellow Watergate warren, like John Ehrlichman, John Dean and Fred LaRue, convictions are seen in the lead, but not in the opening sentence. Lindenfall (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

He is a convicted felon, for most of the planet that is what he is most notable for, that and legal proceedings that led to him being convicted. That is consistent with Wikipedia and makes perfect sense, to not mention would show a bias against mentioning his rather notable and famous faults. Also whoever last edited out that he is a convicted felon added in some vandalism, whatever the weird symbol things are. 142.127.169.137 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and whatever is decided, it should be discussed here first, not unilaterally decided. 142.127.169.137 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

His conviction belongs in the lede paragraph, but the words "convicted felon" do not belong in the opening sentence for anyone. A person who is exclusively known for their crime might be introduced as such, but even they should not be tagged as a felon in the first sentence. Such as, "John Dillinger was an American gangster...", not "John Dillinger was a convicted felon...". Vadder (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

CNN: Roger Stone denied new trial; gag order lifted

May be a useful reference https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/16/politics/roger-stone-trial-gag-order/index.html

John Cummings (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Motion to Intervene

Mike Cernovich filed a motion to intervene; seeking the jury questionnaires after the foreman publicly identified herself on social media. That is a notable and well-documented fact . https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-02/roger-stone-jurors-will-get-free-legal-help-during-bias-dispute & https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stone-motion-new-trial-denied-prison-pardon cite Cernovich as journalist, however, whether or not you think that he is a journalist doesn't change the fact that he filed the motion, so that part should stay. Eternal Father (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich is, in fact, an independent journalist. Regardless, that has no bearing on the motion that he did, in fact, file. Eternal Father (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"...right-wing provocateur" is the important bit, your cherry-picking of a passing mention notwithstanding.

Also, his stunt failed and no one paid any attention, so nope, propping up his claim isn't going to happen. --Calton | Talk 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Justice Department may release more of Mueller report material on Roger Stone

How did this happen? I though Trump is in Supreme Court to block it? Or it is only grand jury material? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-department-may-release-more-of-mueller-report-material-on-roger-stone/2020/06/12/9b2bd348-acca-11ea-9063-e69bd6520940_story.html 2A00:1FA0:8CE:7E0F:5440:FDFA:5BB3:84F3 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Stone me! I'll have to mull over that one. Roger that?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I had to pop in to say, Jack, that was likely a contender for best pun of year. Kysier (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Actual Statement from White House

Would someone please add this link to the actual statement from the White House regarding the commutation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grant-clemency-roger-stone-jr/ (I just signed up as a user & cannot edit this semi-protected article.) Fangaloka (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeh, it tells "Roger Stone is a victim of the Russia Hoax", even though he was in fact convicted for something different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course this should be included. Whether or not the reason is valid this is the official Whitehouse Statement of what happened. Definitely a reliable source and very relevant. Anyone refusing to add this is doing so based on their personal opinion of the case. Typical leftypedia bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:3087:9F01:3521:2664:6891:DB1D (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, it should be included - in the proper context of "Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president" as Romney said [4], and he is not a "leftist". This is not about left. Hiding the taxes - is it all about "left". None of the previous presidents including Republicans did that. Personally, I have no idea what is in his taxes. Maybe nothing. Maybe billions paid by foreign states. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Details of commutation.

From §Commutation: "On July 10, 2020, President Trump commuted Stone's sentence just days before he was to report to prison."

Commutation is a lessening of the sentence, not necessarily the removal of the entire sentence. Do we have any sources yet which give the details of this commutation? -- ToE 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A few, I'll go find them later. Jist is his entire sentence was commuted, so he wont serve time. That said, legally, he's still a felon unless the court overturns his conviction. The president can't wipe the slate clean, just prevent punishment. Kysier (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of detail on the seven charges

Currently the article describes the seven charges as: "one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering." Can we include a numbered list that includes the details of each of these charges? People want to know specifically what he said/did that resulted in these charges. JettaMann (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this 100%. Can never go wrong with more detail. I'm having trouble finding sources though. @JettaMann: Kysier (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean to include what exactly he lied to the Congress? Well, he was found guilty on all counts noted in his indictment provided here: "He was convicted of all counts on Nov. 15 and faces up to 50 years in prison". Up to 50 years! This is all there. See seven counts on pages 21-23. But this is a primary source. To make this meaningful, one should explain who were "persons 1,2 and organization 1". Assange and Wikilieaks? We can't really go beyond secondary sources in explaining this thing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Roger Stone article

The following statement exists in this article: "Nearly three-dozen search warrants were unsealed in April 2020 which revealed a web of contacts between Stone, Assange, and other key 2016 Russian interference figures,"

Deliberate bias. "Nearly three-dozen search warrants" How about a specific number? What is the significance of the number of search warrants there were? One search warrant can get the job done. Multiple subsequent warrants may be evidence that the earlier warrants failed to reveal useful information.

"...which revealed a web of contacts between Stone, Assange, and other key 2016 Russian interference figures,""

A web of contacts between a group of people can be a totally harmless thing. Why use such a dark, value-loaded phrase as "web of contacts" here unless deliberately casting a negative light.

And how can you condone using such loaded phrase as "...key 2016 Russian interference figures" unless deliberately perpetuating a false narrative? The Mueller team investigated charges of "Russian collusion" for two years. Had they actually found any "Russian interference" the next move would have been to file charges against President Trump. No Russian collusion was found and no charges were filed against President Trump and yet here we are with Wikipedia making references to "key 2016 Russian interference figures" without even naming a single one. Vague assertions are not a basis for a factual article.

Finally, this article badly needs a description of the Gestapo-like raid on the Stone home to arrest him. Despite Stone being elderly and having no history of violent behavior, The DA chose to execute a no-knock warrant at 4 o'clock in the morning complete with a large contingent of SWAT police, a fleet of police vehicle and helicopter with searchlight glaring. And somehow, members of the press seemed to have gotten a heads up about the made-for-TV arrest of a basically harmless old man.

They could have gotten the job done quietly, at 8 AM, with just Cagney and Lacey and nobody in the neighborhood would have been disturbed. 24.218.74.205 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Make InfoWars mention a link

Someone with permission to edit the article change "former Infowars host" in the first sentence to "former Infowars host" please 73.161.63.150 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Did it for ya buddy GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Roger Stone is a convicted felon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This dispute informally occurred in Archive 2 with no real resolution. I propose a, "support" or "oppose" referring to Roger Stone as a convicted felon in the lead as that is extremely relevant to who he is and why he is known. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'll start by saying I do support this on the grounds that all the arguments of not including it in the lead seem to be it's not relevant to his identity. This is blatantly untrue, it's core to his identity especially as of recent time. It would be difficult to find a media piece about Stone that does not mention his conviction. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's just a fact, commutation doesn't absolve a conviction, so it should obviously stand. Even needing to have a discussion about this is puerile and unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B023:2A71:0:50:80C7:F401 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Or criminal. His criminal record is one of the most notable things about him and the page uses the criminal infobox template, which reflects that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Oh yes, I think Robert Mueller explained this very clearly: "The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands." [5]. As about the "pardon", Mitt Romney described it as 'unprecedented, historic corruption' [6], which needs also to be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Whenever his obituary is written, this will be the lead story. He has not done and likely will never do anything to achieve the notoriety based on this case and subsequent conviction. The commutation only amplifies its significance. Trackinfo (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Oppose He might be innocent, he has been pardoned, but he's still legally a felon unless the conviction is overturned. I'm nowhere near a modern lib, or a progressive.. but even I can admit that easily. How was this ever an issue?? That actually makes sense. It would fit better in the paragraph, perhaps including his pardon information. @Muboshgu: Kysier (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support, Oppose, Stone is a convicted felon but his sentence was commuted; both are relevant and should be in the lede sentence or paragraph. Philotimo (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Omit those two words from the first sentence, while keeping the detail on the conviction intact. There was a discussion about the "X is a convicted felon" construction of pages at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive307#Michael Avenatti that indicated opposition to this practice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

::Oh, I didn't realize Avenatti's precedent. I agree with @Muboshgu: on this, keep it but move it from lede sentence to paragraph. Philotimo (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging those who supported before to see if you will reconsider in light of the discussion re: Michael Avenatti at BLPN you may not have been aware of... @GreenFrogsGoRibbit, Kudzu1, My very best wishes, Trackinfo, and Kysier: – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I still support inclusion. I don't find that convincing, and I don't think it should control this discussion per WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Robert Mueller was widely quoted saying that Stone "remains a convicted felon". In this case multiple sources present Stone as a felon. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose in the first sentence, but state that he is a convicted felon in the lede paragraph. We should deprecate ALL opening sentences of the form "John Doe is a _____, _____, and convicted felon." as being incompatible with WP:BLP. It's illustrative to look at articles for people outside the realm of politics who have felony convictions on their records. The article Martha Stewart covers the conviction in the second paragraph, but doesn't list her conviction in the first sentence. The article Amy Locane doesn't discuss her legal problems, which are significant and ongoing, in the lede at all. The article Charles Manson properly lists his claim to fame as crime ("...was an American criminal") but still doesn't tag him as a convicted felon in the first sentence. Ending the first sentence with "and convicted felon" has always read to me as an attempt to say "and a bad person". That's a judgement we get to make in our hearts, but not in our articles. Vadder (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to be 6-4 in favor of keeping it so far, which I am pretty happy with. The argument is favor of removing it seems to be a precedent argument which is, of course, a violation of WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. Also, there is a precedent of referring to criminals as convicted felons in the lead on these pages such as Joe Ganim, Paul Manafort, and Shon Hopwood, but even my examples are useless because of WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. In general, WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT could be overruled if the WP:CONS is against keeping it in the first sentence, which it currently isn't. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My argument isn't from precedent. My argument is that we tend to say "X is ... and convicted felon" for people in politics and public affairs (including your three examples), and express a person's conviction status in other ways for people who are not in that sphere. That reads to me like we're trying to put a Scarlet Letter on them. That's not our job. It's also not very consistent with the spirit of WP:BLP. The precedential way to handle this is to keep doing what we're doing and mark this article subject as having the status of a convicted felon before the first period, as though that status alone is a large part of what makes him notable. (It is not. He would not be much less notable had he been acquitted.) Also, all but one of the supports were registered before Muboshgu and I made an issue of where in the lead to put it. The current !vote count is 10-0 in favor of mentioning felon status in the lead, but much less clear as to where in the lead. First-sentence placement was not explicitly stated in your question. Vadder (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I said I was continuing the "convicted felon" dispute from Archive 2, in which the argument was explicitly questioning whether to refer to him as a convicted felon in the first sentence. Also, Shon Hopwood is not a political figure, and the "public affairs" label doesn't work either as public affairs "generally refer to the building and development of relations between an organization and politicians, governments and other decision-makers" and that is not what he does. Accordingly, this common practice is not reserved for politicians, but any and all felons. I feel like your Scarlet Letter argument is defeated by WP:NOTCENSORED. It doesn't matter if it's viewed as offensive or mean, it's objectively true and we cannot censor reality because people might not like referring to someone as what they objectively are. Scarlet Letter isn't officially recognized policy on Wikipedia. I'm confused about your next argument. You seem to be claiming Stone is not notable as being a convicted felon by saying "...as having the status of a convicted felon before the first period, as though that status alone is a large part of what makes him notable. (It is not..." yet you concede "He would not be much less notable had he been acquitted." This seems to be contradictory. Your new argument doesn't render the old votes moot, because it's mainly a precedent argument. I don't think your argument that this page violates WP:BLP has a lot of merit as that policy cites WP:NEUTRAL which affirms referring to him a convicted felon. Finally, even if I was vague in where to include the felon status in the lead (which I don't agree I was) I still stated regardless "referring to Roger Stone as a convicted felon in the lead as that is extremely relevant to who he is and why he is known." which blatantly states at least one sentence in the lead should say "Roger Stone is a convicted felon". GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my use of the term "public affairs" is not in the strictest keeping with the definition you looked up, but Shon Harwood is a lawyer and law professor involved in cases before the Supreme Court, which is "public affairs" in my book. It does matter very much if a fact is presented in a mean way, if there is a less-unkind but equally effective way to present the same information. I didn't offer the book Scarlet Letter as Wikipedia policy. I mentioned it as an example of a phenomenon that I feel is at work here; that many editors (I do not accuse you) want to mark with disapproval prominently and in the first sentence the biography of certain figures they consider bad in this specific way. In any case, there is more to consider in editing articles than basic policy. WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant here, as nobody has suggested censoring anything. I agree that the lead of this article should contain the fact that Roger Stone has been convicted of a felony. So does everyone else. The disagreement is and always was where in the lead. I would consider it a tremendous improvement if the disputed words were removed from the first sentence, but the last sentence in the first paragraph were to read, "The sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump on July 10, 2020, but Stone's status as a convicted felon was not changed." Vadder (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

:::::For me, it's less about the precedent established, and more about what they discussed on it, which I broadly agree with and @Vadder: notes some of their rational for removing it (although perhaps argued on his own accord and not from their discussion) based on Avenatti. I think my new and present opinion on it is if they're a career criminal and that's what they're most known for (which I'd argue Stone isn't) then include it in their page's lede sentence, otherwise move it from the lede sentence to paragraph. This is probably a case of WP:What "no consensus" means right now, so let's just leave it be for now (unless something changes or more folks come in and move the needle). Philotimo (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It most definitely does not matter if the info is presented in a way subjectively seen as mean. WP:NOTCENSORED is not only relevant but core to this argument because even if this was mean, censoring or making it seem softer would violate WP:CENSORED in its entirety. However, none of that is relevant to the fact that whether the first sentence is mean or not, is subjective. You see it as mean, I personally see it as objective. Roger Stone is a convicted felon and that's the end of it. If he is exonerated, then we can remove it. While I like your improvements, I feel the current version of the page is valid as is. The current vote remains 6-4 in keeping it as is, and as I said in my initial comment, I was restarting a dispute that occurred in an archive in which the controversy was to keep the convicted felon status in the first sentence of this article (which did not conclude officially but was 3-2 (one of the three have been blocked by Admins) in favor of removing it from the first sentence). Therefore, on the off-chance, people did not grasp that I was talking about the first sentence from the other points made in my initial comment, they should have got it from "This dispute informally occurred in Archive 2 with no real resolution." I apologize if I at any point come off as mean, rude, or disregarding of your feelings. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

:::::::I'd like to note for the record that WP:Consensus isn't about raw votes it's about arguments. I personally think getting rid of it makes sense but understand the opposing position. I think 'no consensus' and leave it be makes sense here because there's decent arguments for and against it, with a split vote, which doesn't make sense to ram another decision through. Philotimo (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit, you don't come off as rude or dismissive of my feelings. Your defense of it not mattering if we are mean in a biography of a living person is ... disheartening. You are dismissive of my argument to the point where I doubt that I have made myself clear enough. If you fully understood what I'm saying, you might cease responding with policies because I'm not making arguments based on Wikipedia policy. I don't need to because I'm not suggesting that the letter of any policy is being broken now ... the spirit of BLP is being broken, but not the letter. My proposed change would certainly not violate any policy. I'm suggesting that we should change this article (and perhaps other articles) because it would improve Wikipedia. What is frustrating about about this discussion is that I'm saying "Let's make the article better by not being meaner than we need to be" and you're saying "POLICY!", so we aren't even discussing the same thing. I remember a time years ago when it was a goal to not cause any more distress or harm to our article subjects than what the facts required. I think it still should be. But I accept that I have failed to convince other editors of this, so there is no consensus for my proposed change. Vadder (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment That sounds strange, but by commuting Stone's sentence Donald Trump made his felonship even more prominent than it was. Roger Stone will be remembered forever as a felon who was commuted by the President because ... exactly as Romney said.My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Forever?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Doug Weller: Hey bro, sorry for bothering you for the second time today, but can you close this conversation. Seven days have since passed and the vote is 6-4 for keeping "convicted felon" in the first sentence. If you include the dispute from Archive 2, it's 8-7 for keeping "convicted felon" in the first sentence. Obviously, the numbers are in my favor, but I realize Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. However, I think my side provided the best arguments supported by Wikipedia policy which my opponents seem to concede with "but understand the opposing position. I think 'no consensus'" and "But I accept that I have failed to convince other editors of this, so there is no consensus for my proposed change.". Accordingly, I respectfully request this argument is closed in my favor. With All Due Respect, GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've struck through the posts of the sockpuppet Philotimo. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, @Doug Weller:! You being uninvolved in this dispute makes you the best person here to invoke WP:CLOSE. I gently request this dispute is closed in my favor with the final votes being 6-3, with the conversation being dead. If that cannot occur, I simply ask, is there a user you can recommend to close this dispute? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I concede that User:GreenFrogsGoRibbit has the numbers. I do not concede at all that GFGR's side has the best arguments, or that policy supports or requires GFGR's position. Neither is the case. But I agree that this question should be closed against my position. Vadder (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objectivity re Commutation

I want the revert by "Liz" (04:04, 8 Nov) reinstated. I made two edits to the Commutation section, which she immediately reverted. One edit simply added a quote and references to the White House's official statements regarding the grant of clemency. The second added one quote from RealClearPolitics expressing the argument that the entire prosecution was a partisan attack and referencing the article, which gives details on the concerns. I made these edits since I originally went to Wikipedia to understand what was the stated logic for clemency and found no good explanation and no reference to the actual clemency document. I want Wikipedia to be evenhanded and complete. This article has lots of anti-Trump content and at least needs these to edits to give a little perspective. Fangaloka (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics is not an objective source but a right-of-the center opinion site --FideKoeln (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Fangaloka, In short I agree with FideKoeln. The piece from RCP was an opinion piece, not factual reporting. Second, the official white house statement is probably WP:UNDUE. We don't tend to parrot what governments say, we say what reliable sources have to say on the issue. If you can find a reliable source that talks about the reasons for clemency however, then we can include it. It also needs to be neutral in tone and probably attributed, such as "The claimed reason for clemency was that the prosecution had been on partisan grounds". I think a statement like that would be fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, a note about false balance: the wide majority of reliable sources have reported negatively about the commutation, and thus we match their tone. We do not try to bring in viewpoints from the "other" side to try to balance it 50/50, because the real balance of sources isn't 50/50, its like 95/5. Now I do think mentioning the reason for the commutation is fair, as I said above. But we are not trying to argue that it was a good thing or present two sides of a coin that doesn't have two equal sides. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

These comments reinforce my worry about Wikipedia. The RCP commentary article's fourth paragraph gives specific facts supporting the partisan nature of the prosecution. Even if RCP is considered right-of-center, many of the citations (e.g., Huff Post, Mediate) are considered left-of-center. The grant of clemency is an official U.S. government document that the entire section is about and it should be cited. I am no fan of Stone but do not want unpopular points of view offhandedly repressed because they do not fit the narrative popular in the mainstream media and on college campuses today, otherwise Wikipedia loses its value as independent. I will try to improve my two edits per the useful input above. Fangaloka (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Commuted?

Can the article use more specific language than commuted? Commuted could mean any reduction of sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

His sentence was commuted and he wasn't pardoned. So it was an act of clemency not of ridding him of the conviction. So commutation is the correct term --FideKoeln (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think what Jack means is "what was it commuted to". For example, a commutation could be for time served, take a 25 year sentence and make it a 5 year sentence, etc. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I assume the answer is that it was commuted to time served.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. But this is the lead, the details of the commutation are in the chapter on it. There is a tendency to pack details into the lead, which makes it too long imho --FideKoeln (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the section on commutation doesn't answer the question. It just says "commuted". That was the reason I raised this in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pardoned

Hey guys, I just stumbled upon this wiki page and Roger Stone was pardoned 2 weeks ago: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roger-stone-president-trump-pardon-person/story?id=74940512, and im pretty sure pardons dissolve someone of all convictions, so hes technically not a convicted felon anymore. Let me know if I'm wrong. Anish631 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Anish631

You're wrong. Also, did you read any of the forgoing comments on this page? Eponymous-Archon (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

yes he/she is wrong and he obviously didn’t read the foregoing comments --FideKoeln (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead, again

And here is why you don't put "convicted felon" in the lead of an article: [7]. Perhaps this needs a discussion bigger than this page, but I fail to see how adding "felon" to the first sentence of a lead is a good practice unless their notability is solely from their status as a criminal. This strikes me as a BLP issue. There are some very silly felonies in the US too, even though the word has an extremely negative connotation. For example, it is a felony to kill a bigfoot [8], or to commit adultery in Alabama [9]. Not to attempt to relitigate the issue, but couldn't we at least come up with better wording? Felon has an extremely negative connotation. Looking at several similar articles, such as Manning's (which is what brought me here), or Joe Arpaio, their articles don't even use the word felon in the lead. I think we could learn something from Manning's article, her article mentions who she is, and then the second paragraph is the crime she's been convicted of. It uses very neutral language. Also, from a simple copyediting standpoint, using convicted in two consecutive sentences reads poorly. TLDR: I think something about the lead needs changing, even if the "convicted felon" part remains. Alternatively, I suggest a formal RfC, with notifications by bot, to get broader input. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I see it has been removed, I think it ought stay removed [10]. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that putting "convicted felon" in the first sentence of the lede is distasteful in almost all BLPs. Unless the person is primarily known for their felony, it's inappropriate. The same goes for Chelsea Manning and Joe Arpaio. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s back in the lead. Can someone fix this?47.144.150.134 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I endorse an RFC or other wide discussion (BLP noticeboard?) about deprecating the phrase "convicted felon" in most lead sentences. I've been fighting a lonely fight against this here and elsewhere on WP, but I've recently dropped the stick until I could get more support. I think if more editors understood the issue and gave it a good think ... especially considering the case of an article about someone lots of WP editors like, such as Chelsea Manning, instead of someone lots of editors dislike such as Roger Stone ... that support would materialize. Vadder (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, he is a convicted felon and that has more evidence than him being a lobbyist or political consultant. Not sure what is distasteful about the truth. Basically, his criminal activity is what makes him known and deserving of a Wikipedia page. --FideKoeln (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stone had an article prior to being convicted, so it's hardly the reason he's notable. I agree in general with Vadder that "convicted felon" is a BLP issue in most articles leads. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiboy132 put "convicted felon" back in on 26 October. 46.68.9.178 removed it again on 3 November. Gamaliel restored it on 3 November. 76.119.11 changed it to "cool guy" on 13 November. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco restored it on 13 November. It reminds me of the many re-inserts and reverts that were done in the first sentence of the Dinesh D'Souza article, which have died down after opposition was expressed in discussion of a withdrawn RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Update: CaptainEek removed it again on 17 November, 169.234.216.238 inserted it again on 19 December, I removed it again on 19 December. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to note here that, as sourced changes by other editors show, the subject of this article received a pardon. I think that makes the question of whether or not and where to put "convicted felon" in the lead moot. In the United States, while legal authorities differ as to whether or not a pardon wipes away legal guilt, or simply ends all further punishment while actually confirming legal guilt, there is broad agreement that the term "convicted felon" does not apply to persons who have had all of their felony convictions pardoned. I would be surprised if any reliable sources in the United States continue to use that term for Stone after the date of the pardon. Vadder (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend you check with the Justice department: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

"Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted? No. Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction. In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment." In other words, the dude is still a felon --FideKoeln (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Justice Department is far from the last word on what the law means. They are prosecutors. It's expected that they would have a bias against persons who have been accused and tried. In other words, the Justice Department is not (in Wikipedia terms) a reliable source on the meaning and status of the law. I welcome any actually-reliable sources that address your assertion, which I do not currently accept. Vadder (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal-life points.

1. The info box states that he is married 2nd to Nydia Bertran ​(in 1992), but I cannot find her in the article. From his statements about his wife from the time of his arrest, he feels protective of her because she is deaf. Is that Nydia?

2. The "Style..." section says the he has written about a dislike of jeans, but one of the photos shows he wearing them along with a polo shirt. So, it is not that he never wears them. Is that why the photo is there, as proof that he does wear them, at least that one time, even though he claims distain for them?

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

We already dealt with this

It happened right here. Talk:Roger_Stone/Archive_2#Roger_Stone_is_a_convicted_felon We established WP:Consensus pursuant to a WP:Rfc vote that we include convicted felon in the first sentence. If someone wants to change it, you need a new RFC to reinstate new consensus to overrule the previous. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any coherent explanation as to why Chelsea Manning's page lacks the "convicted felon" label in the first paragraph while this one has it. Then again, why would I expect precedent to be fairly imposed in this ideological dump of a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B062:24CC:7D1D:8850:3706:9B0E (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus here. Don't really understand why whataboutism overrules that --FantinoFalco (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming majority of editors likely to focus on editing this article at particular points in time are likely biased, I think there should be a new RFC in a couple of years. When "whataboutism" is evidence of bias, it is not pointless to bring up. Particularly, the phrase, "However, he remains a convicted felon", relates to a broad aspect of American law, and mentioning it specifically in this article is evidence of bias. However, I think it may take a while before we can have an unbiased RFC. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Please revert [24.4.40.187]'s third edit to this page, they have edit warred for to change it to their their WP:POV despite the previous warnings and the page has been locked. 2001:8003:38C0:900:512:F34B:14DA:53F1 (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 DoneInteresting Geek (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Stone directing Corsi

The article ays 'Stone directed his associate Jerome Corsi to tell Julian Assange to "drop the Podesta emails immediately," which Wikileaks leaked minutes later.' This is true factually but involves a bit of synth. The Mueller investigation checked the intercepts and the only conversation Jerome Corsi had afterwards was with Ted Malloch to whom he did say something about what Stone had said - but Ted Malloch was not associated with Wikileaks and denied doing anything about it. With more links being needed in the chain there seems little chance Assange would have been able to get it out in 32 minutes because of Stone. Not that this exonerates Stone of course! NadVolum (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Plus Assange's opinion of SToe wasn't great according to [11] "Stone is a bullshitter,” Assange posted. “Trying to a) imply that he knows anything b) that he contributed to our hard work.”. In fact from that I would guess any knowledge of emails Stone had came from Guccifer 2.0 or some leak within Wikileaks rather than Assange. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Plus on 4th October Assange said he would shortly be releasing more emails. With that the release of the new emails on the 7th October could easily be coincidence. NadVolum (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Propose adding "However the drop had been announced three days previously and the Mueller investigation was only able to establish Corsi talked to Ted Malloch who was not an Assange associate" Starks, Tim. "Assange promises election leaks but doesn't drop October surprise". POLITICO. Swaine, John (28 November 2018). "Trump adviser sought WikiLeaks emails via Farage ally, Mueller document alleges". the Guardian. NadVolum (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Brooks brother's riot

I suggest a mention of his role in the "brooks brother's riot". At least a link to the existing wiki article of that title that names him and links to here. 2601:281:C701:6F70:602A:2C56:A31D:D165 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Stone's participation in the events of January 6, 2021 (he gave speeches and moral support prior to the storming of the U.S. Capitol, then retired to his hotel while the actual insurrection occurred), and the participation of six of his Oath Keepers guards in the Capitol insurrection--all covered in the New York Times. The Oath Keepers arn't even mentioned in the current version of the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I came here to second this. There are many articles reporting the oath keepers acted as his security and that he was there. ex: (https://www.insider.com/oath-keepers-capitol-attack-plans-trump-direction-court-filings-2021-2) I'm not much of an editor, but this seems rather worth mentioning in the article. --198.101.118.150 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is enough factual evidence that Stone was part of the events of January 6, 2021 in D.C. even though he didn't riot at the Capitol himself. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Stones felony conviction, while here, could be more evident. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Ties to the Proud boys

Newer reporting on Stones ties to the proud boys could be more evident in here. “Fuck the voting,” he says at one point with a laugh. “Let’s get right to the violence. Shoot to kill.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/us/jan-6-house-committee-delays-hearing.html

I think additions to the section on ties to the proud boys should be expounded on. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)