Jump to content

Talk:Scott Walker (politician)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"This is God's plan for me"

This belongs in the article, under § 2016 Presidential campaign:

  • In an email to supporters, Walker characterized his candidacy as "God's plan". [1][2]
<ref name= GodPlanTPM>{{Citation |last=Chen |first=Michelle |date=2015-07-15 |title=Scott Walker: The Perfect Conservative? |publisher=[[Talking Points Memo]] |url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scott-walker-running-for-president |accessdate=2015-07-18 }} </ref>
<ref name= GodPlanRWW>{{Citation |last=Montgomery |first=Peter |date=2015-07-13 |title=Scott Walker Says His Presidential Bid Is 'God's Plan' |publisher=[[Right Wing Watch]] |url=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/scott-walker-says-his-presidential-bid-gods-plan |accessdate=2015-07-16 quote="My relationship with God drives every major decision in my life...I am certain: This is God’s plan for me and I am humbled to be a candidate for President of the United States."}} (Note: includes full text of email)</ref>

An earlier version was removed with the rationale that the source wasn't RS [3] (a more specific edit summary would've been nice, fwiw), but I argue that this meets RS, especially with the addition of another source, Talking Points Memo (TPM), which picked up the story. (I've restored accordingly: [4]). Three points:

  1. TPM is a political journalism blog and the only blog to have won a Polk Award. They're an RS for sure (editorial oversight, acclaimed etc.) and can be trusted to vet whether the original source is reliable.
  2. The original report comes from Right Wing Watch (RWW), which is run by People For The American Way. They're an RS for campaign emails; misrepresenting such a thing would be damaging. At any rate, TPM puts this over the top, and RWW provides the full quote and full text of the email.
  3. This is not a case of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence". Walker is a devout Christian and has said stuff like this multiple times.

Finally, it's encyclopedic. Whether the reader approves of Walker's comments or not, the fact that a candidate for President says they believe God wants them to run is of social importance, and people deserve to know it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC) copyedit 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The new TPM source provided just links back to the original RightWingWatch (RWW) article. In fact every reference I've found online to this email that Walker supposedly sent appears to use the RWW article as its source. RWW is essentially a blog with no editorial control. Consequently it is not reliable per WP:QUESTIONABLE. I've also not been able to find any "mainstream" reliable sources that have mentioned Walker's email, (TPM is the only source I've seen that is evenly remotely WP:reliable.) which is another indication that the provenance of the email is questionable.
This article is a WP:BLP and so "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material". Please do not restore this content unless/until there is clear consensus to do so. If you can find a clear indication that RWW is reliable at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that would certainly be acceptable. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@ CFredkin - Absolutely agree we have to use the best sources possible per BLP, and am happy to take this to a noticeboard. But two questions, if you don't mind. (1) Candidly, do you really doubt he sent that email, given all his other talk of God's will and so on? IOW, do you think this is in any way potentially defamatory of Walker? (2) You don't think TPM can tell the difference between a good source and a bad one? RWW isn't just any blog, it's a project of People For The American Way, who are as reliable as (e.g.) the ACLU or SPLC in my book. Not asking idly; both of these questions bear on threshold for RS here. Best regards. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
There are a few aspects of the email on RWW that make me doubt its provenance: 1) It is much, much longer than the typical fundraising email; 2) The Walker campaign logo would likely appear at the bottom, not the top, of the email; 3) There would likely be formatting to indicate hyperlinks to his site. Also, it appears that the TPM article is an editorial. I have no idea what sort of editorial control TPM maintains over editorials on their site. All we can say for sure is that the article on TPM links to the RWW article, which I don't believe is reliable. Thanks again.CFredkin (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not aware of Walker invoking God in his rhetoric, much less to the extent in the email. Take a look at his campaign web site and its Meet Scott Walker page. I don't see any references to God there.CFredkin (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not aware of Walker invoking God in his rhetoric" Beamon, Todd (April 30, 2015). "'Jesus Calling' Sales Soar After Walker Speech at Iowa Faith Summit". Newsmax Media. Sales of a Christian devotional book have spiked since Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin read excerpts from it during his speech at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition last Saturday. Hugh (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Within 1st 5 minutes, Walker on the stump in Iowa pulls a devotional out of the podium as a prop, holds it up, explains he and his wife pray from it daily, to applause: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) at the Iowa Freedom Summit. C-SPAN. January 24, 2015. Retrieved July 18, 2015. Hugh (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Recognizing God's plan for himself after a coincidental reading of a daily devotional is an established riff in Walker's rhetoric; he writes about it in his memoir; see: Terkel, Amanda (November 11, 2013). "Scott Walker: David Koch Prank Call Showed 'God Had A Plan For Me'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 18, 2015. and Weigel, David. "God's Co-Pilot; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sees divine intervention in key moments of his political career". Salon. Retrieved July 18, 2015. Hugh (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you may be reading too much into the positioning of the letterhead. Hugh (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
"RWW is essentially a blog with no editorial control." What is the evidence for this? RWW has a POV, but sources are not required to not have a POV. Hugh (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of editorial control on the RWW site. Also, regarding the "email", I should point out that it doesn't include TO, FROM, or SUBJECT fields, and doesn't include any of the legal language that appears in fundraising communications.CFredkin (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The e-mail as represented on the RWW website is not a PDF. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the text as presented on the RWW website is not an exact reproduction of the original e-mail. I don't think it's reasonable to think that People For the American Way forged a Walker fund raising letter, or that TPM did not fact check. Support inclusion. Hugh (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, you've in no way demonstrated that RWW is a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This The New York Times article supports the authenticity of the the e-mail: Gabriel, Trip (April 25, 2015). "Scott Walker, a Pastor's Son, Runs on Faith as Iowa Beckons". The New York Times. Retrieved July 18, 2015. "My relationship with God drives every major decision in my life," Mr. Walker said in an emailed statement. Hugh (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
How so? The Times article doesn't even mention the email in question. In fact the Times article was published in April. The email in question was supposedly sent in July.CFredkin (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times excerpts from an earlier Walker e-mail which is similar to the more recent Walker e-mail published by RWW. Hugh (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Walker has written other emails that reference God, is not evidence that the email in question is authentic. It is not evidence that Walker has ever written an email that includes the phrase in question. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, it has no bearing on whether RWW is a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah... the contortions to distance him from these remarks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, CFredkin's saying "I'm not aware of Walker invoking God in his rhetoric" just about made me face-palm. Given that this editor is essentially a single-purpose account dedicated to defending right-wing politicians and causes (cf. their user page and editing history both recent and older), that assertion isn't believable at all. On top of that, their block log includes sanctions for edit warring and sockpuppetry, which means they're already skating on very thin ice. CFredkin, please have a look at WP:LIE, WP:TE, and WP:GAME, and try to play it straight from now on; otherwise the current trajectory is consistent with getting topic-banned. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Since you've cast off good faith, let's cut through the crap here... 1) My initial objection to the post was based on the reliability of RWW. Instead of going to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and trying to gain consensus for the claim that RWW is a reliable source (as was called for), you essentially engaged in misdirection. The reason you didn't go to the Noticeboard was because you knew you would be unsuccessful. Period. 2) If your goal here was to make a good faith post indicating Walker's relationship with religion, a reliably sourced article (complete with quotes) has already been provided above. But “My relationship with God drives every major decision in my life,” isn't nearly as sensational as "I am certain: This is God’s plan for me...", so apparently that's not interesting to you. 3) I'll also note that you attempted to post the quote in the lead to the article. What's the justification for including supposed quotes from campaign emails in the lead to bios? So please, spare me your lecture and look to your own motives here.CFredkin (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"sensational" I agree it is more sensational. Seems to me more sensational is more noteworthy. Most of the field will declare their religiosity. A candidate claiming personal knowledge of a deity’s plan and saying he is certain his political ambitions have divine endorsement is noteworthy. Hugh (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@ CFredkin You're not doing a very good job of reading my mind (re motives), and you're confusing me with someone else (re the lede). Nonetheless the statement "I'm not aware of Walker invoking God in his rhetoric" coming from a right-wing SPA is absurd on its face, and AGF doesn't mean we ignore absurdity, not at all. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 02:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Middle 8 First allow me say that you are correct regarding my claim re insertion in the lead. I retract that. It also appears that I was misinformed on the extent to which Walker has spoken of his relationship to God publicly. However, for you to claim that I was lying about my knowledge of that subject is uncalled for. Apparently you are the only editor who is allowed to make a good-faith error.
But don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your pompous, condescending attitude. It's particularly apropos since you appear to have already had at least 2 fresh starts with new aliases on WP. I know, I know, you were just minding your own business, pushing your fringe theories on acupuncture and the like and somebody started harassing you...It's tough to be the victim... I am glad it appears that the 3rd alias is sticking so far though...
And I appreciate the words of advice regarding the potential for a topic ban where I am concerned. This is particularly meaningful since it appears you have some familiarity with this subject.
I also appreciate a "scientist" such as yourself taking a break from keeping us all up to date with the latest scientific research in acupuncture and homeopathic medicine in order to grace us with your contributions to political biographies. However, since you've pointed out that I have more experience in this area, perhaps I can reciprocate with some advice of my own:
Please read and familiarize yourself with this article on WP:BLP's, which states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Generally speaking, it's not sufficient to attribute statements to living persons with the following rationale: "Walker is a devout Christian and has said stuff like this multiple times.".
Please read and familiarize yourself with this article on WP:reliable sources. We cannot assume that sources are reliable just because "misrepresenting such a thing would be damaging". It may come as a shock, but even the most reliable sources may misrepresent things that can be damaging. (And heaven knows, NBC News is the most reliable of all. Just ask Brian Williams.) Instead please familiarize yourself with the following resource for questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
And now, although it has indeed been a pleasure to interact with a fine "humanist" such as yourself, I plan to return to my life. Ta,ta.CFredkin (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ CFredkin - The basic point you're missing is that if you want editors to AGF, don't engage in contortions and wikilawyering. It's obvious that you were grasping at every possible reason to object. (Don't take this personally. You're not helping yourself by doing so: with your overly hot comment you just created a diff full of irrelevant personal attacks that could boomerang at some point.)
And for the record, I brought up Walker's earlier religious statements above not as a sufficient basis for including his "God's plan" email, but to refute your argument that his mentioning God in that email made you "doubt its provenance". IOW, we need to source the email per usual BLP standards, but not beyond that, since it's hardly some sort of exceptional claim. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Middle 8 What are you talking about? The timestamp for the edit where you brought up Walker's earlier religious statements above predates my comment re "doubt its provenance".
You really are a piece of work...You accuse me of engaging in "personal attacks" after calling me a liar; and you accuse me of "contortions and wikilawyering" while including that nonsense in your last post. After my initial post above questioning the reliability of RWW as a source, the burden was on YOU to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. My mistake was in responding to your bullshit.
It's funny... despite all the whining about being harassed and receiving death threats on your user page(s), I noticed that your supposed antagonist had his user account expunged as well with claims of being harassed. After your input here, I'm starting to get the idea what happened.CFredkin (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I suggest that you re-read both this thread and your user page and see if you can discern the difference between the bullshit there and reality. And I heartily encourage anyone else to re-read the above thread and see if they can discern where the breakdown in civility occurred.CFredkin (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, you're right, I had them out of order, so I wasn't responding to your "provenance" statement. Same point, though: I said, "This is not a case of 'extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence'", which means what it says on its face, nothing more.
Would you mind taking it down a notch? There's a difference between personal attacks that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand (which you're continuing to throw around with abandon) and criticism of a user's conduct with respect to their record. I'm not the only one who saw the problem with your comments, and tendentiousness can get an editor sanctioned, especially if they've been sanctioned for it before. Complain and shoot the messenger (...and yourself in the foot) all you want, it's still true.
This off-topic exchange should be hatted. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional reliable source reference:

Tesfaye, Sophia (July 22, 2015). ""God's plan": These GOP candidates claim the Almighty wants them to run". Salon. Retrieved July 23, 2015.

Hugh (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Here's how I see it: Salon and TPM are reliable secondary sources that themselves have found the People For The American Way (Right Wing Watch) source to be fine. Time imo for a noticeboard -- I guess RSN. HughD, are you up for that? I can, but not till next week. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 15:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I too find the Salon TPM combo establishes noteworthiness and verifiability as per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Before RSN, perhaps we could hear from our colleagues here at article talk, perhaps we should try an add to the article with those two refs? Hugh (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Also I agree with the partial hat idea. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the sourcing much. But if people do think it's well-sourced (perhaps with explicit attribution to Right Wing Watch), then my tentative view is that stuff like this would belong in the personal life section. When people talk about how religious they are, that's the proper section, unless they're saying that they'll execute all the non-believers or something. Some people believe in "fate" or "destiny" or "divine guidance" and all of that kind of stuff are aspects of personal life. To tell the truth, even if Walker said this stuff, I'm not sure how notable it is. Has Wikipedia made a big deal about this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The context is highly significant, an announcement e-mail. The proposed content is not that the subject of this article is a man of faith, but that he said in his announcement e-mail that he is convinced his campaign has a significant endorsement. Hugh (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That would indeed be a rather significant endorsement. But Walker did not claim such an endorsement. What he allegedly claimed was, "I needed to be certain that running was God’s calling -- not just man’s calling. I am certain: This is God’s plan for me and I am humbled to be a candidate for President of the United States." (emphasis added). There's no whiff of God's plan being that Walker will win, or should win. God supposedly just wants him to try to win. And perhaps God also wants us to write neutral encyclopedia articles.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
We agree, the subject of this article claimed certain knowledge of his deity’s plan, and certain knowledge that his deity’s plan is he should run. Hugh (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Climate change mitigation

Walker vetoed funds to combat climate change, per sourced text. Combating climate change has a name: climate change mitigation. Linking to a definition is neutral and should be uncontroversial, hence:

  • "Walker signed a “no climate tax” pledge promising not to support any legislation that would raise taxes to combat climate change...".

Any reason not to restore this, then? [5] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC); section renamed 23:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SILENCE I'm restoring the wikilink. [6] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 10:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. This edit has been done a couple times and reversed. It appears that somebody took issue with the original user that did it. I don't know why, but it appears that the IP that did it, operates under a number of IP's whose work is continually reversed and the IPs are banned.MeropeRiddle (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this particular RFC is more specifically in regards to having the information mentioned twice in the lead, and also referencing that this is his second time running in the lead.MeropeRiddle (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminology Revert

I changed "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants", but User:Rystheguy reverted my edit on the otherwise unexplained grounds that it was "unconstructive". Quite the contrary, it was an improvement to the prior terminology. Firstly, illegal is shorter. More importantly, "illegal immigrants" is the neutral term. "illegal aliens" would be anti-illegal immigration, and "undocumented immigrants" is pro-illegal immigration. Someone please justify the article's present terminology, or allow the article to be changed. 110.33.164.127 (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

As no one has provided any justification for the present terminology, as per above, I will change it back. 110.32.146.252 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Undocumented is a more accurate term because illegal cannot be a characteristic of a human being. Illegal refers to actions, not to a person or their body. (A native person who steals a car does not become an "illegal citizen.") Undocumented refers to a person's relationship to a government, and this is the point of contention regarding immigration. A person can be undocumented in the same way that a person can be a citizen.

Milwaukee Bucks Stadium

I added a line about the Bucks' arena in the 2015-17 budget that was removed later and called a "mischaracterization of source." However, I used language from this press release: http://walker.wi.gov/newsroom/press-release/growing-economy-governor-scott-walker-announces-%E2%80%9Cpay-their-way%E2%80%9D-plan

to describe it as a "grant" in the form of bonds. Although the bonds are a form of loan, the money should included in the spending proposed in the budget Walker attempted to pass this year. A loan is, of course, a net negative immediately, and any repayment will be incremental and will mostly be a part of future budgets.

I admit that I could have been more specific in my edit, but the inclusion of the arena proposal in Walker's original budget is relevant, and that money was a part of the total spending in Walker's proposed budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.32.143 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be characterized accurately. I also didn't see any indication in the source that the loan was part of the budget process. Also, it would be better to use a reliable secondary source, rather than just a primary source. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Unions

I have made an edit on the Unions section stating the position of the head of the AFL-CIO that "Scott Walker is a national disgrace", User:Capitalismojo has removed this twice stating most recently "This is Walker's "political positions" section, this is not a for other people's personal positions. Put elsewhere." I disagree, a page about a politician is not solely about that person's political positions, but to be NPOV should also reflect opposing views. Comments please. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the "Unions" section it's the "Political Positions" section; Walker's political positions. The insertion of what is not a political position into the section is wrong. It is the personal opinion of a committed opponent, not Walker's policy position. If you find that this is an important or revelant addition to include, find the appropriate section elsewhere in the article. I suspect others will have the quote "Scott Walker is a national disgrace" to be less than enlightnening addition to a BLP, but maybe not. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[7] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[8] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[9] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[10] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[11]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[12] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[13] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[14] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[15] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[16] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox

Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

Extended content
  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)
  • Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Did not work. --1990'sguy (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Scott Walker (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Could we get a less unattractive picture up here? 140.247.0.129 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Having been reverted twice without explanation, I figured I would best bring the matter to the talk page. Rms125a@hotmail.com, with what do you take issue? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@207.161.217.209:
@207.161.217.209
: Fine. Thanks for coming here to seek consensus and not violating 3RR. The initial edit you made which I reverted did not make any sense to me and I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish. Also a lot of people dislike Walker and have vandalized the article, especially unregistered/IP users, so I am extra cautious with vandal magnet articles. I may be wrong, and if so, I will apologize. Since then I made some edits and if you revert you undo my editing. So we have to start from scratch. Just tell me what improvements you think you're accomplishing by moving stuff around. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) @Rms125a@hotmail.com:

Since then I made some edits and if you revert you undo my editing. So we have to start from scratch.
— User:Rms125a@hotmail.com 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

That is untrue (see Help:Reverting § Reverting multiple non-contiguous edits). You will note that my second reversion did not affect your intervening edits, so I am not sure why you say that.
But if you want to go through the edit here with a fine-tooth comb, so be it I guess:
  1. Uncapitalized two uses the word "Acting" in the infobox as it is not being used at the beginning of the field.
  2. Implemented {{marriage}} in the spouse field of the infobox.
  3. Removed a line break from the children parameter of the infobox.
  4. Implemented {{official URL}} as it is standard practice for the URL to be visible in personal infoboxes.
  5. Moved Image:Scott Walker by Gage Skidmore.jpg as it pushed Image:Scott Walker 2014 Wisconsin Governor Victory Party.jpg out of its section and had no particular connection to its current placement.
  6. Changed Image:Historic Tax Credit Bill Signing.jpg to its default size and Image:Scott Walker by Gage Skidmore.jpg to the standard upright size.
  7. Spelt out initialism in heading.
  8. Removed {{main}} per template documentation.
  9. Spelt out initialism in body.
  10. Added wikilink to prose which was previously included in {{main}} before I removed it.
  11. Moved Image:Walker16 Flag.png below the section's hatnotes per WP:HATNOTE.
  12. Added Barack Obama's given name.
  13. Removed "President" per MOS:SURNAME.
  14. Added wikilink (Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016) to body.
  15. Removed see also section per MOS:EMBED and moved portal bar accordingly.
  16. Uncapitalized two uses of the word "Precedence" in the succession boxes.
  17. Added {{navboxes}} as the number of navboxes in addition to the now-moved portal bar is becoming excessive.
  18. Re-ordered three categories that were not in alphabetical order.

I did not revert w/o explanation (that's why we have edit summaries, which may or may not always be as informative as we'd like, though, I guess).
— User:Rms125a@hotmail.com 01:55, 13 October 2016

With all due respect, there was not an explanation. The mere presence of an edit summary per se does not make an explanation. Looking at the first reversion, for instance, the closest we came to an explanation was that the edit was "unhelpful". I can't imagine that one would revert a "helpful" edit, so that doesn't help me discern what your concerns are. And to be honest, I still don't know what they are. So am I correct in understanding that you take issue with all, or most, of the changes listed above (apologies if I missed any)? And if not all, then which ones?

Also a lot of people dislike Walker and have vandalized the article, especially unregistered/IP users, so I am extra cautious with vandal magnet articles.
— User:Rms125a@hotmail.com 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, I should note that I fail to see the relevance of that. While I can see why that cautiousness would make one more prudent in checking the article for vandalism, there is no reason why it would change the definition of vandalism or the circumstances under which a reversion is appropriate. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
HEY: we missed each other -- check out my message to you here. LOL. Like playing phone tag. Quis separabit? 02:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Rms125a@hotmail.com:

Hey: I wrote this here before you replied above and see no point in transferring it, so I will leave it here to finish this up. I have compared most or all of the editing differences between our respective versions:

a) "Matt, Alex" - The <br> style, where the names are on different lines like bunk beds, seems to be the predominant MOS style but I think it's also a matter of personal style and a trivial issue

b) "Acting" or "acting" -- seriously?

c) Governor's Mansion, Maple Bluff, Wisconsin -- unnecessary to give address of Governor's Mansion (not a secret and included in the mansion's article; also not done in any other state as far as I know), so that is an issue of MOS.

d) However, I did use your version and location for the [[File:Scott Walker by Gage Skidmore.jpg|thumb|Walker speaking at the 2013 [[Conservative Political Action Conference]]|upright=1.15]] image. Looks better, I admit.

Yours, Quis separabit?
— User:Rms125a@hotmail.com 02:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, I figure we would be best to keep the discussion on the article talk page.
It looks like your edits have addressed item 5 and part of item 6.
Regarding item 3, it's not the end of the world, but line breaks tend to be used when full names are included and comma breaks tend to be used otherwise. Have you not noticed this too? And I am curious as to what part of the MOS you are referring.
On item 1, why would I not be serious? Is there something about which you are unclear regarding this point?
It looks like I forgot to include the addition of the location of the residence in my list of changes. (I guess that's number 19, then.) The argument you make would apply equally to the inclusion of the state and country in the birth place field. How do you reconcile that? The presence of information in another article is not in itself a reason to exclude it. And to what part of the MOS are you referring?
Finally, you have yet to address items 2, 4, 7–18, and part of item 6. And I still don't know why this edit was reverted in the first place. Surely your concerns with item 1, 3, and 19 are no rationale as to why the edit would be reverted wholesale. Please explain. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@207.161.217.209:, @207.161.217.209
: "Finally, you have yet to address items 2, 4, 7–18, and part of item 6" -- yeah, right, LOL. Dude, I am outta here. I love Scott but do what you want. Don't care now that I know you're not a vandal, or worse, a Democrat. If you think I am going down that laundry list, you need to take a wikibreak. Keep your nose to the grindstone and all that. I am too old for this. Quis separabit? 20:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: You still haven't stated on what basis you believed it to be vandalism. Having received no indication as to why the edit was reverted, naturally I had no choice but to look at it change-by-change. If you feel I could have handled it differently, I would sincerely appreciate suggestions as I was kind of at a stand-still not knowing what concerns of yours to address. (And to clarify, I am genuinely asking for suggestions – it's not just rhetorical.) 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi RunnyAmiga, regarding your recent reversion, I'm wondering how you interpret "I love Scott but do what you want. Don't care now that I know you're not a vandal, or worse, a Democrat." 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Gonna copy my note from your talk page and (partially) revert it; this is a better location for this. Please stand by. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This is my note copied from your talk: "I reverted your edits because I couldn't verify what you said in your summary, "Reverting per talk page consensus." If there are two people discussing, nobody else has piped up, and a clear compromise hasn't been established, it's not particularly appropriate to claim consensus. I could have missed something, though." RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@RunnyAmiga: That doesn't answer my question. How do you interpret the above quoted statement? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
"The other guy took his ball and went home" is not much of a means of claiming consensus. He still thinks what he thinks but you successfully overwhelmed him by building a gigantic wall of text that you assuredly knew he was never going to read. So contrary to your claim, I did too explain myself: it was in my first edit summary. My issue was and still is that your edit summary didn't explain your changes. Can you explain it without an iffy claim of consensus and without building a wall of text? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@RunnyAmiga:

So contrary to your claim, I did too explain myself: it was in my first edit summary.
— User:RunnyAmiga 21:13, 13 October 2016‎

Where did I make a claim to the contrary regarding your reversion? My only claim similar thereto was regarding Rms125a@hotmail.com's initial edits and I trust that you can see that "unhelpful" is not an explanation.

"The other guy took his ball and went home" is not much of a means of claiming consensus. He still thinks what he thinks but you successfully overwhelmed him by building a gigantic wall of text that you assuredly knew he was never going to read.
— User:RunnyAmiga 21:13, 13 October 2016‎

That is a mischaracterization. If "[h]e still thinks what he thinks", then what do you believe he thinks? I still do not know. I am more than happy to discuss any concerns with the edit, but I don't know what they are. Not knowing what concerns to address, I enumerated the 19 changes made along with rationales in hopes that I would be told which ones he wanted to discuss and which ones he did not. I asked if there was a different manner in which he would prefer we handle the matter, but I have not had a reply to that; (if you have any ideas, feel free). When I have not been given a reason as to why he would oppose the edit now that he is aware that it is not vandalistic, I haven't any reason not to take him at his word when he says "Don't care now that I know you're not a vandal, or worse, a Democrat."

Can you explain it without an iffy claim of consensus and without building a wall of text?
— User:RunnyAmiga 21:13, 13 October 2016‎

An assortment of changes were made for a variety of reasons. An edit summary–length summary would be "CE; fmt; MOS compliance". The changes are laid out in greater detail in the above list (and I am sure that at ~200 words – the length of a paragraph – it is not too great a burden to read). Is that a comprehensible explanation? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've said or implied that I'm either way on your edit. I'm going to restore it because you believe it needs to be restored. I want to make clear that I'm not restoring it because it's an improvement.

Whether or not it's in accordance with the MOS, which is a guideline and not policy, it's a mostly lateral move. (Who could possibly care less about whether or not the infobox's use of the word "acting" is capitalized? Why does anybody care which way we piped the link to Barack Obama's article? Is it really worth a back-and-forth and a gigantic discussion what order we use to list the categories?) And as a pending changes reviewer, I constantly run into edits like that: (1) no apparent improvement even if it's not obviously damaging, (2) added by a new or an IP editor, and (3) missing or inadequate explanation. If I come across a pending edit that hits all three of those, it's got almost no chance.

Rms125a... expressed himself when he reverted you. That was him calling your edit unacceptable. It was a two-way street as to whether his issues would be addressed, and while you might not know, conversations with that editor require a bit more consideration than usual. And no matter what, I still absolutely do not believe for one second that you hit him with 19 points and four paragraphs (or whatever, I lost count) because you sincerely wanted to inject clarity into a confusing discussion. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scott Walker (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

All successful! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Scott Walker (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott Walker (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we talk about splitting again?

Howdy--Back in 2015, I made an attempt to split this article into 3, the main one, one about Walker's governorship and one about his political positions. At that time, the article was right about the 100 kilobytes standard in WP:SIZERULE and seemed long, clunky and difficult to navigate...It's now 50% larger than that. There seems to be a clear way to make those changes again, shortening the sections on his Governorship and political positions while moving some of that content to their own respective pages. I strongly disagreed with the consensus not to split in April 2015. Now, having returned from a long Wikibeak and seeing how long the article has gotten, I hope everyone can agree to split. There are definitely issues with readability at this point. What do y'all think? PrairieKid (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge positions in 'pol positions' and 'tenure'?

Similar content is in both sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Corrections While Locked (December 2018)

From ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Walker_(politician)&oldid=873752313

Subsection (5.1), Curbing the powers of an incoming Democratic administration ...

Is improperly classified.

It should be moved into one of the following:

Depending on who moves it and the way the article is elected, the actions in question could be considered an action of the current administration, "tenure," or that of the 2018 elections cycle.

The section in question does not belong, buried, as a sub-heading under 2016 election considerations. (The election was held in 2017 for the incoming governor to take office in 2018.)

As of observing this required correction, the article is semi-locked until 14-January-2019, ostensibly "to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons."

Further: Burial of current, relevant and factual information under improper subheadings needs to be policed (especially when articles are locked); in the same vein as those who seek to deface articles. WikiPedia editors capable of approving or locking articles should be held to higher standards of objectivity, audit, and review.

Cholted (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Walker_(politician)/Archive_3&oldid=1083942285"