Jump to content

Talk:Stephanie Grisham

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

those "against" him are "human scum", add?

[edit]

X1\ (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High School grad and a Convicted felon

[edit]

I didn't add that because the truth could be considered biased but it is actually true. Please do not whitewash or lock this page and please do not use it as a chance to try and be funny. https://www.salon.com/2019/08/27/the-strange-saga-of-stephanie-grisham-maga-is-a-reward-program-for-mediocre-white-people/ ExCITEable (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is going to add that. After reading this wiki of her, I honestly felt sad for her. She just seems so troubled. And trouble seems to find her wherever she turns. WatchFan 07 00:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few articles/blogs/opinions on this subject. We try to keep to reliable and verifiable sources, without the opinions. Never-the-less, we also try not to whitewash a controversial subject, and correct statements that have generated the controversy.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake last name?

[edit]

None of the articles mention the last name of the second son. He was born around the time of her short marriage to Grisham. Several articles mention that his father is unknown, the kind of detail that is unusual given that there are court records.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, in several interviews she never gives the last name of Jake (born out of wedlock) nor names the father, so I've concluded that we shouldn't do that here either. If some reliable source publishes the research, then it might be time to revisit.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Stephanie Grisham

[edit]

Hi William Allen Simpson. I noticed your recent edits to Stephanie Grisham included using thefamouspeople.com and heavy.com as references. The consensus at RSN is that thefamouspeople.com is not reliable. The WP:RSP#Heavy.com entry cautions, "When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead." Also, I couldn't find where the reference actually verified Grisham's birth name. Did I miss something? --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we want reliable sources. However, I've mostly been moving other people's edits around into logical order, and updating refs with cite templates. Also reverting ridiculous claims of "partisan dog whistle" over the meaning of "TBD". The Heavy article was referenced later, but had this particular detail, so I'd moved it to the top.

Stephanie Grisham was previously Stephanie Ann Sommerville. A marriage record on Ancestry.com says she was married in Nevada to “Danny Don Marries” on April 7, 1997. He is the father of her son, Kurtis Marries.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It somehow didn't come up in my search. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the non-contentious edits (names of known husbands and children). But citing Ancestry.com would be against our longstanding policy on original research. There are at least 5 of these references (wagcenter, marriedbiography, factceleb, celebline, etc), but they all refer to Ancestry.com (or out of thin air). If Heavy.com isn't good enough, then we'll have to wait until some non-celebrity authority does the article.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I might remove the names of the children, who aren't notable, one of which is a minor. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose that, as the article itself later notes the elder has graduated, and in several refs she uses the younger by name as part of her "brand" of busy single mom. We don't remove the names of other celebrity children, so no good reason to do so here. Let's keep it as encyclopedic as possible.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although she gives several puff piece interviews with plenty of details about her children (consistent with her branding), I've narrowed this down to simply their names and years of birth. I've removed where they lived, and when they graduated. Note that she never gives the last name of the second child born out of wedlock, so we shouldn't do that here either. Nor is there a need to mention their pictures with Trump and playing with his child. Although that softened the tone of her articles, it really isn't about them.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still concerned about the lack of the usual Early Life section. It (currently) just jumps into her Career, and that's not particularly flattering. The Heavy.com article is (currently) the best known reference; at least it's a secondary source and looks like it has done research of primary sources. This person has been in the news a lot lately (the only reason that I'd noticed the poor state of the cites), so we should at least make the article presentable.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've separated the Early Life from the Legal Issues. This gives a better chronological flow, and means we don't leap directly into controversy. I found a different Heavy.com article more focused on Early Life (specifically her marriage and children), and visually verified the original reporting there. This is currently the only way to avoid WP:NOR in a less salacious manner, until another reporter picks up the thread.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of Successor

[edit]

|successor2 = TBD

Added 2019-06-25T22:52:13 by User:Therequiembellishere:

After 5 months, has recently been removed twice by a single purpose IP address located in Washington DC.

  1. Removed partisan dog whistle.
  2. Removed non standard successor category. There is no precedent to elaborate upon "successor" when one is in the position indefinitely. It is not standard practice to designate a successor when a successor is not known nor is being actively pursued.

Obviously, this is not partisan. "TBD" does not have anything to do with the Democratic Party. Contrary to the assertion that she "is in the position indefinitely", several articles indicate that she resigned the former position, but that no succesor has yet been named. Holding 2 positions is generally illegal (although there are exceptions where the 2nd position receives no pay).

So, what do we do here?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removals of important details

[edit]

Recently, there were a series of edits by CharlesShirley (talk · contribs), who removed important details that are necessary to understand controversy, with unhelpful comments such as:

The guy didn't "get the chair", he was gasping for his life for 2 hours. Her controversial comments made national and international news. A cite specifically has the word "controversial" in the title, and the others have even more contentious labels in the body. I've tried to remove such labels during my cleanup, but the reader shouldn't have to click through to the ref to understand why it is there. We need to keep some level of detail.

Likewise, there are a series of edits to her criminal past that were edited into obscurity.

And the edit commentary isn't helpful. These are details that explain the controversy. BTW, there's is nothing about this in Beto O'Roarke's article. Likewise, it is the fact that she got off very lightly after violating parole during her advocacy for Trump that make it so nationally controversial. Anybody else would have spent years in the hoosegow.

Finally, CharlesShirley has been moving things around out of order and removing paragraph white space. MOS:BLP#Order of events states the biography should be in chronological order. With such a large number of controversies, it helps to make things nicer and neutral to have at least something near the top that is more pleasant to read.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More removals of white space

[edit]

Again, after a long absence, CharlesShirley removing white space between unrelated paragraphs (and a block quote that serves as a subparagraph heading) obscures the underlying controversy.

Like the previous quotation (over 14 months ago), this serves as a transition highlighting the following content with a clear explanation. An alternative in each case might be to add a new subheading, providing an even stronger highlight.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Template:Cquote/doc and MOS:BQ, I've done my proposed alternative, divided into subsections, with the short quote at the top of the subsection. This will better provide clarity.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More merging details into other paragraphs

[edit]

Again, CharlesShirley keeps making slightly different edits to remove white space and bury details into other paragraphs or subparagraphs. Several folks have reverted these variations, and I've reverted yet again today:

Although each cleverly seems like a slightly different edit to avoid WP:3RR, they are really all the same change, as reported earlier.

Moreover, the only recent difference seem to be embedding a named source in the text, Washington Post or a reporter's name, seemingly to denigrate the statement by making it appear the source is a biased outlier. While this is one way of handling WP:SUBSTANTIATE, these are not biased opinions. This is a well documented controversy of national importance that has garnered considerable attention by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a time frame of over 6 months. There could be potentially dozens of citations.

I've been careful to select major publications among the many that were in this page before I began cleaning up. This has resulted in a reviewed change from Starter to C class.

As to the plaint that this should be taken to Talk, obviously several folks have already done so. S/he needs to come to Talk and achieve consensus for removal, as this style and these details have been present in the article for many months.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments give the impression that you don't understand how the Wikipedia process works. Your edits state a paragraph like the article is an essay. A Wikipedia article is not an essay. You started one paragraph with a quote from an opinion piece that specifically says Grisham is not doing her job. The quote is from an opinion piece. It needs to be worked into the article and it should not be the opening sentence on a paragraph and presented as fact. The way that it is presented as fact and the quote is personal attack on Grisham. The presentation violates NPOV. Please do not restore the way that it is presented until you comment on this page and explain why it should be included and why it should be presented and how it should be presented.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining neutral point of view

[edit]

Thia past week, there have been many significant articles characterizing her current job performance. My approach has been to cite 3rd and 4th party references. For example, two prime-time CNN segments by Anderson Cooper. Rather than quoting him directly, I've quoted major reviewers who independently decided what was the most important. Specific language was taken from 3rd and 4th party headlines and article content. Hopefully, this yields a more neutral perspective.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments give the impression that you don't understand how the Wikipedia process works. Your edits state a paragraph like the article is an essay. A Wikipedia article is not an essay. You started one paragraph with a quote from an opinion piece that specifically says Grisham is not doing her job. The quote is from an opinion piece. It needs to be worked into the article and it should not be the opening sentence on a paragraph and presented as fact. The way that it is presented as fact and the quote is personal attack on Grisham. The presentation violates NPOV. Please do not restore the way that it is presented until you comment on this page and explain why it should be included and why it should be presented and how it should be presented.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we count? "served as the 30th White House press secretary"

[edit]

Suppose that I change this to 35th WH PS. Who is going to challenge my edit? I'll gladly list the prior 34. Someone needs to correct the miscounts going a long way back. 161.38.130.16 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 24 May 2020

Agreed, this needs some cleaning as her direct successor Kayleigh McEnany is seen as 32nd (George Stephanopoulos and several others were acting or de facto, see White House Press Secretary ). Voncken1996 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current litigation

[edit]

There continues to be removal of the litigation that Stephanie Grisham is currently in from her wiki page. The litigation stemmed from an opinion piece she authored in the Washington Post. The court rejected the dismissal of the case ruling in favor of the plaintiff, and against Grisham. The sources have been added but are removed. Jstew8 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jstew8: Current litigation is a tricky matter at biographies of living persons, because the presence of a lawsuit can give people a negative impression. But people sue and get sued all the time, often over the most trivial things. As this litigation is still in the filing stages and has not even gone to trial yet, it is too soon to tell if it really has any significance in Grisham's overall biography. It would be better to wait until the lawsuit has concluded to see whether any findings of significance arise. And if the material is to be retained, it certainly does not belong in the lead. Also, Wikipedia articles are intended to be timeless. To say that "Grisham is involved in a lawsuit" will be meaningless in 10 years. If we eventually reintroduce this material, it should be written as "in June 2022, Grisham was sued..." WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the same standard apply for that whom she is in litigation? That page is the basis for my material on the lawsuit. Jstew8 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jstew8: I edited the Max Miller (Ohio politician) page to remove the paragraph about the lawsuit in his "Personal life" section since it is already covered in the "Legal issues" section. I'm hesitant to keep the material there for the same reason I removed it here. But the fact that Politico has made the allegations by Grisham part of their profile about him, meaning that this particular legal issue already has had career ramifications for him, makes the story a bit different on his end. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanie_Grisham&oldid=1242124088"