Talk:Steve Roberts (Missouri politician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Lacy, Akela (21 March 2022). "Sexual Assault Allegations Vanished from Potential Cori Bush Challenger's Wikipedia Page". The Intercept.

Mistake

Mistake: Disambiguity with Steven Roberts (Missouri politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Affiliation in lead

@Andrew nyr: was the removal my addition of the partisan affiliation of Roberts in the lead of the article that you undertook in this edit intentional, or was it just something that got caught in the crossfire with the IP section blanker? I presume the latter, but I want to make sure. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10, Caught in the crossfire, oops :)

I submitted a report to WP:AIV over the other user though. No reason for the constant removal of cited content. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rape allegations: no charges

@Mhawk10 and Andrew nyr:
CBS news article
"will not be charged because evidence does not support the allegation, a special prosecutor announced Tuesday." Adakiko (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adakiko, This can be added in then, instead of removing entire sections pertinent to the article. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 06:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm personally only involved inasmuch as I wanted to add the partisan affiliation of the politican to the lead. That's also an AP article. The section is going to need to be reworked to either remove the unsubstantiated allegations or to include that there were no charges filed because of lack of evidence. I think he's a public figure (he's a politician in elected office), so the latter probably makes sense if this was more than a brief news blip. If it was only a brief news blip, it should be removed entirely. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content seems rather lengthy for an allegation w/o any other evidence. Including the letter seems a bit much. Adakiko (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section on "Firing from Circuit Attorney' Office" be reinstated? It's a notable event that happened. Perhaps specific mention should be made of the special prosecutor dropping charges because the evidence did not support them. _signed,Willondon (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an accusation without evidence that gets dropped immediately should be omitted from the biography article unless there was something particularly notable about the incident. ~~I see nothing particularly standout about that particular accusation that warrants its inclusion~~(update: see below). — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was notable because instead of immediately dropped, there was the whole process of suspension, then reinstatement, followed by actual firing, stated not to be related to the charges. Etc. My two cents. I'll be letting others carry on editing. I just wanted to see the article stabilized. _signed,Willondon (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well if all of that was not related to the charges (or lack thereof), then why not include it? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Also, @Adakiko: do you have any updates on the 2015 arrest or the related civil suit? The article from 2016 describes one of the two alleged incidents (the one from 2016), but it doesn't describe both of the blanked sections as being frauds. I'm going to do a bit more digging here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's two? I'll take a look. Paywall on the first... Adakiko (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The suit relating to the 2015 incident was dismissed at some point, but it's not clear to me if there was an out-of-court settlement. I also found that the whole saga relating to the 2016 incident actually did go a little further; Roberts and Walker wound up suing each other but it ultimately resulted in nothing in terms of legal action. The whole Roberts-Walker saga appears to actually have had some substantial extended coverage over several years, so it might be worth it to include some information on the fact that the whole saga happened — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be mentioned. Quite a bit of news on it. Total inclusion nor exclusion seems npov. I don't feel qualified to make a decision. Adakiko (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sex assault controversies seem to pass WP:NEVENT based on the extended coverage, so it might be worth it to make an article titled "Steve Roberts sexual assault allegations", describe the whole shebang in fuller detail there, and include a paragraph-long summary in this article. That's a bit more of an undertaking, but I think it would make the encyclopedia better. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more than I feel confident to take on. Adakiko (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the references. [1]

This should be added to the references Sexual Assault Allegations Vanished From Potential Cori Bush Challenger’s Wikipedia Page -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 10:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Times

Is The Missouri Times an RS that's BLP level? The site lists a whopping three employees, it doesn't appear to be an established newspaper, and I'm not immediately finding WP:USEBYOTHERS that makes it reliable. It feels an awful lot like a political blog that's dressed up as a news outlet. The founder's been convicted of forgery before. Sometimes there are websites like this that are some of the better sources for statehouse reporting (the New Jersey Globe, which is run by David Wildstein generally gets high marks across the aisle for its detailed political reporting). But this sort of stuff definitely gives me pause considering it's currently used in the article, which currently reads a lot like a puff piece now that the allegations of assault are gone. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I share your doubt about the Missouri Times. Those references are being used to certify his age and that he has a commission in the Air Force. Both of those facts seem pretty harmless, but I would also bet that one could find other, better sources for those facts. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOFacts Improperly Removing Information?

MOFacts did not make any Wikipedia edits and presumably created its account February 14, 2022, when they added a bunch of favorable information for the Wiki page for Steve Roberts. They then did not engage in any activity until February 28, when they repeatedly deleted factual, correct, and significant information on the Wiki page for Steve Roberts that was not favorable (multiple sexual assault allegations). Steve Roberts has been considered a potential candidate for Missouri's First U.S. Congressional District, with filing opening last week, which makes me suspect that this deletion of unflattering but true information is done in connection with his campaign, which is extremely unethical and antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. They've literally just removed the sexual assault information three times in a row...what motive could they possibly have for doing this? And I truly hope that they are not paid by Roberts and his campaign, because that would be more unethical than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GL382 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reprimanded for removing content without explanation, which is a false statement. The only content removed from the page has been that which has been drafted using Paywall sources. Such sources cannot be considered public due to a reader’s inability to freely and independently verify its content. These sources include STLToday and St. Louis Post Dispatch, both of which require paid membership to view the articles.

There have also been accusations of bias in my edits, which again are false. All edits have been made using free, public sources, the contents of which can be independently verified by the public. To date, I have not seen any reprimand against those who continue to use private, Paywall sources.MOfacts (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MOfacts: Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability instructs users: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries (emphasis added). In other words, reliable sources that have a paywall are fine to use in articles. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10 Thank you for the clarification. No more removals will be made on my part, just was unable to validate the sources through my own browsing. MOfacts (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We now know the reason MOfacts removed this info, check my post below this one linking the Intercept article about this debacle. Perfecnot (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]