Talk:Conor Lamb

Untitled

I strongly disagree with the redirect on this article.

Conor Lamb clearly meets both these criteria for notability:

"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

I apologize if I am not going about this properly. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Quigley david (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 13 Casprings (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Free Beacon Internet Comment

I reverted this add [2] I think there are two issues. One is about the source. It is politically motivated and bias. Not WP:RS in this context. The second is WP:WEIGHT. The article is about an Internet comment he might have made from years ago. Lamb can’tremember doing it(it’s an Internet comment at the end of an article). Who knows. That said, it shouldn’t be in a bio.Casprings (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Language in introduction

It is completely preposterous to assume that by enforcing drug prohibition as a prosecutor Conor had any positive effect on the opioid crisis. It reads like Conor Lamb wrote it himself. I have removed that language from the introduction. Sinbadbuddha (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to judge the impact of his work. We are here to list what he has tried to do, as documented by reliable sources. Reliable sources document his involvement in prosecuting cases related to the opioid epidemic. The lead accurately reflects that in an NPOV way, with sources. Searine (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fake news

This article is badly referenced. I don't have time to research it in depth, but a quick check of the references shows that some (many?) of them don't mention Conor Lamb at all. Others are primary sources, or material from Lamb's campaign. The references are extensive. So, probably, is the mischief and fakeness in presenting them. Lou Sander (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That’s not what fake news is, and you probably know that. A badly referenced article is not necessarily the work of media masterminds conspiring to deceive the public by disseminating objectively false content.

In any case, this article is actually quite brief. There’s no reason that an editor with the time to review a number of references wouldn’t also have the time to correct them. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you point out some examples of references that don't mention him, or that are primary? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

After a quick scan - maybe some of the articles in the "prosecutions" section? I'll check them out. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Conor Lamb isn't mentioned in references 13, 16, and 20. Reference 19 is a primary source. Seems like lotsa fakeness here. Lou Sander (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quit referring to it as fake news and fakeness. You're rapidly loosing credibility.- MrX 🖋 15:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific examples. Conor Lamb isn't mentioned in references 13, 16, and 20. Reference 19 is a primary source. Seems like lotsa fakeness here. I'll check them out.

• Reference 13 is verifying biographical details about his grandfather. So it’s OK even though it doesn't mention Lamb himself.

• Reference 16 identifies “Cpt. Conor Lamb” as prosecutor. It’s OK.

• Reference 20 does not mention Lamb. I will delete it. The information stays because it has another reference, and reference 21 DOES mention Lamb, identifying him as co-prosecutor. (Note: reference numbers are different now because of removal of one reference and addition of some others.)
• Reference 19 is a DOJ press release and names Lamb as co-prosecutor. There is also a secondary reference for that case, reference 18, which does not mention Lamb but establishes the facts of the case. IMO we can keep the press release for the sole purpose of establishing Lamb’s connection with the case. Both references stay and the information stays.

Bottom line: No fakeness here. One reference will be deleted. No information in the article will be affected.--MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also added three additional references for some of this material.- MrX 🖋 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Lamb's Marine Corps section

Most of the information in Lamb's military service is irrelevant to the biography and should be removed. Describing in depth what takes places at TBS in the Marine Corps is outside the scope of this biography; anyone interested in this information could read it through the links for the respective schools. A typical biography for a Marine Corps JAG officer should read:

Lamb attended Officer Candidates School, where after completion he was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. Lamb then completed follow-on training at The Basic School, before attending Jag School ...

JAG School also does not need a detailed description of what transpires there.

That Lamb (and every other Marine Officer) learns night land navigation and how to use weapons at TBS is immaterial to this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.233.86 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree. As a veteran myself, I was happy to correct minor details in the (appropriately) limited scope of Lamb's military service, before this major edit. What people need to know is he went to OCS, became a JAG officer, and prosecuted cases. Nobody needs to know the intimate details of military curriculum at some of these schools, especially because none of it is relevant to either the article or people's understanding of Conor Lamb, as a future member of Congress. I thank the author for his/her thoughtfulness in expanding the section. But, it should be trimmed by its author. Otherwise others will, including myself. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove the descriptions of the standard training and curriculum for a Marine. We should retain the things that are specific to his own military service. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Good stuff - agreed. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging SimonATL who made the additions being discussed here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sharing the below comments by way of a little education on the unique training program that ONLY the US Marine Corps has for all junior officers regardless of ultimate military job or MOS.

US Marine Corps Basic Officers School - TBS - The Mandatory 6 Month Course that ALL Marine Officers Attend, Regardless of ultimate military job

What you fail to understand is that the US Marine Corps is unique in offering ALL of its lieutenants beyond the typical 8-12 Week Officers Candidate School (OCS) training a 6 MONTH course of instruction on the Marine Corps way of War, organization, air, ground and logistics components and the basic information that it feels that all officers need to function effectively. Had Lamb gone thru the US Army, Air Force or Navy officer candidate school, I would agree on the edits made. A JAG officer in any other service but the Marine Corps will NOT know how to call in air strikes, artillery and even offshore naval gunfire missions nor how air, ground and logistics combine in a synergistic way to contribute to success on the battlefield. In direct contrast to the very thorough training that characterizes The Basic School of Marine Officers, (TBS), upon completion of a 2-3 month typical officer candidate school, a non-Marine officer would go on to his services' JAG school. In direct contrast to the often narrow specialized training of non-infantry and non-combat officers, in the case of LAMB, he was trained as first as an infantry officer at the US Marine Corps' Basic School as are ALL Marine officers regardless of ultimate assignment. Consider this, actual Marine Officers graduating from The Basic School who are going into the Infantry Branch attend only another 6 weeks of field instruction that will include a few additional classes in such topics as advanced patrolling and a few other "topping-off" areas of instruction. EVERY graduate of the US Marine Corps Basic school is qualified to be an Infantry Platoon commander. I speak from experience on this. A week after I graduated from TBS and headed off to the US Army's artillery school at Fort Sill, I met my former roommate who had gotten into the Marine Corps' Aviation program and was awaiting orders to Pensacola Flight training. I asked him when he was scheduled to report to Pensacola. He replied that the school was backed up 9 months and had agreed to go out on a 6 month deployment as an Infantry Platoon commander. He had NO other infantry officer training, before going to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, picking up his Infantry platoon, training with them on various field operations, being bused up to the amphibious shipping north of Camp Lejeune and going out to sea for 6 months with a 2,500 Marine (Amphibious) Expeditionary Unit. If 2d Lieutenant Lamb had also been "on hold" and in a waiting queue for attending the JAG Naval Justice School in Newport Rhode Island, HE could ALSO have picked up an infantry platoon and gone off to Combat in wartime or training in peacetime. ONLY the US Marine Corps trains EVERY SINGLE officer this way. It's NOT some (side comment) that LAMB attended the Marine Corps Basic School where he did, XYZ at all. LAMB left TBS and Quantico Virgina as a trained Marine Corps Infantry Officer as is every other TBS graduate. Case in point. One of my USMC JAG officer friends was a Marine Lawyer at the tail end of combat operations in northern Vietnam in 1971. He was in a long column of trucks and jeeps heading to a fire base where he was supposed to participate in a court martial as a defense counsel. Sitting in his jeep somewhere at towards the rear of the column and reading his legal papers in preparation for the trial, he told me that he heard explosions and gunfire at the head of the column. The convoy had been ambushed, putting his notes back into his tan leather brief case and putting on his helmet and grabbing his M-16 rifle, he got out of his jeep and raced towards the head of the column. Getting up there he noted that 2 trucks had hit land mines and the drivers had been killed along with several junior officers. Finding a working radio in the 2d truck, he got on the Radio and (from mental muscle memory) began looked at his topographical map and begain talking, "Any station this (radio) net, Adjust fire, Enemy ambush, (topographical map) Grid AB123343, NVA in the treeline 400 meters to my right. One round smoke, in adjustment, over." Could ANY JAG officer in the Air Force, Navy or Army even consider doing this? Answer. NO. All those officers would know how to do is fire a service rifle or pistol in the direction of the enemy. with the intial white smoke incoming (artillery) round not quite hitting the enemy tree line, 1st Lt Harry Lembeck called back, "Left 200 (meters) add 300 (meters) 12 rounds, fire for effect, over" Now that 150mm artiller was slamming into the NVA position, Harry asked where a high frequency radio was capable of communicating with jet aircraft might be located. Given one, Harry called in several air strikes by Marine F4 phantom jets, "He spoke directly to the incoming pilots but 1st called back to the artillery unit for another white smoke marking round so that the incoming Marine Aviators would know where to drop their napalm. Off course THOSE Marine aviators, had also attended TBS and were totally familiar with the ground situation that Harry Faced. Those pilots were also totally unaware that they were communicating by HF radio with a "LAWYER!" Harry Lembeck would go on to a legal career spanning decades and is the author of an excellent book on 26th US President, Theodore Roosevelt and the Brownsville Incident that many feel tarnished T.R.'s career (see https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Theodore-Roosevelt-President-Brownsville/dp/161614954X ) Fast forward to Afghanistan. Young female Marine Corps Supply officer in the back of another convoy, races forward to the head of the convoy that has been ambushed. Grabbing 40 motor Transport Marine truck drivers (every Marine an infantryman) she led a counterattack, running towards the Taliban troops with her G4 rifle and jumping over a wall she he looked back at her new informal infantry platoon and shouted, "Follow ME, Marines" They did. After the battle, she informally asked why those Marines followed her into an attack on the Taliban, "Well, Mam, YOU sure looked like YOU knew what YOU were doing, so we followed YOU." She was a graduate of the US Naval Academy and when assigned to the staff of the Naval Academy in the coming years told my daughter this story at the time my daughter attended. I hope I made myself clear here, LAMB, like EVERY US Marine officer left TBS fully prepared to lead Infantry or any other Marines into combat. TBS was NOT some extended Officers Candidate School. Eventual non-Infantry Marine officers will spend the rest of their lives gripping about the long 6 months with many weeks spent in the field, calling in mortar, artillery and air strikes, swatting bugs and often being miserable, but they ALL have finished a 6 month school totally unique in the US military. Last point - When my own daughter completed the Naval Academy, finished TBS and went on to go thru the 4 month Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) officer course out at Camp Pendelton, CA, her class went up to the sprawling Desert Marine Corps base, 29 Palms for a one week field excercise. I texted her, "Now don't forget your fire support control measures (left and right unit boundary markers (on your map) and (colored left-right across the line of forward movement) phase lines." Her response says it all, "OK DAD - Yup, I ALSO attended TBS, dad, LOL" That sums up the unique value that this 6 month school offers to young Marine officers. LAMB could (right now) pick up a radio and call in mortar, artillery or air strikes. How many Navy or Air Force present or past JAG officers could do the same. Unlike the familiarization training that constitutes your typical Officer Candidate School (OCS) 8-12 week experience, TBS gives OPERATIONAL infantry training to every student. They may never use that training in combat, but they are certainly prepared. I hope I explained why I put in a little about LAMB's TBS experience. TBS is no "Finishing School," it is top-down and bottom-up ground combat infantry officer training along with a top-to-bottom look at every aspect of the Marine Air-Ground Combat team. Here is another point to explain the value of TBS. Unlike some mere OCS course, TBS does NOT teach 1-2 days of land navigation (LandNav) it teaches HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of hours of land. Officers spend week-after-week in the field and can NOT move forward unless they display proven LANDNAV skills. Those who fall short, will spend weekend-after-weekend in remedial makeup field work until the staff is content that they know what they are doing. LANDNAV is particularly difficult often for former city dwellers with NO clear feeling for NORTH-SOUTH-EAST-WEST directions. They have to LEARN what NORTH "feels like." My daughter struggled with this util I told her to imagine walking from our home towards her high school - THAT direction was NORTH, "So walking home from school is heading SOUTH? I get it, NORTHNESS is going to school and SOUTHNESS is walking back. NORTHNESS is walking from the the restaurants of Annapolis towards Gate 1 at the Naval Academy. And EASTNESS is driving thru Gate 2 (I think) at the West End of the Naval Academy Campus. People who grew up on the island of Manhattan have it easy. Walking downtown is heading south from uptown at Central park and you have that East and West Hudson River deal. But I digress. Summary - LAMB was MORE than a Marine Corps JAG officer, his TBS experience made him a trained infantry officer needing only 6 more weeks to get the actual Infantry officer MOS, 0302 but that 6 weeks was just follow-on to what TBS fully teaches.

Family

How about we add the category of Lamb family of Pennsylvania to Conor Lamb's page? I cannot because he is a locked article.--67.86.58.36 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No such category exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I created it, but of course you people come behind me and delete it.--67.86.58.36 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't "create" it. You added a category that doesn't exist to two pages, one of which I will probably nominate for deletion. As a comparison, another category with three members, Category:DiMaggio family, was just deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018

Please convert the 2018 campaign section to a U.S. House section similar to other Congressman/women. Please sub section election information into 2 spots (2017 and 2018). And add sections under U.S. House like tenure and caucus memberships and committee assignments. Rick Saccone has formally conceded and more than likely, Lamb will be sworn in in April 173.79.196.246 (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The only subsection that a presumable "U.S. House of Representatives" section would have at the present time is the 2018 special election section. Lamb hasn't been sworn in and until he does something as a Member of Congress, there is no reason to have multiple subheadings, making a superheading superfluous. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Member-Elect

There have been disputes regarding "Member-Elect" language and when it is appropriate to remove the "-Elect." These disputes have been unnecessary. At present, this article shows that Conor Lamb is a Congressman. Conor Lamb is not a Congressman, but will become one later this afternoon. (See "Conor Lamb on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 2018-04-12.) I think this is a good learning experience for editors, especially in the sense that this is a reminder that getting it right is more important than being first to make an edit following a development in current events. Wikipedia is not a news outlet where it is important to break news, but rather it is an encyclopedia which derives its value from its accuracy. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• The term starts when elected and qualified. This has always been the rule. See, e.g, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000588.—GoldRingChip 18:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking the Oath is a necessary condition of being a Member of Congress. See: Federal law , Article Six of the United States Constitution, and even the House of Representatives itself (which maintains a guide showing that a Member-Elect becomes a Member once he has taken the oath of office) . Conor Lamb's term began when he fulfilled that condition. Thanks. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Twitter is not a reliable source.  :) 18:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Six of the Constitution states "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". So Article Six is also kind of vague. All it says is Congress is bound by an oath, not whether you need to take it prior to assuming office. You can infer that, but it doesn't outright say that.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of your (disallowed) WP:OR. Having reviewed it thoroughly, I ask you please to not revive a long-debated issue through a revert war. An oath is required, but it doesn't make a person a Rep: That's what elections and qualififcations are for. You want my WP:OR]? It's Article One of the Constitution. Not to mention http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000588, that's alot better than twitter or a CRS paper that doesn't deal with special elections. All of my silliness aside, I suggest you seek a consensus for your new opinion before you revert-war everyone else.—GoldRingChip 18:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • GoldringChip: The bioguide you cite mentions the rep being elected, not taking office. State certifications usually happen after that, which may or may not confirm the election. Article 1 of the US Constitution does not mention any timeline at all for taking office. For what it's worth, I did a google search on a timeline to assume office,and couldn't find anything. On the positive, you do have Wikipedia history on your side....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You're at a 9, let's bring it down to a 3. It's not serious. Over the past few days (or weeks) this has been a constant dispute that has not been settled at the talk page. So today, I reverted your edit and attempted to guide discussion here.

Bottom line: yes, I have my opinions about this - but I'm happy to be wrong if there is a consensus that the term began on March 13, 2018. But as you so humbly mentioned, this is not your first rodeo, and so you know edit wars especially without discussion is sloppy editing.

So let's get a discussion going with others chiming in ideally. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way this is technically the wrong section to be discussing term start dates. My original post was specifically related to the now-Congressman being referred to as "Member" vs. "Member-Elect." You're literally not a Member of Congress until you take the Oath and are admitted onto the House Rolls by the Clerk. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2nd cited reference (Schneider) refers to House members-elect until the oath is taken. Probably the best reference when a representative assumes office? The oath itself (ref 1) doesn't mention any timeline other than stating the oath itself.......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Good points and thanks for sharing. I'm thinking there's a difference between being a Member and the timeline of a term. Perhaps Lamb's term (or assumption of office) occurred before he was a Member. I would further contend that a term may precede assumption of office, i.e. term beginning March 13, 2018, assumption of office on April 12, 2018. Just some thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Write-In Challenge by Kim Mack

A lady named Kim Mack has a write-in campaign for Pennsylvania District 18 , and will oppose Conor Lamb in November. Should we note that in the article? -- motorfingers : Talk 20:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References