Talk:Jacquelin Maycumber

Libellous with lack of citations

It seems all news sources used as citations are https://www.spokesman.com/, written by the same author, Emry Dinman.

Wikipedia's BLP policy states: 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.

This section around the March 26th 2024 seems overly libellous for the lack of citations. I believe this would be more accurate and well structured if we remove everything past "Jim Walsh".

@CSP3945 I suggest we trim this down to what can be properly cited. Especially the section around Federal laws, which have nothing to do with a state level offense. Joram1024 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Peaceray this is the discussion i opened up.

two parts seem incorrect to me:

- the quote from Jim Walsh seems uncited (poorly sourced), and seems libellous.

- the section referencing federal laws when this is in reference to a state matter.

If I believe this is incorrect information, beyond "edits: that you think the citations are incorrect" and goes against the BLP policy, what should be the course course of action? Joram1024 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joram1024:

• I clarified that the quote came from Emry Dinman's article & not John Walsh. It now directly alludes to the source.
• Are you suggesting that The Spokesman-Review is not a reliable source? I have seen no indication that they are not. I fail to understand why three citations from that source were removed.
• States may take action on matters that violate Federal election laws. A prime example of this is the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.

Peaceray (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

response:

- I didn't notice the change in text, sorry, I thought it was a straight revert.

- I should remove my own views of the author's credibility/bias unless I have evidence of it (sorry). There is many misquotes in the articles, but the wikipedia pages do reflect the quotes.

- I thought (and should verify) that States had their own election laws (PDC), which were mishandled here. and the linked source referenced Federal election laws (FEC), that did not apply. Are you saying that states can enforce FEC laws even when the state laws are different? IF so, I agree with the structure of the page as it is.

other thoughts:

- I had updated the "As of July 18, 2024" to today's date as it's still being investigated

- the WSLC doesn't have the word "progressive" in the linked page, so I am unsure why they are self described as progressive.

- the bottom section on abortion trafficking refers to an article which says:

"Maycumber was initially unfamiliar with the issue. When provided examples, she said she supported Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law and argued that combating human trafficking should be a priority for the government."

I am unsure where the page got

"Maycumber stated that it should be "priority" for the federal government to prevent women from seeking an abortion."

since she quoted her about human trafficking, not abortion trafficking. Joram1024 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• I may have changed the text after reviewing the discussion here.
• Regarding potential misquotes, if a reliable source has reported it, then I think the arguments of the verifiability, not truth apply. Simply stating that they got it wrong is insufficient without a citation supporting that.
• The text indicates that The transfer may still violate federal campaign finance laws, and if found guilty, Maycumber could be sentenced to up to 5 years in prison. As of July 18, 2024, the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission was still reviewing the complaint. All this is cited. I do not see the need to state anything further about Washington election laws because the text & the citation indicates that the state commission is investigating the complaint.
• You are correct about the WSLC citation, it does not mention "progressive" in its page. I have instead linked to their constitution, which indicates that they support progressive candidates. I have updated the text to reflect this.
• The full quote from Crosscut is Maycumber was initially unfamiliar with the issue. When provided examples, she said she supported Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law and argued that combating human trafficking should be a priority for the government. It seems pretty clear that Maycumber is referring to the transportation of someone for the purposes of obtaining an abortion & not human trafficking in general. In fact, the Idaho law refers to "abortion trafficking". Do you have an alternative wording to suggest to capture this?

Peaceray (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

response:

- the edit looked sensible, the timing was a little confusing to me, that's all :)

- Agreed about this being verifiable as is, I'm just worried about it misrepresenting.

- changing the citation for WSLC being progressive sounds good.

- the article's quote is correct, she was referring to human trafficking based on the examples (the reason I know this is below).

More:

I should have started this stating my biases:

- I am a very liberal Canadian, and don't share the views of this politician

- I've talked with the subject of this article once

- She told me she believes these edits were done by an opponent in an election from the past (another republican fighting for the seat in the riding).

- She believes this page isn't representing her views accurately, and attempting to exaggerate the implications of the accidental campaign law violation (she says her accountant was late filing the paperwork)

Given all this:

I tried to remove my bias, but be helpful, and update it to what I could find articles and documentation on, to be unbiased and accurate. It seems I removed more than I should have (sorry about that). I'd rather not ask her to, but to have her these misquotes cleared up, would it be best to ask her to talk to a reporter so we have a quotable news article? Joram1024 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the edits you've made so far. The changes seem sufficient I don't believe removing anything else on the page would be necessary or helpful for readers. I'm glad you reached out to her, the original edits did seem to be a little aggressive, however in the context of Eastern Washington politics it was very relevant and something discussed around here. I have doubts anything put on her article was made by someone that was out to get her. CSP3945 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and audited the edit history to find anything suspicious, I didn't find much that pointed to what she suggested. The only thing semi-noteworthy I found was a lot of repeated edits from a Seattle IP address that attempted to remove much of the information from her page multiple times over the span of a month or two. CSP3945 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Phew! this response seems very reasonable (given your edit history of Eastern Washington politicians I assumed you were politically motivated) so when I saw you responded, I got all sorts of nervous. Thank you for:

- reviewing my edits

- auditing the history (mostly you/me/peaceray) with your noted exceptions Joram1024 (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

FEC violation are federal offenses, not state level. PDC offenses are state level. That's probably why it was worded that way. CSP3945 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the time both of you put in here.

would it be well received and useful to the reader if I added a section on notable legislation she sponsored that was signed into law? There is a section on the old campaign page that lists them, so I can look them up with votesmart, verify them, and link them. Joram1024 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References