| 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. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
incomplete
editWhat is the number of the district Quist is running for? 108.18.33.53 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Montana only has one at-large district, as it is a low-population state. Activist (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Gianforte Assault
editDon't include it in the article lede. If you want to, discuss your change here first. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Why should I discuss the article change first? I was trying to include a current event. Stan 3 03:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Putting it in the section on "2017 election" is fine; putting it in the article lead is electioneering. I'm on edge due to a bunch of normally-responsible editors going crazy on the Greg Gianforte page. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I mentioned the endorsement withdrawals of Gianforte by both the Billings Gazette and the Missoula Missoulian. The articles mention both major candidates. (There is also a Libertarian candidate on the ballot.) I reverted the reversion of my endorsement edit, noting that the Donald Trump article (rather than the presidential election article) contains 23 mentions of Hillary Clinton (and three more of Bill, and one of the Clinton Foundation). The assault does not belong in the lede, however, in my opinion. I also contrasted the candidates' major issue positions on climate change between the candidates, and Gianforte's substantially changing his position on the subject within days, following the president's lead, because the Montana press highlight those together as well, as they are notable, and his most recent position is consistent with the latter's notable scientific denialism. Activist (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Information has to tie into Rob Quist in some way. Right now, it doesn't even do that and introduces an off topic discussion of Gianforte. Gianforte is not Quist. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: Two long time editors, montanabw and myself, disagree with you. The Gazette editorial board noted what an unprecedented action theirs was, hence a notable one. Please stop repeated reverts in the absence of a consensus for your actions. Thank you. Activist (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is about Rob Quist, not Gianforte. Nothing in the paragraph added discusses anything about Rob Quist in any way shape or form. As written it is off topic. If the papers switched endorsements to Quist that could be noted. But they didn't. They just rescinded it. So far, all the information is about Gianforte, so it should go to his article, or the article about the election. The article could mention that how the assault charged impacted the election, if reliable sources make mention of it. And if that happens, we can add that information after the election.
Right now, as written, it should not be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What we have is an article that discusses Rob Quist. Then the article completely stops talking about Quist, and instead talks about an incident involving his opponent. I've heard explanations why the event is notable, but not how it ties into Quist. It looks like a WP:COATRACK section dedicated to information about his opponent, which is off topic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Harizoth is completely correct here. That section is completely unnecessary for this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: That's not accurate. Harizotoh9 also wrote that the climate change issue is also not relevant because the cited articles do not mention the differing positions of the candidates. In fact, the cited article's headline, which Harizotoh9 deleted, and which supports inclusion, (http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/quist-gianforte-support-coal-but-differ-on-policy/article_b6cbf2b9-7b14-5f6a-96ae-4817fd9511ec.html%7Ctitle=Quist, Gianforte support coal, but differ on policy), is exclusively about the difference between the two. Activist (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would say that the stuff on Gianforte's positions as opposed to Quist's positions should be kept to a minimum and not overwhelm the Quist material. The assault is fair game, however, as the endorsements in the race are relevant and the three newspapers withdrew their endorsement of GG as a result. Montanabw(talk) 14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Gianforte section does not tie into Quist in any way shape or form. This is pure Coatrack. The endorsements or retraction had nothing to do with Quist. This article is about Rob Quist, not the general election. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I created the tie-in and trimmed the quotations. It is relevant how each candidate was endorsed and the withdrawal of the Lee Newspaper endorsements. There's actually more on this. Montanabw(talk) 15:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)