Wikipedia

Talk:Scott Boman

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
—Anthøny 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

July 2007

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article is about a Michigan Politician. One can look directly at the mi.go web page to verify this. Furthermore it addresses past elections. By what standard is it "Purely promotional?"--Libertyguy 05:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see no need to edit it at this time, other than that I don't want it deleted. If you think some of the content is faulty, please edit it. This is a right all users have. The subject matter is intrinsically suitable, because this is a Michigan politician who ran in the general election for Michigan's second highest office.--Libertyguy 05:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikify tag

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed you deleted my tags once again- according to Wiki policy you really shouldn't do that. When creating an article you should begin it either in your sandbox or on your own computer, that way when you create the page it doesnt automatically get deleted. Both of those pages still seem non-notable, but just because I do not know who they are doesn't mean they aren't. They still may qualify for deletion under WP:NN. I have a wikify tag on them based on the fact that you have MANY external links throughout both articles, which does not comply to wiki standards. Please read WP:CITE to view the proper way to cite and reference your article. Where your external links seem to be appears that you were trying to cite, so it should be relatively easy to change those external links into footnotes, therefore wikifying the article. -YeLLeY511 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. The tag said I could remove it if I "objected to deletion for any reason." which I did. I won't do this again. Thank you for the advise.--Libertyguy 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rating

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have given this article a "B" rating as is consistent with the rating given by the Wikiproject Michigan. It has been through an extensive editing process and has stood up to an extensive AFD. It is arguably eligible for a GA rating, but I wish to give this further consideration before nominating it in the "Good Article" review process.--Redandready (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

2008 Senate run

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Boman is currently runnign for U.S. Senate, though this is not mentioned at all. I feel this should be properly researched and the page updated. Maybe make it part of the Wikiproject Michigan to keep Wikipedia a living document. Good Tidings - Navarro (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

2010 Secretary of State effort

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have made the page more current by creating a section for Boman’s most recent political efforts, as well as changing the “Political activities since 2006” heading to read “Republican Party involvement.” The focus on 2006 seems to reflect the composition time, and the content of that section is exclusively referencing his activities as a Republican.--Libertyguy (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

2013 Notability Prod

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A prod was recently placed on this article asserting the need to establish notability and include reliable sources. The notability issue was resolved after the article was nominated for deletion in 2007:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Boman

The article is well sourced and a number of reliable sources have been cited in the years following the AfD. I will be adding additional content and secondary sources, since there is new content on the subject. --Libertyguy (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Consensus can change, and a deletion nomination from 2007 gives plenty of time to reconsider. All of the "sources" are either trivial mentions or pieces that aren't independent of the subject. I won't initiate an AfD until I see what you add. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
There are non-trivial sources, apart from the subject, but I don’t wish to use time on debate, that is better spent on improving the article. Please be patient, given that I have found plenty of new content on the subject in 2012. I won’t be able to continue editing before tomorrow night. As justification for consideration, I will point out a couple notability criteria that the subject meets.

I don't understand how someone can become non-notable over a 5 or 6 year period during which he is on the ballot statewide not once, not twice, but three times. If this page was not worthy of deletion in 2007, then it surely isn't now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csharer (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not done editing yet, so continued patience is welcome. --Libertyguy (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) more edits tomorrow.--Libertyguy (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a subject-matter expert on the Libertarian Party of Michigan, I just noted the LPM Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_party_of_michigan) is in need of substantial update: one area in particular is inclusion of significant candidacies; Scotty's and Greg Creswell's candidacies are already noted--both of them are subject of Wiki articles--, and I have added two others for writeup in the near future: Bette Erwin (US Senate 1970s) and Dick Jacobs (Governor 1982). There may be one or two others, but Boman is certainly preeminent among LPM candidacies.

Let's go ahead and leave the article alone; I see no grounds to delete as there are several secondary sources already cited and a high percentage of the writeup was considered worthy of keeping in 2007; he's certainly much more notable now after a vigorous Senate campaign in 2012. Bwisok (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Good lord. "Most visible". "Most voted-for." "Standard bearer". Pointing out that he happened to get more votes than Ralph Nader in 2000. Severe citation overkill everywhere. This article reads like an extended advertisement and needs some severe cleaning. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Scotty has had a long and varied career in Libertarian Party of Michigan politics, and Michigan politics in general. Many of the subjective adjectives are simply quotes from third-party references. But I agree the citations are excessive and distracting, and a good decisive edit for those is due; as one with some subject-matter awareness, I'll try to do the edit by July 2013, certainly by the end of the summer. Bwisok (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, both, for taking an interest in improving this article. As the creator of this article, and a major contributor to it, I feel personally accountable for the neutrality of this article. User:The ed17 makes some valid points, but a clear distinction needs to be made in relation to POV. Every editor has a point of view implied when he or she creates or edits an article. That POV is that the subject is worthy of the editors attention. It is Wikipedian policy to assert the importance of the subject matter in the introductory section. An emphasis on vote totals relative to other candidates, or an emphasis politician’s significance within a movement is appropriate in that context. NPOV would be violated if such emphasis extended to favoring a candidate or his points of view as somehow being better than alternatives. There is a difference between saying he got the votes, and saying he deserved the votes.
After a careful read, I must agree that some of the information must be removed. “Most visible” is too subjective to pin down, though the sources show the subject to be highly visible, and that phrase has been in the article since it was created. The degree to which the subject is voted for is a factual matter. I have reworded that part to be more concise and in keeping with the language of the source. The phrase “standard-bearer” was used in a reliable source, but the sentence was written in a manner that could be regarded as representing opinion as fact. I have changed that wording.
The “citation-overkill” comment leads me to carefully review Wikipedia’s policy on this. The high frequency of references is distracting and effects readability. These should be merged wherever possible, and unnecessary ones should be removed. I will seek help from other editors on this.--Libertyguy (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Scott Boman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scott Boman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have given this article a "B" rating as is consistent with the rating given by the Wikiproject Michigan. It has been through an extensive editing process and has stood up to an extensive AFD. It is arguably eligible for a GA rating, but I wish to give this further consideration before nominating it in the "Good Article" review process.--Redandready (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
This article is mostly complete and has no major issues. I took a look at the history and saw that it had a B-rating before. The comment on why it was changed to a C-rating said, "definitely not a B, most sources are self-published." The great majority of the sources are not self-published.--Truthtests (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 05:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on Scott Boman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

WP:SYNTH

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've removed this legal citation to Glik. (Or, more precisely, to this ACLU summary of Glik).

This is classic original research of the synthesis variety - namely, using a primary source to imply a conclusion not stated in the source. The citation says nothing about Boman's case. Ir does not mention Boman at all. The inclusion of the case citation as so-called "background" is basically disguised argumentation, because it raises the inference that Glik is applicable on the facts of Boman's case. And the source says absolutely nothing about that. (Moreover, inclusion is misleading because Glik is not binding law in Michigan, where the arrest took place; Glik was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which does not include Michigan.)

Original research is especially problematic when it applies to making legal arguments. It's OK for us to say, citing a reliable sources, what a party actually argued: "John Smith moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that X case applies" or that "in a legal brief filed with X Court, Y Litigant argued Z." But it is not OK for us to invoke cases to try to imply a legal conclusion, to even to selectively highlight certain cases that we as Wikipedia editors think are relevant. That runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, especially because legal cases are often limited by certain factual contexts that may not be relevant in different factual contexts.

If someone doubts this, the issue can be raised at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Neutralitytalk 22:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The statements were made and cited back to back, but each sentence was cited separately, so this was not a synthesis as were the examples on the synthesis page you linked to. As to whether this case was applicable to the alleged facts of the Boman case, enough information is quoted to let the reader reach his own conclusions. Boman was stopped for recording police, which lead to the trespassing charge, so it is comparable. This was a SCOTUS ruling, so it does apply to Michigan. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am hoping to find some consensus on this.
If sourced information indicated that the Glik was referenced in the proceedings of the Boman case, would you then agree that inclusion of the quote and source was applicable?Libertyguy (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Glik was not a SCOTUS ruling. Glik v. Cunniffe was a U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruling. Michigan is within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Glik never made it to the Supreme Court. Neutralitytalk 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

2012 Neutrality Concerns

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Removing the entire paragraph was overkill. The removed content was not intended to be "promotional." Some of this was mentioned in the above discussions when some of these edits were made in 2013. It is Wikipedian policy to assert the notability of the subject in the introductory section. The distinction between the two being articulated in previous discussions. For example, one can say a subject received significant media coverage, without saying he deserved it. To say he deserved it would be promotional. The "Household word" part was not promotional by this standard, but I see why it could be perceived that way. I will leave this item out.

The objection that the Davis article "Davis column is opinion and doesn't mention Boman at all." is irrelevant. The Davis article serves to show when a Michigan minor party candidate for US Senate had last participated in televised presidential debates with the major party candidates. MLive is a reputable source and this information was referenced as a fact even though it was in an editorial.

Polling results were used as a qualifying criteria, so the results did position him for possible inclusion in the televised debates. The debates didn't transpire because the major party candidates refused to agree on one. In the spirit of consensus, I will not restore the phrase, "position him for possible inclusion," but rather indicate the roll of polling criteria in qualifying for debate inclusion. I will refer back to his prior exclusion for lack of polling results: http://www.webcitation.org/5cGFZX0ZL

The "Liberty Daily" article is not a "broken link" because the original citation included a link to the archived page here: http://www.webcitation.org/6F78xfkvw Libertyguy (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Text like "he received interviews and mention[12] by regional,[13][14] national[4][15] and international[16] media.[17][18]" comes across as promotional — it seems like an attempt to really bolster the perception of the person's notability. If you look around at other biographies, we don't include text like this ("Joe Smith received mention in the media") because it is usually obvious. (If he is notable enough for Wikipedia, of course he is "mentioned" in the sources — if there wasn't, then we wouldn't have an article at all).
If you dive down into the cites, you'll find this statement even stranger. "National coverage" is cited to three short sentences in a Politico piece plus three sources that aren't "national media coverage" (mentions in one blog and two Libertarian Party webpages is not "the media"). "International coverage" is even more thin - one deadlink to one appearance on a Turkish radio station. This comes across as promotional, plucking out random cites here and there and then using them to support a sweeping statement. Neutralitytalk 19:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The reported television coverage which begins "Some coverage was unfavorable..." is very thin. WZTV is apparently just rereporting the WWMT story and uses Boman as an example of a "blemished" candidate because of a personal bankruptcy in the early 2000s (a bankruptcy otherwise unmentioned in this article). The story's chyron manages to mistakenly place him in Ohio, and the claim that he's "almost a household name in Michigan" is clearly not so much a statement of fact as a dig at his status as a perennial candidate. The story isn't about him at all. Mackensen (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Detroit News endorsement

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've looked at the sources for the Detroit News endorsement claim in the lede and it seems weak. First, the endorsement was for the primary and not the general election. Second, the News said this: "Voters can choose nine contenders for City Council seats, with the top 18 vote-getters moving into the November election. Our suggested slate below includes no incumbents..." There's no discussion of party affiliation in the endorsement; probably because the Detroit City Council is non-partisan. The claim itself, that Boman was the second Libertarian endorsed by the Detroit News, is sourced to the Libertarian Party of Michigan. Is there any independent sourcing of this claim? Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Independent of what? The Detroit News? You comment on the content of an article from the Detroit News then ask, "Is there any independent sourcing of this claim?" Clearly you found the link to the archived article. http://www.webcitation.org/6ETbrhs36 Detroit elections are non-partisan, but the subject was a Libertarian.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

2017 Notability Tag

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have not done much with this article for a couple reasons, one of which is that, “This user is busy in real life…” I will make some edits to improve the article, but they aren’t necessary to establish notability.

  • This article prevailed in an AfD in 2007. Notability isn’t temporary. One can argue that consensus can change. That would be a strong point if there was little or no coverage of the subject since 2007, and that the initial AfD was close. Neither applies.
  • Since 2007 the subject has been involved in a number of projects. This includes significant coverage in his US Senate campaigns. While being on the ballot doesn’t add much, the significant coverage does. He also received significant coverage as organizer of an unsuccessful recall campaign, and as a result of an incident that occurred when he was attempting to gather evidence against a political rival in Detroit.
  • There was the substantive accomplishment of changing the placement of his party on the ballot by meeting a vote threshold as a Secretary of State candidate.
  • A common outcome is to keep articles about persons who have been leaders of state chapters of national organizations, especially registered political parties… regardless of electoral success. He has been Chair of the Libertarian Party of Michigan, Michigan Director of the Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016, and Michigan Director of Our America Initiative.

--Libertyguy (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

A few comments. Consensus can and does change; the 2007 AfD was a remarkably weak discussion with little reference to policy. Many of the arguments made would be rejected today, and probably should have been rejected then. The question of significant coverage will have to be looked into further. As to the last two points: what WP:OUTCOMES says on this is the following: Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. Being chair for a year probably won't do it. He wasn't chair in 2016. Gary Johnson's success in the presidential level changed the party's status in the state. Boman was state campaign director for Johnson. Unless there's an independent source crediting Boman's efforts in that role, it's not relevant. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

2006 Lieutenant Governor candidacy

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure how to fix this section. It's embarrassing as written. Take this: Gubernatorial candidate Gregory Creswell and Boman's names appeared on the campaigns signage with Boman's name on the right and with the elective offices they were running for listed underneath. This is not a sentence that should appear in a Wikipedia article. Of course Boman's name appeared on marketing materials! The paragraph on "Racial preferences" is sourced to the League of Women Voters guide. I looked through it and didn't find any of that information. The guide didn't print interviews with any of the lieutenant governor candidates, nor did the guide ask anyone for their views on Proposal 2. There are no independent sources for this section at all. It might be best folded into a section called "Political positions" (compare Gary Johnson#Political positions), though even then such sections usually incorporate independent sources describing the person's positions. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 115 external links on Scott Boman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Boman&oldid=1258349232"