Wikipedia

Talk:Sean Duffy/Archive 1

< Talk:Sean Duffy
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Nightscream in topic Duffy's Feb 2017 CNN interview
Archive 1

NPR vote

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why should this vote be included but others excluded? Arbor8 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Who said others should be excluded? Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I just think we should try to keep Wikipedia from becoming a repository of every vote ever taken. So, unless it is notable for some particular reason (say, Duffy campaigned on an anti-NPR platform) or it has received significant media coverage beyond just a local day-one story, it seems like it should be left out. Arbor8 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, since the general consensus right now is that the GOP is 100% against NPR, it is kind of significant - all I hear from both major parties is either how the Republicans hate NPR, or how NPR is a waste of money. 71.194.153.96 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Miscarriage

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The inclusion of his wife's two miscarriages felt weird to me, so I removed it. I'm not opposed to it being in there if it's something they've talked about publicly, but it seems like something we should discuss here first. Arbor8 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Significance

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am curious has to whether this story on his salary has any sort of long-term significance. I believe it will end up being news coverage that will quickly be forgotten. Truthsort (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I am reinserting it because it does well for the public to know how Sean deals with his constituents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.11 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty widely covered story. If it fades in significance then we can readdress it at that time. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Fade in significance? you realize this story died out like 5 months ago? Truthsort (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Fade in significance in the context of his overall biography. Right now it's the most notable thing he's done as a politician. Gamaliel (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sean Duffy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 09:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sean Duffy. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have never met Sean but I object to calling him a conspiracy theorist. Nothing in his Wikipedia article indicates or justifies this unfair label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ima Recluse (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Duffy's Feb 2017 CNN interview

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

User:CaliIndie has blanked a large swath of relevant, properly sourced material on Duffy's February 2017 remarks on Trumps' Muslim travel ban, and on the distinctions between terrorist acts committed by Muslims and those committed by white nationalist/supremacist terrorists. CaliIndie stated as their rationale:

This is an insane edit and the mother of all WP:NPOV shattering practices; we don't need every Tom, Dick and Harry's opinion, if you want to readd some opinion pieces' takes go ahead, but absolutely do not dedicate whole paragraphs to every single one; secondly, a transcript is a total WP:BLPBALANCE violation, just quote them, no need for a blockquote

Let me try to address each relevant point in order.

NPOV

I have not indicated any POV on my part in my edit, as everything in the material I composed is paraphrased and summarized directly from the cited sources, without any slanted wording or undue weight given to any particular point. When I first came across the the passage, it was disorganized, and no explanatory context for Duffy's remarks about different types of terrorists. I had to look through the source to see that it came during a discussion of Trump's Muslim travel ban.

In addition, the only source cited was CNN, the very venue in which the Camerota-Duffy interview took place. It made no mention of a "controversy," which would be problematic either way, since reporting such a thing would require a secondary source -- that is, a source removed from the publisher of the interview. What I did was add five sources that covered the exchange, three of which (Vox, Slate and the Miami Herald) whose authors offered critical commentary on to Duffy's remarks -- i.e.: the controversy claimed by the section heading. The other two sources I added, HuffPost and The Post and Courier, mostly reported on the exchange, with little or criticism of it. I also added citations of sources for crime/terrorism statistics that those critics themselves cited in those articles. Doing this does not constitute a "viewpoint" on my part, but merely provides the very source that WP:V requires of such claims made on Wikipedia. Blanking it was not appropriate.

BLPBALANCE

WP:BLPBALANCE does not say anything about, nor does it have anything to do, with including a quoted exchange in an article -- what CaliIndie referred to in their edit summary as a "transcript." BLPBALANCE prescribes that material related to criticism or praise be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and that it be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, without disproportionate space to given to particular viewpoints, especially small minority ones. None of this has anything to do with including a quoted exchange for context. In fact, I decided to include that context precisely so that there wasn't any interpretation or slant: By showing the relevant portion of Camerota and Duffy's exchange word for word, without selective editing (which by the way, is supported by an embedded video at the CNN page), the section provides readers with the ability to see exactly what the two of them said in context. What CaliIndie did was revert the section to its prior state, in which soundbites were not only chopped up, by placed chronologically out of order, a point I made in my edit summaries. How is presented a quoted exchange not disinterested in its tone? Why "particular or minority viewpoint" is being given weight by showing what they said, word for word?

Balance can be violated one of two ways: By not including dissenting sources, or by not presenting them accurately.

For the first point, the content is limited by the sources available. I tried looking for sources supportive of Duffy or his arguments, but was unable to find any. I went to foxnews.com and did a search, and found no reference to the interview. I tried doing a search for the conservative website Washington Examiner and Duffy, but found nothing. In the course of this search, I thought I found a possible mention of the interview at the conservative magazine The New Republic, but it turned out to be a 2019 article that was actually harshly critical of Duffy. Its citation of his comments to Camerota not only further established how the Camerota interview went to Duffy's notability, but how the controversial nature of his comments, continued to be associated with his image two years after it took place. I chose not to include this as a source. My Google search also turned up a link to The Federalist (which I didn't know until now published pseudoscience and conspiracy theories), but it made no mention of the CNN interview. Bottom line: I tried looking for alternate viewpoints, and didn't find any. If CaliIndie knows of any, then why not add them? Hell, point them out to me, and I'll add them myself.

If CaliIndie felt my wording was slanted, then they could have fixed it or discussed it here. Instead, they took a scorched Earth approach and blanked the entire edits, not only doing a blind, knee-jerk revert of my copyedits to citations in other parts of the article, but reverting the section to a disorganized stub that offered no source as to "controversy", which is odd, because right before I improve the passage, CaliIndie made this edit, in which they deleted a quoted portion of the interview for being "unsourced", even though the CNN citation indeed supported it. If she had a problem with that lack of an inline citation, she could've added it a ref name tag of that same citation. And if CaliIndie thought wholesale removal of the passage was the right solution, why did they not remove the portion of the passage above it that came after that CNN citation, inasmuch as citations have to go after the supported material?

If CaliIndie or other editors want to debate whether to include a quoted exchange, or what parts of the additions to trim or tweak, then they should be bold and edit those things, or discuss them here. But wholesale blanking, and censorship of those sources and the information they provide to the reader, does not improve the article, and is not consistent with the collaboration prescribed on this project. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Hi there! It seems you invited me to this conversation because I recently cleaned up some references. I made some more tweaks to the references.
I don't know anything about Duffy or his political career, or how often he says things that people object to. Without reading any of the references, it seems like the recent expansion of the Controversy section was too big. I don't see where Duffy did anything notable after people objected to his comments, or that there were any long-term consequences to his comments. GoingBatty (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: So what are your opinions on the manner in which the section was composed, and CaliIndie's decision to blank it and remove all the supportive citations? Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nightscream: You had the right to be bold and expand the Controversy section in good faith. CaliIndie's decision to revert it is consistent with the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. GoingBatty (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPBALANCE concerns related to how large your edit was in relation to the controversy itself. It did not necessitate a blockquote format and could've been handled within the text itself to reduce article spacing. It's not my job to fix what I don't think is fixable, I have no issue with including this controversy in the article, or the reaction to it, but my problem was how you handled it being three separate paragraphs dedicated to three separate opinion pieces. If you combine those three into one short one or just summarize them all together into something like, "he was criticized in the print media" for his remarks, then that would be fine. As it stood, your edit did push the boundaries of WP:NPOV as previously stated, it wasn't conservatively done and read like a hit piece rather than an encyclopedia. I'd be happy to look over some new draft versions to settle this. CaliIndie (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
In retrospect my WP:BLPBALANCE concerns probably related more to WP:DUE, but nevertheless. CaliIndie (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NPOV has nothing to do with number of paragraphs or with the inclusion a quoted exchange. The former is a question of properly summarizing the amount of coverage and the breadth of information in that coverage, and the latter was included for purposes of context or exposition in order to avoid interpretations of their words. That may be a stylistic choice, but neither of these things have to do with exhibiting a editor's point view (or presenting a POV in Wikipedia's voice). If I'm wrong, then by all means, please explain how those things have anything to do with that policy. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
NPOV applies here. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In this case the quantity of text suggested that this one interview was about 1/3rd of what was important about his entire political career. The length of text was much longer than the significance of the event as compared to the rest of this biography. I do understand that sometimes this is frustrating. I've seen cases where a superficial description of an event (say 2-3 sentences) is all that is likely DUE for inclusion but that same length of text is entirely too short to explain what was actually a complex issue. Springee (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
And even if that mean removing the blockquote (which would could make the passage a greater target for NPOV accusations by virtue of how that exchange is paraphrased), did it also mean removing all the citations pertaining to the reactions to Duffy's comments? How much space do citations take up? Again, do you realize that right now, the only citation for that passage is one that makes no mention of any controversy, and that even if it did, citing it as support for it would be problematic, because it's published by the network on which the interview took place, and is merely a recounting of that interview? Do you support the removal of those citations? Again, how is that reasonable? Nightscream (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Duffy/Archive_1&oldid=1056984695"