Talk:Jack Conway (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject United States / Kentucky / Louisville (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (marked as Mid-importance).

Marijuana again, and Aqua Buddha[edit]

In response to a pile of news stories about Rand Paul's college hijinks at Baylor, eg pressuring a young woman to take bong hits and worship "Aqua Buddha", both candidates were asked if they smoked pot in college. Paul refused to answer, Conway said he tried it. If this admission gets major coverage in WP:RS or becomes part of the current Senate campaign, that will be time enough to add it to this article. Rand Paul's mocking Christianity and criticizing government efforts to promote gender equality have generated such coverage, because they are related to his political stance. betsythedevine (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What is funny about this is that you reverted an edit on Rand Paul's page which re-added a quote from an unknown student saying that Rand Paul smoked weed. But, here we have a politician flat out admitting it and yet you do not want it in the article. Truthsort (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What I think is funny is that you twice deleted well-cited and relevant information about Rand Paul's college days, first calling it "Irrelevant non-sense," then saying "you need to discuss this before re-adding this derogatory content". You still have not discussed on the Rand Paul talk page your attempted removal of events that were covered by major news sources, by the way. And the crazy Aqua Buddha story is not even in there, no irrelevant scandal, just stuff closely related to Rand Paul's drug policy views and libertarian politics. Instead, you hop over here to make your WP:POINT by adding information that is not even a real news story. If you want to argue for your POV on Rand Paul edits, do it on his talk page, not by trying to deface Jack Conway's bio. betsythedevine (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I guess when an article in the Lexington Herald Leader quotes him admitting it, then it is not a news story, right? WHAS-TV picked up on this story as well.[1] Truthsort (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That initial brief mention halfway down the page of a story in the Lexington Herald Leader did not strike me as significant news coverage. Now that one more local outlet has picked up on this, it could become more significant to both bios if that trend continues. betsythedevine (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There are two articles that verify this and where it is mentioned is irrelevant. Truthsort (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(Starting the indent cycle again): I was questioning its significance, not its verifiability. Quoting WP:BLP, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable.. and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Has there been any news interest at all since the appearance October 14 of your "second" source, which directly quotes your first? betsythedevine (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice there is extensive comments on Elizabeth Dole's web site regarding her controversial attack ads on her opponent's Christian faith in her last election, however, when a simple sentence was added here regarding Conway's controversial attack ads on his opponent's Christian faith it was immediately deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because you did not cite any reliable source backing up what you said. I have now written up the Aqua Buddha ad controversy in what I hope is a balanced way, since media attention is now going to it. betsythedevine (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you wrote more about Rand Paul's college activities than Jack Conway's controversary ad. And since this article is dealing with Jack Conway, it seems you should deal with the ad, and not Rand Paul's college activities. Please try again at getting it balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Any mention of the controversy on Jack Conway's wiki page should focus on Conway's role in the controversy (the TV ad). If the reader wants to learn the details of Rand Paul's college activities, they can view Rand Paul's wiki page (where there is much less focus on the TV ad, and more focus on Paul's activities). I have therefore rewritten the section on the controversy in a manner that is much more appropriate for Jack Conway's wiki page, and included a link to the corresponding section on Rand Paul's page for easy reference between the two pages.Thomas6274 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the content into the article, User:Betsythedevine. Truthsort (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Love the part about how Rand lit the children on fire. Wonder if we can get a cited article for that. Since wikipedia is accurate and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

When one anonymous person vandalizes the article and six minutes later another anonymous person just happens to notice the vandalism-- and instead of reverting it hops to the talk page to say how that proves Wikipedia's well-cited information about Rand Paul can't be trusted... Actually the vandal edit was only on this page for 40 minutes before somebody else noticed and reverted it, so you don't have to worry all that much about our accuracy.betsythedevine (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Recentism concerning an ad[edit]

I rewrote a section with the statement "rewrote badly formatted section for recentism". That was reverted with the comment "restored material that was deleted for no reason". To explain in more detail: The ad is an ad, and this is an encyclopedia, so to give it more weight in his biography than his entire 2002 Congressional race is recentism in that it overburdens the article with documenting controversy as it happens. If, following the election, the ad is considered to have had an impact in swaying the election, then that can be noted, but that still shouldn't amount to a whole paragraph of back-and-forth, and the impact, if any, is not known yet. Controversial advertising is not uncommon in elections and needs not to be given undue weight. And yes, the paragraph has bad formatting (external links in the article body, direct links instead of footnotes, using an url instead of a wikilink). Hekerui (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a more detailed explanation. I thought recentism was a word you made up, LOL, couldn't find it anywhere in the dictionary. I will respond to your concerns by tomorrow, but I have to step away from the computer for a while. In the meantime, the material should be left up in my opinion. The concern is that the issue is too heavily documented, not that it is biased, so it is hasty to take that useful information down I believe, especially when it is taken down by the same person (Betsy) that created the section "Aqua Buddha Controversy" in the first place! Thomas6274 (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I created that section in response to somebody's request, and will be the first to admit it was not perfect. I probably did write too much. betsythedevine (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit Betsy, "anti-Christian" is a complete mischaracterization of the group Dr. Paul belonged to. I have seen you as well as another Wikipedia editor use that description of the NoZe Brotherhood before, but it seems to me to be totally inaccurate. According to some accounts they poked fun at Christianity/Christians, but from what I have read their antics were more aimed at the strict atmosphere of piety on Baylor Campus (where dancing was forbidden until 1996), and I have read nothing that they hated Christianity or were against Christianity. I recommend reading Jason Zengerle's article "The Most Despicable Ad of the Year", which is a follow-up piece to his original article where the Aqua Buddha story originated. In it he writes:

Although the Conway campaign makes the NoZe Brotherhood sound like a bunch of pagans who got together to sacrifice small woodland creatures in tribute to the anti-Christ, the group was, in reality, the closest thing Baylor had to the Harvard Lampoon. In other words, the NoZe existed to poke fun at and, whenever possible, piss off the school’s administration; and since Baylor was (and, to a lesser extent, still is) a devoutly Southern Baptist school, the surest way to do that was to engage in absurd acts of sacrilege. So that’s the context for understanding why the NoZe, in its satirical newspaper, called the bible “a hoax”; and why Paul allegedly told a female classmate his God was “Aqua Buddha”; and why the Baylor administration ultimately banned the NoZe from campus. After all, during Paul’s time at Baylor, the Baylor administration banned dancing on campus, too. (Chapel attendance, meanwhile, was required.) Belonging to the NoZe didn’t mean a Baylor student was irreligious or a bad Christian. It simply meant the student didn’t subscribe to—or, at the very least, was questioning toward—all of the very conservative dictates of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I understand you were actually summarizing the contents of Conway's TV ad, but there isn't any reference to the group being anti-Christian in the ad, and there is a difference between "mocking Christianity" as the ad states and being "anti-Christian". "Anti-Christian" is a characterization you inserted (and have used before) that is not accurate. Thomas6274 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, I guess I got the "anti-Christian" tag for the group from the Politico article which says, "The group's work often had a specifically anti-Christian tone" and also quotes one NoZe alum that the group had "a strong subversive anti-Christian strain."[2]. As for Jason Zengerle's anti-Conway invective, could that have anything to do with all those threats from the Rand Paul campaign?[3] By the way, did anybody OTHER than Jason Zengerle think Conway's ad featured small forest creatures sacrificed to the anti-Christ? I agree with you that "mocking Christianity" is a more accurate description of the group than "anti-Christian." betsythedevine (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Conway's college days[edit]

Here is an interesting article on Jack Conway's early days.[4] Truthsort (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not a linkfarm so unless you want to discuss something from this Daily Caller piece related to the article this can just as well be removed as a forum post. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It has content from his earlier days. The wikipedia article on Conway does not go a lot into his days in college. Truthsort (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This material from Tucker Carlson's blog is perhaps remarkable for the desperation it reveals to dig up some dirt on Jack Conway. Dirt-diggers contacted 25(!) of his classmates and found out he was "a quiet leader--serious, affable, and kind of boring." The "strangest episode" they could find is that some crazy con artist was in the same pledge class at his fraternity. The frat held "keggers"; some members allegedly smoked pot or even did cocaine, but not one person could be found to tie Conway to drugs, hazing, drunkenness, or anti-religious pranks--despite all the efforts of the desperate blogger, who was reduced to devoting an entire page to the fraternity's bad behavior in the late 1990s and even later. Conway graduated in 1991. Now, if any of that turns out to be newsworthy to any national media in connection with Conway, it might have some relevance to this article. Quoting from WP:BLP, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. " The talk page is not a forum for gossiping about the subject of the article, or for posting links to material that would entirely fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. betsythedevine (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not post this for gossip purposes, I simply made a suggestion about this given that the article does not go into his early life very much. Truthsort (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, Truthsort, I did not mean to be uncivil about your motivation. The link you posted is to a right-wing blog, and neither of your comments seems to make any claim that it is an encyclopedia-quality source or that the material there could pass WP:BLP. The impression from what you said earlier is that you posted the link to encourage readers of this page to read that unencyclopedic material; this is (as Hekerui pointed out) an example of what talk pages are not supposed to support. And I am quite happy to have my comments deleted along with yours under the "not a forum" policy. betsythedevine (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean my comment as an insult and I hope that's not how it was understood, the original post simply read like an invitation to read the Daily Caller article ("interesting article"), not to discuss the Wiki article. Hekerui (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Conway[edit]

October 23, 2010, It was reported Jack Conway received a telephone call from a supporter that told Conway that he had overheard a detective discussing the drug investigation involving Matthew Conway (Jack Conway's Brother).[5] Jack Conway, then called his brother and said they needed to meet the following day, according to the records Conway wanted to know if police were working on a case involving his brother. The meeting was held at Jack Conway’s home. When asked to discuss his knowledge of the investigation involving his brother and the meeting with Adams, Jack Conway’s statement did not address either issue.

When The Courier-Journal made a request for elaboration Allison Gardner Martin, communications director for the attorney general’s office, said Conway “does not deny” that his brither's attorney met with him and his brother. But she declined to address what Conway knew about the decision to have the defence attorney visit the police chief.[6]

This section was taken out thought some of it may need to be salvaged--Duchamps_comb MFA 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't see my comment, so I moved it here from the section which I had pointed to: I removed a passage about Conways brother put in the election section, the relevance of which did not become apparent after reading even though it's two paragraphs (reasoning closely resembles that of the content discussed above, documenting stuff as it happens). I looked at the cited source and it describes the content as "Nothing incriminating, but not what you want to have surfacing this close to an election." Unless something of this is used in the election it does not fit in the election section. Hekerui (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
In my last edit. --October 23, 2010, it was reported by The Courier-Journal that it had made a request for elaboration of an ongoing drug investigation involving Matthew Conway (Jack Conway's Brother) and the role of Jack Conway's involvement with the case. Allison Gardner Martin, communications director for the attorney general’s office, said Conway “does not deny” that his brother's attorney met with him and his brother at his home. But she declined to address what Conway knew about the decision to have the defense attorney visit the police chief.[7] Conway's statement was “My brother told me of the matter. I advised my brother that he should engage counsel. Once he retained counsel, I was not involved in the matter.”[8]
I did not just just revert your edit, I made a good faith attempt to reword the paragraph. How can you say this has nothing to do with the election? He has released an official statement, and may have abused his position as attorney general in an investigation about his brother. Your "nothing to see here move along" attitude about this scandal is disturbing. So where does this information belong if not in the election section, the attorney general section?--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It just made Yahoo news. [9], Fox news [10], Salem news [11], not just a tempest in a tea pot, very relevant to the election.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The Politico source originally cited said the opposite, and this appears to be a story very much in flow. So if there are sources discussing the impact this story has one could report about it, but I urge caution, because right now it's questionable that this has any importance in the election, or does it "overburden the article with documenting controversy as it happens" like the stuff discussed in sections above? Hekerui (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The way it's written now is misleading, "he tipped his brother off" when the source says "might", and the source is the Daily Caller, which is a partisan blog. The Salem News is not an actual news source and not one of the sources say this was made an issue in the election by either Paul or Conway. That leaves nothing. And of course the tags are appropriate, I think there is recentism and POV and I mentioned on the talk page why. We're not TMZ and WP:BLP means no insertion of potentially libelous information. Hekerui (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Look you obviously do not know how to use the NPOV tags or know how they are to work. You are to list you case as to why you feel/think the tags apply. Try to talk it out with others as to improve the article. You seem to have done none of the basics here. I advise you state why you feel they are needed. --As far as my section you act as if it is not sourced, I have used the courier-journal, FOX news, and yahoo news. I suggest you do a little more research before you call the The Daily Caller a "partisan blog". How can you state my sources are "nothing", and has nothing to do with the election? Due to your last comment I thought it was acceptable to add this information. If you have a problem with the section please add or correct my work, add "might" if you like but don't delete the entire section.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
First, give any evidence that this even belongs into the "election" section. It's about his brother. Has any reliable independent third-party source said it will have an influence on the election? Has it become an issue in the election? Then cite that in a sentence, but don't clutter the page with stuff just because it is considered controversial. This is an election, such stories are not uncommon, but this is an encyclopedia and we use an encyclopedic style that concentrates on relevant verifiable facts, not speculation, especially on WP:BLPs. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken Conway’s Role in Brother’s Drug Probe Raises Questions One Week Before Election [12] , and Jack Conway may have tipped brother off about drug investigation [13] are both third-party source.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(Indent) If you want to put it in the election section it has to be relevant. What in the Daily Caller article makes this relevant for the election? I see only that an investigation is happening and that Conway denies any improper involvement - the rest is speculation, notice how the story says "After hearing rumors ..." and "But it appears he ..." The Fox News article is a summary of a Louisville Courier-Journal article and says nothing related to the election either, other than that Conway's brother is accused of drug trafficking and that said brother "was never charged with any crimes related to drugs", that an investigation happens and that Conway denies any wrongdoing. That's not something for an election section, because it does not discuss Conway's election. Hekerui (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be zero evidence that Jack Conway did anything wrong aside from a desire by right-wingers to speculate that just maybe he did. Until/unless interest in these allegations expands, it is unlikely to merit inclusion in this article.betsythedevine (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
10/31/10 New politico article, Questions about Conway's role in brother's case[14].--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The best allegation this article comes up with is that Conway may have sought to learn if his brother was under investigation. The speculation you prefer is that he knew his brother was under investigation and improperly warned him. I am also going to change the very POV title of this section to "Matthew Conway." betsythedevine (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
"The speculation you prefer is that he knew his brother was under investigation and improperly warned him." YES, that is exactly what I, the police records, as well as the The Courier-Journal's article states. That is obstruction of justice...--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus should be sought on talk page[edit]

This page and Rand Paul seem to be under attack with substantial re-writes whose POV is to promote Rand Paul's candidacy. For example, removing controversy about Civil Rights and "replacing" it with a POV statement about a Conway money bomb. betsythedevine (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making it sound a little more dramatic than it is, but as far as the one substantial re-write I did which you pointed out, that is fair for you to ask for a discussion on the talk page before removing long established material on the eve of the election. The few other changes I did in the past few days is nothing too substantial I think, but if that was too much too soon before the election, don't worry, I'm done making the changes I wanted to make. Thomas6274 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)