Talk:Mark McCloskey

Retention of well-sourced quotes

The story McCloskey told at a candidates' forum, that he had a client who, raped and impregnated at 13 years old by an uncle, chose to have the child, later earning a Master's degree, and the child of that child also earned a master's degree. It seems an extremely dubious story, is well-sourced, and should be retained, just as would, say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Activist (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit of mine? It kept the story, so I don't know what you mean about retaining it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That's the one I'm referring to. Please compare what you removed and what I restored. I retained a couple of your edits at the top. Activist (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I see what you restored (you can see it here), but it's not this story, which was never removed in the first place. What you re-added is just a lot of extra verbiage around it, like "The 90-minute forum had been posted online." So this is a strange way to justify your edit. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The litany of lawsuits

I removed this, it was re-added. Here is what it is (the part under dispute bolded):

The couple have spent "decades suing their neighbors and family members to protect their property," The Atlantic reported in 2020. They asserted "squatter's rights" on a slice of shared property in their subdivision. They razed beehives used for educational purposes by the synagogue next door, then threatened to sue if the congregation didn't remove the resultant debris. They sued a dog breeder from whom they bought a German shepherd.

This already seems borderline (WP:BLP1E plus a marginally-notable-at-best political candidacy afterwards). So, given that, and the fact that it is about an extremely litigious attorney, would seem to militate against putting vague accusations of misconduct in wikivoice. Here is what the Atlantic article says:

They have asserted “squatter’s rights” on a patch of shared land in their subdivision, sued a dog breeder who sold them a German shepherd, and destroyed beehives that were part of the education curriculum at a synagogue next door to their property, threatening legal action if the congregation didn’t clean up the mess, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported.

I notice now that this is a little bit of a close paraphrase. Anyway, this cites the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for the claim (archived article here). There is a bunch of stuff in here in addition to the beehive and the dog breeder. I'm not convinced all of it is WP:DUE: okay, they seem to sue people an awful lot, and certainly they seem to be rather petty and spiteful, but I don't know if each individual situation is worth mentioning. Moreover, I am not a legal expert on the subject of inconsequential HOA squabbles, but it seems possible that they were actually right about some or all of this stuff.

My suggestion would be something like "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that McCloskey and his wife had taken (or threatened to take) a large number of legal actions over the years, including against their neighborhood homeowners' association and adjacent property owners".

Pinging @PRRfan: who editing the article with me in re this. jp×g 21:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, jp×g. Your reasoning makes sense to me, as does your proposed text: "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that McCloskey and his wife had taken (or threatened to take) a large number of legal actions over the years, including against their neighborhood homeowners' association and adjacent property owners". Thanks for explaining. PRRfan (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

References

jp×g 21:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)