Talk:Conor Lamb

Untitled

I strongly disagree with the redirect on this article.

Conor Lamb clearly meets both these criteria for notability:

"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

I apologize if I am not going about this properly. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Quigley david (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 13 Casprings (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Free Beacon Internet Comment

I reverted this add [1] I think there are two issues. One is about the source. It is politically motivated and bias. Not WP:RS in this context. The second is WP:WEIGHT. The article is about an Internet comment he might have made from years ago. Lamb can’tremember doing it(it’s an Internet comment at the end of an article). Who knows. That said, it shouldn’t be in a bio.Casprings (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Language in introduction

It is completely preposterous to assume that by enforcing drug prohibition as a prosecutor Conor had any positive effect on the opioid crisis. It reads like Conor Lamb wrote it himself. I have removed that language from the introduction. Sinbadbuddha (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not here to judge the impact of his work. We are here to list what he has tried to do, as documented by reliable sources. Reliable sources document his involvement in prosecuting cases related to the opioid epidemic. The lead accurately reflects that in an NPOV way, with sources. Searine (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fake news

This article is badly referenced. I don't have time to research it in depth, but a quick check of the references shows that some (many?) of them don't mention Conor Lamb at all. Others are primary sources, or material from Lamb's campaign. The references are extensive. So, probably, is the mischief and fakeness in presenting them. Lou Sander (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That’s not what fake news is, and you probably know that. A badly referenced article is not necessarily the work of media masterminds conspiring to deceive the public by disseminating objectively false content.

In any case, this article is actually quite brief. There’s no reason that an editor with the time to review a number of references wouldn’t also have the time to correct them. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you point out some examples of references that don't mention him, or that are primary? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

After a quick scan - maybe some of the articles in the "prosecutions" section? I'll check them out. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Conor Lamb isn't mentioned in references 13, 16, and 20. Reference 19 is a primary source. Seems like lotsa fakeness here. Lou Sander (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quit referring to it as fake news and fakeness. You're rapidly loosing credibility.- MrX 🖋 15:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific examples. Conor Lamb isn't mentioned in references 13, 16, and 20. Reference 19 is a primary source. Seems like lotsa fakeness here. I'll check them out.

• Reference 13 is verifying biographical details about his grandfather. So it’s OK even though it doesn't mention Lamb himself.

• Reference 16 identifies “Cpt. Conor Lamb” as prosecutor. It’s OK.

• Reference 20 does not mention Lamb. I will delete it. The information stays because it has another reference, and reference 21 DOES mention Lamb, identifying him as co-prosecutor. (Note: reference numbers are different now because of removal of one reference and addition of some others.)
• Reference 19 is a DOJ press release and names Lamb as co-prosecutor. There is also a secondary reference for that case, reference 18, which does not mention Lamb but establishes the facts of the case. IMO we can keep the press release for the sole purpose of establishing Lamb’s connection with the case. Both references stay and the information stays.

Bottom line: No fakeness here. One reference will be deleted. No information in the article will be affected.--MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also added three additional references for some of this material.- MrX 🖋 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Lamb's Marine Corps section

Most of the information in Lamb's military service is irrelevant to the biography and should be removed. Describing in depth what takes places at TBS in the Marine Corps is outside the scope of this biography; anyone interested in this information could read it through the links for the respective schools. A typical biography for a Marine Corps JAG officer should read:

Lamb attended Officer Candidates School, where after completion he was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. Lamb then completed follow-on training at The Basic School, before attending Jag School ...

JAG School also does not need a detailed description of what transpires there.

That Lamb (and every other Marine Officer) learns night land navigation and how to use weapons at TBS is immaterial to this biography.