Jump to content

Talk:Eric Greitens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.182.239.226 (talk) at 21:05, 24 March 2021 (Added footnote header at bottom to clarify that the link is not connected to the post immediately above it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Identifying Hair Dresser and Spouse by name in article is against Wikipedia policy

Some versions of this article identified by full name the hair dresser and spouse involved in Greitens' affair. These individuals have not been identified publicly in court records, official House Committee proceedings, or mainstream media.

Per the Wikipedia Biographies of living persons policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

This policy clearly applies to other living individuals mentioned in these articles, including the hair dresser and her ex-husband. These individuals have requested that the courts and media withhold their full names to protect their privacy. The courts, official state legislative reports, and all reputable media outlets have complied with this request. Until these individuals publicly remove their request for privacy, they should not be identified by full name on Wikipedia. 2605:A601:82E:7C00:3825:595E:E700:8688 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delusional and Filthy"

That's how I'm characterized in a recent editing note here by one of the Greitenlins. There have also been some earlier, very similar comments.

Apparently, this is because I believe that Greinten's most prominent and recent write-up by national media is a fair measure of what makes him nationally "notable." The NYT item highlighted Greiten's recent career as a prime example (among several) of former SEALs exploiting their military service for personal gain via books, paid speeches & etc. It explored the significance of this phenomenon from several angles.

Looking at various "talk" comments below, this page is plagued with one-sidedness and conflict-of-interest claims (highly plausible in this case).

One can easily see why. Badiacrushed (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do yourself a favor & learn how to correctly spell Eric's last name to make your argument at least half valid. And new posts to the bottom of the talk page! 24.107.107.105 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politicizing SEALs record

Is probably what he's most notable for. Got a big, recent write-up in NYT for this. Little or nothing in national media about his gubernatorial run & nothing recent for the charity (with which he's no longer affiliated).

A non-political military is widely seen as necessary in US is thus a big deal & very sensitive, although as NYT notes, Greitens' exploitation of his record is hardly unprecedented.

I'd suggest restoring this material to lead. Badiacrushed (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring again

As predicted below, the Greitenlins are active once again in removing material unfavorable to their candidate.

This time, they add the unhelpful (and ungrammatical) edit comment "(WTF! Stop with the liberal bias. This information certainly does not have to being in the opening of the fucking article.) " Badiacrushed (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material is properly in lead because Greiten's history as a SEAL -- and how that history is broadly and generally viewed -- is key to his "notablity" status.

Note also that the criticism seen as "liberal bias" is made solely by Navy SEALs, not a group normally seen as "liberal" nor, by definition, political at all.

Also, the Greitenlin here in question is also active in removing what he or she perceives as "liberal bias" from an article on Trump's running mate. I'm sure they'll be back here to "clean up" the Greiten article again some time.

Badiacrushed (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I did NOT REMOVE the information. I just simply moved it to a more appropriate section of the article (Personal life). Negative facts about someone certainly does not have to be in the beginning of the article. Thank you. 24.107.107.105 (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His history as a Navy SEAL is "broadly and generally viewed" very positively, most importantly by the man who killed bin Laden. Yet you care about a small group of jealous people who attack his record for political reasons. This is why this information does not need to be in the beginning of the article. Keep it, I don't care, there's no way to cure the disease that is in being a liberal. THanks 24.107.107.105 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theory that "negative facts about someone does {sic} not have to be at the beginning of an article" is (obviously) without logical basis.

The most extensive and recent national exposure that Greitens has received was solely concerned with controversy about exploitation of his SEAL background. Presumably, that's because politicizing the military (as a broad issue, or trend) is, or would be, of far greater significance than whoever might become governor of a particular midwestern state for a few years, or what that individual's current political affiliations may amount to. Badiacrushed (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring earlier edits

The extent to which (and why) Greitens might be deemed "notable" can in part be fairly gauged by national coverage by reputable media. The NYT is a reasonable proxy. Local press in Missouri not so much

One of his few mentions in NYT is recent, and forms the basis of my edit, which was promptly removed without comment.

Here is primary edit in question:

" As an author, highly paid speaker and politician, Greitens has been criticized as among former Navy SEALs engaged in "rampant commercial and personal exploitation of a brotherhood that once prized discretion." Greitens has answered that the activities in question reflect "glory" on SEALs and are therefore "good for the country."[7] "

The edit strives to be a concise and neutral representation of the relevant NYT material. Moreover, the material is key to Greitens' national notability -- at least as far as NYT eds. seem to judge. It should, therefore, be included in the lead summary of who Greitens is, and why he is notable.

I also restored some brief, NYT material noting that Greitens' foundation paid him $200,000 as chief executive, and that he is a highly paid public speaker -- which is fairly neutral information, quite obviously relevant to his career.

But it's reasonable to expect Greiten fans (paid or unpaid) to continue maintaining their article here according to obvious preferences.


2602:252:D6A:B2C0:A839:EB67:241C:AC3 (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greitens is the current governor of Missouri. That pretty well solves the "notable" question. Should this entire section be deleted? Gstein (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to remove the section it documents events that happened on the article and the reasoning behind them ~ GB fan 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I have been given permission by Eric Greitens to use this biography from his non-profit organization The Center for Citizen Leadership. Eric is an Alumni of Duke University and they have placed this same biography on their website.

I have listed the page directly in the references.

I can give contact information to anyone concerned with this. -Benchmark.stl

This Article

It is terribly one sided and reads like a fluff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Career References

I removed the fact check reference tags in the Naval Career Section. References are not necessary, not used in many other military biographies with similar backgrounds, and may be in violation of OPSEC laws.

For instance, no sources are used to prove BUD/S graduation or military commands for these biographies:
Marcus Luttrell
Erik Prince
William Shepherd

Sufficient proof should be found in other supporting documents such as Greitens' appointment as a White House Fellow.
Benchmark.stl (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Naval Career section is apparently controversial, more inline citations should probably be added besides the WhiteHouse.gov refs. Out (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a peacock page and a half... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.56.226 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


On the COI Box

In reviewing what the article after the changes, there does not seem to be any proof of COI (please correct me if I am mistaken). In fact, if you read the this page, you'll see that the changes reduce puffery. For example, in previous versions, it states that the White House Fellowship as "America’s most prestigious fellowship for leadership and public service." That has been removed. Another example is that the lede to the piece is condensed, removing any puffery and redundancy about his military work. As a final example, the words "award-winning" were use describe his photography. That has been removed.

In short, whoever made the edits clearly held to the goals of objectivity outlined by Wikipedia. Thus, I am removing the COI Box. (Ghostrider 3863) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that a contributor who's only edits have been to this article can be qualified to make such a judgement. There can be little doubt that the statement "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" remains true, regardless of other edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, there remains the issue that much of the article is entirely lacking verifiable sources. This is contrary to Wikipedia policies in general, and needs to be adhered to strictly in biographies of living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To AndyTheGrump, thank you for the correction (as you stated, I am a novice at this). My question is, how does one give proof that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject?" I had based my judgment on just reading the text and would appreciate guidance as I continue to edit this and other wikipedia pages.
Also, I've tried to add more verifiable sources where I could find them, and will continue to do so as I keep researching. Again, thanks for your guidance on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrider3863 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-evident from the article history. By far the largest single contributor is 'Benchmark.stl', the article creator, who writes at the top of this page "I have been given permission by Eric Greitens to use this biography from his non-profit organization...".Note that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, all that the COI template indicates is an 'appearance' of a conflict of interest. It would obviously be preferable not to have such a template over an article, but while the article appears to be lacking verifiable sources, and is apparently derivied largely from information from Grietens' own organization, its use seems to me to be entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has also been edited by GreitensGroup. Also ChristinaKelly6 uploaded the picture that is in the article and claims to it to be their own work, this would make it appear that they have a connection with Greitens. GB fan (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To AndyTheGrump. I hadn't looked at the article history with quite as sharp an eye as you did, so appreciate your patience in both correcting my mistake of removing the COI box and laying out the evidence. Will keep this in mind as I continue to work on this and other Wiki pages. Ghostrider3863 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A COI does not prohibit the editing of an article. COI is only a problem if the edits are to the detriment of the article and to Wikipedia's standards. I don't see any evidence of that. Rklawton (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable?

For the section on his Naval Career, does citing his memoir count as a verifiable source? It was not a self-published work--this is verifiable through a search for the deal through Publishers Weekly, the industry publication--and remains the only published source, other than a handful of other websites that publish his biography. Ghostrider3863Ghostrider3863 (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A memoir is a verifiable source. It should be considered a primary source and we should treat the information appropriately, as we do not know if the information is biased. GB fan (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GB fan, thank you for the guidance. Ghostrider3863 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A manuscript is a primary source. A published book (not self-published) is not a primary source, and we use them throughout Wikipedia without restriction. Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section regarding whether or not Eric Greitens was a platoon commander, and despite being linked or verified to a source, it keeps being put back on the page. In strict adherence to Wikipedia's rules regarding citation (especially in regards to the biography of a living person), I have removed this until there is a verifiable source cited. Once a credible source is added, it can stay on the page. ghostrider3863 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You are right that paragraph does not belong without a reliable source. I missed the readdition of it or I would have removed it earlier. GB fan 00:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

His website and Facebook page both say he lives in St. Louis. I'm pretty sure they're accurate. Rklawton (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the article mention he is divorced and only mentions his current marriage under "Personal life?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.115 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who know Eric Greitens personally or who work with or for him

Editors who have any personal, professional, or other relationship with this person are reminded to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and consider adding Template:Connected contributor to the top of this talk page. Any editor who is paid to edit Wikipedia must read and comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

I have reason to believe that at least one editor is at least loosely "connected" to the subject of this article. I will leave it up to that editor to decide if his connection is close enough that the conflict of interest guideline applies. I added the sentence about paid editing for the sake of completeness - I do not have any reason to believe there are any paid editors editing this article.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe Chad.Huber is likely a staffer or intern for the Greitens campaign. He vandalizes the page by removing sections of the page cited with respectable sources such as Politico or acknowledgement of primary sources such as The Dana Show covering his campaign.
This Twitter reveals he is at a minumim, partisan as a supporter. This comes from the cached version of Twiiter (before questioned on Wikipedia in the history section).[1]

References

  1. ^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e3o7-XoflzAJ:https://twitter.com/chadhuber+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel556 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Uriel556 and 98.166.253.187 appear to be making the exact same edits and they look to be made by the same person. This IP address appears to be linked to Patriots for America, a SuperPAC dedicated to promoting "Anyone but Eric [Greitens]" for Governor of Missouri. Their only edits have been to modify this page to portray the opinions and views of Patriots for America
According to FEC documentation, Patriots for America is located in Poquoson, Virginia which is where this IP address originates. The listed treasurer for the SuperPAC, is a former staffer to John Brunner, another candidate for Governor running against Eric and is known to be from Poquoson, Virginia
Another user has called me out for being partisan and out of respect for the objectivity of Wikipedia (and for my account which has been active and editing since 2007), I will no longer edit Greitens' page but will continue to provide color here on the talk page. I would request the same of Uriel556 and 98.166.253.187. And because it was mentioned, here is my twitter Chad.huber (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request a Wikipedia:CheckUser of User:Mopoliticaljunkie for possible Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and User:Uriel556 and User:98.166.253.187. The edits made by all three users have been remarkably similar (some of them have been copy and pasted) and all of them have been reverted or significantly changed for numerous violations including Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and most often Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources. My fear on some of these is that the user not only cites unreliable sources but also enjoys being their own source such as YouTube videos they have uploaded (see this user's Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN_cZaPTox94uT7b6P_igYg which only contains videos of Eric Greitens which have been used as citations in this users edits). The latest edit made by this user (and then immediately reversed by User:Fyddlestix created an entirely new section titled Accusations of Stolen Valor which cited an anonymously uploaded YouTube video that had no citations of its own. Please advise User:Drmies who has UserCheck privileges and User:Keithbob who has talked with Mopoliticaljunkie on his talk page. Chad.huber (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your are correct. Rklawton (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do are updates regarding Eric Greitens private life being removed? There is much public reference to Eric Greitens first wife - but most articles can not identify who she is. The information regarding his first wife Rebecca J Wright is accurate and can be traced via San Diego Superior court records? I understand that he is running for a political office, why is this data being made irrelevant?

As it stated, Greitens first marriage was to Rebecca Jane Wright, PhD in English Literature at the University of Oxford; the couple met while Greitens attended Oxfrd in 1998-2000 as a Rhodes Scholar. The couple married in 2001, in the United Kingdom. In 2004, Wright petitioned Greitens for a dissolution citing "irreconcilable differences". Greitens first marriage lasted 3 yrs and the couple had no children — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous92101 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying the information is irrelevant, we are saying the information is unsourced. You are discussing two living people in that info and have provided no sources of any kind. Do not readd it unless you also provide a reliable source at the same time. -- GB fan 10:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This data would need to be unconventionally sourced as in - I do have a copy of his ex wifes tax returns ( which is clearly NOT appropriate to post nor is the reference to their Superior Court case number listed on their dissolution. Thoughts on how to go about providing a proper citation or shall his first wife forever be a mystery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous92101 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
If no published reliable source has mentioned her name then it is not appropriate to mention her name in the article. The best way to handle it is the way it is in the article, we say Greitens was previously married by saying this is his second marriage. -- GB fan 11:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found internet records (http://s.radaris.com/p/Eric/Greitens/) which connect the two back during their married days in Coronado and their old condo back in 510 Florida St, in Imperial Bch, CA and have a few people on the ground collecting appropriate positive "public" evidence. Stay tuned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous92101 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source and could not be used for any purpose in this article. I am not sure what you mean by "people on the ground collecting appropriate positive "public" evidence.", can you clarify what that means. Any source for the information, must be published and reliable. -- GB fan 14:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. search hunters are not reliable. For clarification, "on the ground" means San Diego, (Imperial Beach, Coronado ) where they lived together. There are pre-existing public records that are being reviewed and will be shared with reliable media sources. If not on Wiki, which should be the appropriate forum, else where. " Any source for the information, must be published" this is clear - no need to repeat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous92101 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Politics

On September 26, 2015, Greitens officially announced his candidacy for Governor of the State of Missouri.[1] He is running as a Republican. [2]

He has recently been embroiled in controversy over a recorded and leaked phone call between himself and fellow gubernatorial candidate John Brunner in which he calls the former Marine a coward, weasel and other insults.[3] Mr. Greitens argument with Brunner came about as he blaims him for attack ads via a third party website claiming he is not sufficiently conservative.[4] This became part of the national discussion when it was covered by The Dana Show on December 2, 2015, a nationally syndicated talk radio program.[5] Recently Politico ran an article on Eric Greitens' past as a Democrat. In the article Democrats recall him as 'supporting a House majority that was developing Obamacare, passing cap-and-trade legislation, and working to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. "He was totally in line with Democratic values," said Rep. Steve Israel, who was the DCCC's recruiting chairman for the 2010 cycle. "I thought he was a progressive breath of fresh air."'[6]

All Sources here are news articles relevent to Eric Greitans political campaign, including the well respected news source Politico.

He is a proponent of fighting climate change.[7] He has also supports U.S. partipication in the United Nations.[8]

The titles may be conspiratorial but the words are his own. Perhaps the longer original versions available on youtube should be used?

He endorsed Democratic Mayor Slay of St. Louis, MO as recently as 2013 and is known for a platform of being pro-immigration and supports gun control.[9][10][11][12] He has also been criticized for some of his recent donors, notably, a transgender donor that wishes to integrate transgenders into the military and an environmentalist philanthropist from California whose brother is the US Commerce Secratary and President Obama supporter Penny Pritzker.[13]

All sourced properly. Progressives Today is an offshoot of The Gateway Pundit owned by the same individual. Progressives Today is a conservative news outlet and therefore biased for conservatives. Eric Greitens is running as a Republican, so it would seem that removal of this source as partisan does not make sense.

References

  1. ^ "Former Navy SEAL Greitens running as Republican for Missouri governor". kansascity.
  2. ^ Jo Mannies. "Greitens casts himself as a renegade as he joins GOP crowd running for governor". stlpublicradio.org.
  3. ^ http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/kevin-mcdermott/oh-my-god-you-are-such-a-weasel-and-other/article_9655e089-9e12-56da-a6e6-44462ef76807.html
  4. ^ http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/blog/morning_call/2015/11/phone-call-between-missouri-governor-candidates.html
  5. ^ http://danaloeschradio.com/archives
  6. ^ https://www.politicopro.com/campaigns/story/2015/12/eric-greitens-democratic-past-missouri-082203
  7. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO7s44N4_ZQ, retrieved 2015-12-21 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1fm-AoV6bY, retrieved 2015-12-21 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ http://www.mayorslay.com/sites/default/files//campaign/lit/20130221-endorsementII.pdf
  10. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWT6HhMz0U
  11. ^ https://www.mayorslay.com/from-fgs/immigrants
  12. ^ http://fox2now.com/2015/09/11/mayor-slay-wants-common-sense-gun-control-to-combat-violent-crime/
  13. ^ "Question Marks Swirling Around Eric Greitens' Donors - Progressives Today". Progressives Today. Retrieved 2015-12-21.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel556 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 December 2015

Partisan, no. Politically motivated yes. Either is problematic. Rklawton (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Eric Greitens. 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.

checkY 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 17:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I've assigned the article a NPOV tag as it is not neutrally written. In particular the Politics section is 85% full of controversy and criticism. It needs to be cut back and cleaned up per WP:UNDUE. I'm happy to work with others in a collaborative manner to accomplish this. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if one of us moves the tag to the section?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks for asking. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of gutting that section. The 4th paragraph is like an run on sentence of complaints. We can't let these people hijack Wikipedia, that belongs on a blog.--WatchingContent (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attack video

The YouTube video attacking Greitens' service lacks reliable sources. Yes, the video exists, but there's no reliable source saying that this video was produced by an actual SEAL. The video claims it's produced by a SEAL, but the video was uploaded anonymously. At this point, it's just the sort of thing that doesn't belong in a BLP. Of course, a lot of this might change with Greitens' upcoming press conference. Rklawton (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunistic Military Service

This section has largely been contributed to by User:HooyahShipmate which are his only contributions. Eric was awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart and according to the military records released, Eric "volunteered for 7 months of active duty in Operations Iraq" and that his "work contributed directly to the detention of over 300 suspected terrorists and the capture or kill of over 90 known terrorists." The assertion by anonymous SEALs that he isn't a SEAL despite graduating BUD/S or that he would rather go home than fight is just absurd. There is a reason that little to no media has actually reported on this story due to The Missouri Times being the only source validating the identity of the SEALs. The St Louis Post-Dispatch, Kansas City Star and others did not pick up the story until Eric responded with his own Press Conference. There is such undue weight given to this section especially considering Eric's New York Times Best Selling Book, Resilience, has one sentence on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.huber (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Eric Greitens. 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}}).

checkY 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 03:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

Add a section on the controversy surrounding the video that other navy seals made that challenge claims made by Greitens and claim that as a former Seal, he should not be publicising the fact that he was a seal. Here is the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n80ED088t5A

And here is a link where other SEALS take credit for making the video and explain that it was not intended to be publicly shared but ended up being done so anyway. http://themissouritimes.com/27600/navy-seals-claim-credit-for-video-critical-of-greitens/

Pctec100 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politics Section edits

Highly-disputed politics section has been taken down to the barebones. I think it's a starting point for moving forward with Greitens political career. The day-to-day campaign news is not relevant to his life -- only the major pieces (i.e. results of elections).

Created a criticisms section, but again should be more personal critiques than political. Luda27000 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms section

I have removed this section from the article altogether. I believe, in the moral sense, this is the correct thing to do. I am going to explain why below. In a nutshell, it's because whoever introduced this information did not read the NYT article that was cited:

1) This whole "rampant commercial and personal exploitation of a brotherhood that once prized discretion" thing was not specifically directed at Dr. Greitens, but at Navy SEALs in general;

2) The "activity" in question which led to Dr. Greitens stating that "The more successful Navy SEALs there are, the more glory it reflects on the community and the better it is for our country" was about him pushing for "disciplinary action against members of his unit (which he led) over drug use in Thailand". This has one-hundred percent nothing to do with this whole exploitation shebang;

3) The YouTube video that attacked Dr. Greitens for exaggerating his military record was created by a secret smear group headed by one of Dr. Greitens' primary opponents in the Missouri gubernatorial race. The video contained loads of false information and lies just to draw votes away from Dr. Greitens, who debunked the whole video in another YouTube video. NYT reported on it because it became the centerpiece of attention.

In short, whoever added this information clearly did not read the NYT article that they cited. Was this to push their own partisan agenda? I don't know. But please do not re-add this information without discussion first. Thank you. Gatewayc89 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say. 24.107.107.105 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to my "partisan agenda," primarily I find this article to be an almost laughable "campaign piece" on behalf of Greitens and as such, objectionable. My perspective is hardly unique (see various other comments on this page). Although as a white person with a college degree, I do tend to vote Democratic, I've never set foot in Greitens' state of Mississipi (or where?), and have no interest in doing so.

"Point number 2," above, in particular calls into question your own ability to read and think. It would certainly be senseless for Greitens to tell a reporter that disciplinary action for drug use would result in "more glory" for SEALs. Generally, the Times strives to not publish nonsense, and in this case, they didn't.

The article, headlined "Rift Among Navy SEALs Over Members Who Cash In On Brand," included Greitens as one high-profile example among various other examples cited. "The video" (which I haven't seen) was likewise only one example among various criticism cited regarding the trend.

Greitens merely interjected this issue of drug use as a personal response to the video; it was not a significant part of the article and its accuracy wasn't confirmed.

From NYT: "In an interview, Mr. Greitens said that he suspected a decision he made as a young officer to push for disciplinary action against members of his unit over drug use in Thailand might have prompted the recriminations.

“I believe that what I did there was the right thing,” Mr. Greitens said. “I believed it then, I believe it now but there are some people that are upset about it.” He added that he saw greater visibility of SEALs as a positive. “The more successful Navy SEALs there are, the more glory it reflects on the community and the better it is for our country,” he said.

Anyone interested in an analysis of all this from a military perspective would do well to read this: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/47927/15Dec_Crowell_Forrest.pdf?sequence=1

It mentions Greitens and by implication, is quite critical of him.


Badiacrushed (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Party

The dates of Greitens' party affiliations were recently changed in the infobox, suggesting his move from Democrat to Republican took place in 2000. My research shows that he flirted with a run as Democrat for Congress as recently as 2010, and attended the DNC in 2008. I've found nothing backing up the current 2000 claim. This article written by Greitens suggests it was the conclusion of his military service that incited his change of party, so I've changed the article to reflect this. I'd like a consensus on the date so that it properly reflects Greitens. GrandEllipsis (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a consensus here? The article currently has he switched parties in 2015, which seems rather late. He filed his exploratory campaign in February of 2015 and there are reports that he had meetings with Republican operatives as early as April of 2014. Not sure it makes sense to definitively cite a year but rather just say "former Democrat". Thoughts? --Hypererleas (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a campaign press release (POV tag)

This article is basically propaganda for the person in question. There is plenty of controversy surrounding this fellow, and anyone ought to be able to admit that as a fact even if they disagree with that controversy. Yet there is no "controversy" section? Why?

I thought I'd write one, but then I saw that this page is actively vandalized by the person in question's advocates. I propose that: 1. This page be cleaned up to provide a neutral, balanced account of the person's life story, including not just his awards, but also the scandals that have surrounded him. 2. This page be locked to prevent future vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.50.44.178 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eric Greitens. 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) 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extramarital affair

There's a good deal of news coverage emerging just now about a self-admitted extramarital affair (see, e.g., [1]). It looks like the story is only starting to develop, so I'm holding off on adding it to the article. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FBI investigation - speculative and should be removed

The CNN article claiming sources told them there was an investigation I believe does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiable sources because the FBI will not verify this. Most news agencies have a history of hastily reporting inaccurate information in these situations. This is not reliable enough for Wikipedia and should be removed.--CriticalThinking26 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is a reliable source; we don't claim that he definitely was being investigated but that a report said he did, so it is fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about CNN it's about a style of journalism (making unverified claims) and that this wikipeida article does not faithfully reflect the information in the CNN article. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site or otherwise. I encourage you to read Wikipeida policies regarding this and related topics.--CriticalThinking26 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI doesn't normally confirm ongoing investigations in response to public or media inquiries. However, subjects of interviews often do reveal them, prior to FBI news releases. CNN knows who its sources are (as do other reliable media sources) and normally have information that allows them to separately confirm the existence of such investigations. Activist (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Eric Greitens did not "disclose" the affair, as indicated in the last line of the third paragraph. Without getting deep into the semantics of the word "disclose," I think fair minded editors would agree that, as written, the line suggests that Eric Greitens voluntarily came forward with information about the affair before it was revealed elsewhere.

He did not. He admitted to the affair after it was revealed in the press.

Please edit the line which reads: "On February 22, 2018, Greitens was indicted on felony invasion of privacy charges, relating to alleged actions associated with an affair he disclosed a month earlier" to read "an affair he admitted to a month earlier."

That should diminish any confusion about how the affair came to light arising from the use of the word "disclosed." Bug1333 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That is apparently the actual sequence of events according to the cited sources: Governor Eric Greitens on Wednesday night confirmed to News 4 he had an extramarital affair, an admission a months-long News 4 investigation prompted. The "disclosure" was prompted by the knowledge that the very people asking him about it were shortly going to reveal it publicly. That said, he did (barely) reveal it before KMOV did. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language in the Article

"[S]he consented to having her hands taped to exercise rings above her head while she was undressed and blindfolded. In the recording, she added that while she was blindfolded, Greitens took pictures of her without her consent and threatened to share them if she ever revealed their affair to anyone."

According to the woman's account, which was found credible, quite a different story [2]:

  • Greitens taped her hands to a pull up bar with consent (while she was clothed)
  • Greitens spit in her mouth without consent (page7)
  • Greitens kissed up and down her neck, to her chest (page 7)
  • Greitens tore her shirt open (page 7)
  • Greitens kissed down her stomach and tore open her pants (page 7)
  • Greitens takes photos without her consent (page 8)
  • Greitens made threats (page 8)
  • Greitens spanked the woman without her consent (page 9)
  • Greitens exposed himself without her consent (page 10)
  • Greitens refused to let the woman leave (page 10)
  • Greitens received oral sex from the woman, who felt that such an act was required in order to leave (page 10)

... So, who on Greitens's staff has been editing this article?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

216.12.10.118, the quoted text was added quite a while ago when the this whole scandal started. It was the reported language at the time. You can see the citation dates for the references and the edit log history. Assume good faith and edit things as they are reported by reliable sources. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent infobox edit (military commendations)

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "remove excessive list of decorations and nn commands". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, I think Bronze Star and Purple Heart are important enough to be preserved a la John Kerry. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are the two that were not removed and are still present in the infobox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, didn't scroll down far enough! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman:, @Classicwiki: There was a cn notice on the awards in the military service section yesterday, so I found the extensive Free Beacon puff piece which noted only the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. I'm not a Free Beacon fan, as they've seemed to me to carry some flaky stories in the past, but the Greitens piece seemed well researched. I found credited photos by Greitens of refugees, for instance, in an original document. It didn't distinguish whether or not the Bronze Star was for "Service," or if it had a "V" for valor, which would be more significant. I'll remove the more minor or obscure decorations for which I didn't find a RS. Activist (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought, I left the Combat Action Ribbon award in text as I can't imagine he didn't earn one from his service in Afghanistan. It's the non-U.S. Army equivalent of a Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), which commands significant respect. Activist (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guy claims a bunch of awards and posts a picture of himself in uniform wearing these awards. He runs for governor. You think his political opposition hasn't verified each and every one? Really? At any rate, it's not hard to find sources. Here's one: [3], and I have no doubt there are others. Rklawton (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, I don't think any of us participating in this discussion right now are questioning his service/awards/honors. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 12:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To quote User:Activist "(→‎Career: Awards w/o sourcing deleted)". I took them at their word. Rklawton (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that the subject did not receive these commendations. But they can come across as excessive intricate detail. He's best known as a politician. In any case, even in a soldier's bio, these low-level decorations can be superfluous. Certainly, they don't belong in the infobox. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
theextraordinary.org is a one-person blog which couldn't remotely be considered a Reliable Source. It looks like the list was copied directly from wherever the original list was copied to Wikipedia or possibly from Wikipedia itself and for which a "cn" was posted. The detail is certainly excessive. Activist (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Classicwiki - yes. Indeed, someone participating in this discussion is debating that very point and attempting to remove Greitens' ribbons from the article itself rather than the information box. I picked the source at random, but my logic still holds, and it's stupidly easy to find other sources if that would be helpful.[4][5] In the military biographies I've reviewed, a service persons awards are always listed in full detail. And while some editors may think a ribbon that indicates service in a particular place and time may be trivial, I can assure you it represents a significant part of that service person's life and should not be trivialized. The fact that Greitens is (now also) a politician makes every ribbon featured in his pictures much more relevant as all too often public figures have been agregiously guilty of stealing valor. Rklawton (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman:, @Classicwiki:,@Rklawton:,Yes, it's "stupidly easy" to find boilerplate circulated by a campaign and repeated word-for-word on obscure blogs, and no one is accusing Greitens of "agregiously" (sic) "stealing valor." I added his CAR to the Infobox, which I think is appropriate. I should note that John Melcher, a former U.S. Senator who died two days ago, had his Bronze Star and Purple Heart listed on his article and I added those and his Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) to the Infobox on Melcher's article, as well as his being a part of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. If you look at John Kerry's article, you'll see his Silver Star, Bronze Star with "V", three Purple Hearts and his CAR, but you won't see his Navy Presidential Unit Citation, Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal, Presidential Unit Citation (for heroism), Navy Unit Commendation, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal (two oak leaf clusters), Republic of Vietnam Unit Citation Gallantry Cross Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Meritorious Unit Citation, Civil Action Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, or other awards. Activist (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of primary source transcript

I presume that the legislative committee's investigative report including transcript, [1], is precluded from linking in the article's text by Wikipedia guidelines, and that it should not be included in External Links as well. I've removed it from the article. Can any more experienced editor address this situation in the event I am mistaken about this? Activist (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Special Investigative Committee Oversight Report" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

The lead

I removed the following sentence from the lead per WP:BLP - "On April 11, a report was released that alleged that Greitens had committed sexual assault in March 2015." - because the source used The New York Times, does not state Greitens had committed sexual assault in March 2015. The only instance in the article where "sexual assault" is mentioned is in one paragraph where Greitens...said that the relationship was consensual and that any claim of violence or sexual assault was false. And the paragraphs in the article related to the date of "March 2015", do not say anything about sexual assault. I don't have an issue with the legislative report being mentioned in the lead, but lets stick to what the sources actually say. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended for Semi-Protection/Please Don't List End Date Yet

I love that Wikipedians salivate over who wins the race to update new events like this. I love that so many wiki-dorks will lose the race, and forever have to live with the failure of NOT being the one who got to (Ooh, how exciting!) update the encyclopedia(!) when Greitens left office!2601:204:D502:1837:50A5:12C:7C33:EDE4 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious given his resignation. Already seeing some vandalism on site. Also, please don't add the "term_end" date or "succeeded" field until 6/1 at 5 PM, as he remains governor until that time. Mrfeek (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Just wish it wasn't gold-locked; admittedly, I'm too lazy to request that a comma be inserted, given that it's a minor copyedit at best.. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Please change

On May 29, 2018 Greitens announced that he would resign from office effective 5 pm on Friday, June 1, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Suntrup|first1=Jack and Kurt Erickson|title=Embattled Gov. Eric Greitens resigns|url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-greitens-team-must-turn-over-documents-from-his-dark/article_b3674fa9-5972-529e-b0a2-4c6ca010dc42.html|publisher=St. Louis Post-Dispatch}}</ref>

to

On May 29, 2018, Greitens announced that he would resign from office effective 5 pm on Friday, June 1, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Suntrup|first1=Jack |first2=Kurt |last2=Erickson|title=Embattled Gov. Eric Greitens resigns|url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-greitens-team-must-turn-over-documents-from-his-dark/article_b3674fa9-5972-529e-b0a2-4c6ca010dc42.html|newspaper=St. Louis Post-Dispatch |date=May 29, 2018}}</ref>

— Anomalocaris (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit: Effective "5 PM local time" --Jersey92 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

Is the subject in this movie, Dark Money (film), [6], [7] ? --Malerooster (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Money (film), cast

What sources are needed to show Greitens is in Dark Money (film)? Previously used:

X1\ (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first source above is about comments by the filmmaker, and says a dark money group supported Greitens' positions, though doesn't say that Greitens is in the film. The second source mentions the film's focus on Montana and an attorney who lost a dark money case there; it says Greitens later hired the attorney, but not that Greitens is in the film. —ADavidB 01:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously unbalanced

The balance of prose devoted to positive or exculpating information versus criticism is outrageously absurd. Why does the introduction for an article about Eric Greitens talk about the St. Louis city prosecutor at all, much less for a full paragraph? There is more than twice as much space devoted to slandering her (again, in the introduction for an article about Greitens) than there is to the specific criminal charges she brought against the person who the article is actually about.

In the article's body, there are separate sub-sections for each of the two whole years he was governor, and each of those sections is ridiculously long. Compare this to the page for someone like Hillary Clinton, where each term in the Senate gets a subsection, and each one of those terms gets fewer words than the subsections here do for a single year. His not-quite two years get substantially more words than her eight years. Here are facts: he was elected Governor as his first political position, he served less than one half term, and then resigned amid pressure from his own Party in light of multiple criminal investigations. It is unconscionably slanted to blow up the material about his >2 years in state government well beyond what would usually be found for a decade's worth of public service at the national/international level while leaving the material about his scandals and wrongdoing so abrupt by comparison. This has clearly been done to minimize his public downfall, and given how many Greitens operatives have been proven to be editing the article, it's likely a sustained effort to control the public record if he tries to make a come back. This needs to be dealt with.

24.207.186.202 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)MOB[reply]

I've trimmed the the lead/introduction section. —ADavidB 08:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it further. The introduction still takes notable pains to suggest that Greitens is the victim of a conspiracy. It's questionable whether that has place in the article at all, but it certainly doesn't belong in the introduction, where the relevant summary information is that he left under pressure from his Party under shadow of allegations that didn't proceed to trial. There are two separate sub-sections of the article body that extensively deal with controversy over Gardner's propriety. Most of that isn't appropriate for the article either, but at any rate, partisan controversies over a resignation are a level of in-the-weeds detail that doesn't belong in an intro, so at the very least it should stay in the body. Here was the old text, with my notes:
In February 2018, Democratic St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner charged [There only reason to mention the specific attorney and certainly her Party affiliation is to insinuate that he was the victim of a partisan conspiracy] Greitens with felony invasion of privacy relating to alleged actions associated with an extramarital affair he had before becoming governor. He was later charged with campaign-related offenses. All charges were dropped in May 2018, but Greitens resigned from office on June 1[3] after the Missouri Legislature commenced a special session to consider impeachment. Gardner's lead investigator, William Don Tisaby, was charged with seven felonies for perjury and evidence tampering in Greitens' case; Gardner is under criminal investigation for prosecutorial misconduct in the Greitens case.[4][5] [Highly detailed information about potential consequences of the resignation for other people may arguably have a place in the "Aftermath" section, where some information about partisan controversy may be appropriate, but it certainly doesn't belong in the intro for an article about Greitens, which a) should be entirely about Greitens, and b) is supposed to be a broad summary of information. Again the only reason it's here is to insinuate that the charges are false. I added a clause that neutrally states that Greitens and his supporters maintain his innocence, which is the furthest level of detail necessary]. 24.207.186.202 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)MOB[reply]

mentioning the tisaby indictment in the summary

As of June 2019, the prosecutor who charged Greitens is the subject of a criminal investigation. The formal indictment of the lead investigator in the Gardner/Greitens case from June 2019 already concedes that the perjury and evidence tampering committed by the prosecution "could substantially affect, or did substantially affect, the course or outcome of the Greitens case.” I feel it's relevant to mention that there is a criminal investigation into the prosecution, this has been unequivocally affirmed by the special prosecutor as late as August 15, 2019. See other pages like Bob McDonnell and Ted Stevens, you'll find mention of the aftermath (investigations into prosecutorial misconduct) Ultimately, the top section should be a summary that's representative of the entire page. I feel that this is pertinent.

Here's the indictment: https://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/perjury-indictment-of-william-don-tisaby/pdf_ea91cbf1-5994-58e8-a517-a25825a6a537.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FJ329 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the investigations are already mentioned in the Indictment and Voluntry dismissal subsections. If included in the lead, a single sentence should be sufficient, to the extent it shows significance to Greitens. The indictment you linked makes no direct mention of Greitens. —ADavidB 04:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clearer. You're correct that the indictment doesn't mention Eric Greitens, it is an indictment of the lead investigator in the case and does mention in several places that the prosecution team committed crimes that affected the Greitens case. I think you are right about leaving most of it in the section below and adding a single sentence to the lead, makes it cleaner. Thanks FJ329 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More bad faith edits

After a while of being fairly okay, the intro section has again been filled in with a bunch of unnecessary information intended to insinuate conspiracy theories about his ouster. Beyond this, it now has patent falsehoods in it. While the Missouri Ethics Commission did not find evidence that Greitens knew of wrongdoing as an individual, it did find wrongdoing in the campaign and it specifically said he is responsible for that wrongdoing whether or not he was prove to know about it, as all three papers of record in the state reported: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Kansas City Star, and the Columbia Missourian--he was then fined for several campaign finance violations. What's more troubling is that the claim that this was an exoneration is a talking point among professional Greitens surrogates. This page is clearly being edited by people employed by Greitens to pave the way for his rumored come back, and I will be reporting this for outside review. 174.86.30.121 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)MOB[reply]

MEC order

MEC fine included in wikipedia. Refer to cited information. The MEC's report does explicitly refer to both a fine and an acknowledgment that the MEC found "no evidence of any wrongdoing on the Part of Eric Greitens." CNN covered this in their coverage. Miz2003 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the news story

Last week, a story with several relevant developments was published. Greitens himself has been publicly discussing the subject matter. JTN's story includes several dozen pages of primary documents from court filings to videos. I think the characterization of the story is honest and accurate. I would welcome others' opinion but I think it is a recent & important development to the page. I'm not suggesting that the allegations against him be removed, simply that there is balance in what is allowed on page. Happy to discuss further. Heres a link: https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/missouri-case-felled-gop-governor-boomerangs-george-soros-backed Cheers, Miz2003 (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content you are attempting to add is grossly WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains(talk) 01:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I have strong doubts as to whether the source you're providing meets WP:RS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. If these details are unbalanced, I think we have to remove all of the allegations that make up several sections on this page. 2. If there is one factual error please highlight the specific error. I cross checked each detail with the court transcripts and the primary source documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miz2003 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/C2%20Tisaby%20Indictment.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/A3%20K.S.%20Koster%20Relationship.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/Court%20Transcript%20--%20SneedNewman.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/A4%20K.S.%20Nude%20Testimony.pdf https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/Traumatized.pdf Miz2003 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the edits are fair, all of the allegations (some of which have been disproven) are still listed in explicit details. The documents above seem to support the specific text. Cbeth0190 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Beast and Just the News are not credible sources. Also, if this edit is reverted, you need to make your writing encyclopedic: don't use ampersands in sentences and spell out numbers under ten. Bkatcher (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the sources are incredible. Just The News include all of the primary documents to support their arguments. They are source cited in the news story. I suppose, I would ask you to point out a single factual error of the text I added. There were details that were uncorroborated from both The Daily Beast and Just The News, I did not add them for that reason. Miz2003 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note on the encyclopedic tone. I will change that. On the consensus question, do we have consensus that all the facts are correct? Please note that the sources cited have included original primary sources in their reporting. I cross-checked each fact before adding, but I welcome help if I missed something. Has anyone found any factual errors? Miz2003 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously no consensus that the material be added to the article. At least two editors believe the sources do not meet WP:RS (and the related requirements for WP:BLP) standards, and another editor believes that the material violates WP:UNDUE. Unless a consensus emerges to the contrary, do not readd the material to the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted User:Miz2003's edit yesterday. For the record, I concur with previous writers here that WP:UNDUE is present in this user's edits and that the sources do not meet WP:RS. I ask that this user consider the following:
1. He says he was exonerated is not the same as him being exonerated. There is a big difference. If he had been fully exonerated, it would be a major news story in major news outlets. It's not.
2. Still want to push this? Kay. Find better sources. Just the News is not a reliable source. Daily Beast is known for being biased and not being a good source for biographies of living persons. If better sources haven't covered what you're wanting this article to say, that should tell you something.
3. And finally, the most important thing: do not name his victim in this article. Though it has been done here and there (thanks to a shock jock), that is a horrible thing to do. Two years ago she asked for privacy through her attorneys. Whether or not you agree she is a victim, see WP:LPNAME.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39- Please explain why Just the News is not reliable. Public records show that the company was founded recently & is regularly cited on national news. It is run by career journalists who had by-lines in CNN, The Hill, Associated Press, etc. If you actually read the story it has all the court documents & evidence in the story. It appears that your editorial history on this page has been consistently negative against the subject. Miz2003 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miz2003, thanks for asking for more clarification. One thing you can read: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The first story you referenced on this talk page was coauthored by John Solomon, who is known for writing the very things Wikipedia articles seek to avoid. I don't know about Just the News stories being "regularly cited on national news." I see some questionable grammar on its about page that doesn't scream "quality journalism"... I hope that's enough of a start for you. I advise you to proceed with much thought before you edit the article and reply on the talk page. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations against John Solomon are not proven & entirely unrelated. The text initially cited in this article was completely source cited including court records & primary sources to support their statements in this particular piece. The story was highlighted on Fox News by Gregg Jarrett on Lou Dobbs Tonight. See here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-urtsC6R58. I would encourage you to share any factual errors or an unsubstantiated claims-- I specifically included only parts that I dug through and confirmed by the primary documents. Looking forward to your feedback. Miz2003 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this info about John Solomon does indeed affect whether his work should be used here. The story featured on Fox News was the one coauthored Solomon, so that doesn't work. In terms of bettering your understanding of why that source is not a good reliable secondary source for Wikipedia, I can also point you to WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:REPUTABLE. I can also say that primary sources are not king... As you keep encouraging editors to pick apart your work further: Which of those primary source documents has the victim saying it may have all been a dream? I've looked at them but I'm having trouble locating that statement. Is this a different statement than the coverage I've seen elsewhere? I have seen a source that WIkipedia does deem reliable, PolitiFact, available here, investigating that "it was all just a dream" claim. And I've seen where the victim says it was not a dream. Everything I've seen about the "dream" claim seems to have been an imprecise word choice made by a victim being interviewed about a traumatic event -- and not the (spoiler alert!) Bobby Ewing is alive at the end of the Dallas season kind of dream. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

I've done some work on the article, especially the lead, in the last few days. The lead seems to be of appropriate length for an article of this size and scope, but the final paragraph has focused a bit much on various prosecutors and investigative bodies (sorry for my poor phrasing; not my usual area). If anyone feels it is appropriate to further amend the lead so it reflects the subject more, I look forward to seeing what you do. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Miz2003, you incorrectly cited WP:UNDUE with your edit that removed vital information from the lead of the article. Of course a lead about a politician who resigned will say why he resigned. You also removed a source about his resignation, leaving part of the lead unsourced. That is borderline disruptive; please refrain from doing so again. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39 See pages of other politicians who resigned from office. The details of the allegations surrounding the subject are mentioned in the lead. Look at Richard Nixon, Eliot Spitzer, etc. I think the summary adequately covers the allegations & scandal. It's also extremely unbalanced to omit mention that all charges were dropped, if you are going to leave it in the lead. Miz2003 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right... and the lead says that charges were dropped... so... --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: I would actually agree here with Miz2003's edits to the first sentence specifically. In addition to the above pages on Nixon and Spitzer, other government officials who have controversies attached to them tend to not have those controversies described in the first sentence – for example, Jim Mattis, Donald Trump, Al Franken, Bill Clinton, etc. Reading MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST, I think including "after a string of corruption allegations and felony charges" is too broad and that part should be taken out. Keep the fact that he resigned and the dates of course, but the fourth paragraph describes the allegations and the charges rather well on its own. Central Midfielder (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Central Midfielder: Miz2003's edit was reverted because s/he removed a reference, inappropriately citingWP:UNDUE in making that edit. It was the most recent in a history of editing this article without consensus, adding unreliable sources, etc. Your pointing to sections in the manual of style is more helpful. The scope of Nixon's career was such that it can't be compared to Greitens as Greitens has held one office; Nixon did many other notable things and held other offices. Clinton was similarly more accomplished politically and his tenure did not end in his resignation. The Trump article is protected and he has not resigned or left office, so the jury is still out on his lead, but it'll probably follow the standard one for presidents; Jim Mattis' resignation was a very different thing; Spitzer is closer to apples:apples. I also looked at two others (Anthony Weiner, Al Franken) and it does seem like the first sentence could be edited as you say. But the details of his resignation should absolutely remain in the lead as they are in other articles, as Miz2003 has edited against and yet argued for on this talk page. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: Yeah, totally. I just wanted to say that I can see how it's UNDUE to mention "string of corruption allegations and felony charges" in the first sentence, since to most readers that implies guilt, when he personally seems to have been cleared of wrongdoing. And that's why, I think, other articles also try to stay away from being too specific in the first sentence. I do agree that we shouldn't necessarily compare articles since every individual has their own life story and, obviously, the details of his resignation need to remain in the lead. Central Midfielder (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Central Midfielder: It's best not to address it in the first sentence at all, then, as one party will (and has, in the lead) claimed exoneration while multiple reliable sources don't quite back that up--but people can read on if they want the details of all that. I think the lead is in good enough shape for now. Thank you for your input! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: You're right on that aspect as well, of course. I don't believe exoneration for one second − just trying to be impartial and factual. Central Midfielder (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Central Midfielder: GOtcha. I just made a few other changes to the lead (fresher eyes than when I was looking at it about a month ago). I don't know that it communicates the complexities properly, but until another development happens, I'm not sure it can be updated in a balanced fashion. Please share if you have further recommendations. And thanks for discussing here too! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: I think how it reads is good, thanks for putting in a lot of work on this article! Central Midfielder (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

Under the "Affair and invasion of privacy charge" section, Greitens's resignation and prosecutor's office deal is repeated twice, once under "Voluntary dismissal of criminal charges" and once under "Impeachment session and resignation". Same citations are used and the language is almost identical... Seems reasonable to keep that information under "Impeachment session and resignation" and not repeat it twice in a matter of a few paragraphs...

Greitens also seems to claim that there was no plea deal and that the dismissal of charges wasn't a part of a deal.[1] Not the most reliable source, I know... But probably worth including or at least retitling the "Voluntary dismissal of criminal charges" to "Dismissal of criminal charges".47.205.220.85 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were reverted for changing the URL in one of the sources, and there's been a lot of IP vandalism happening in the past week so don't take it personally. I'm gonna assume good faith and that the edit to Riverfront Times was a mistake. Thanks for pointing out the repetition. A lot of the information, of course, overlaps when it comes to the resignation and the reasons for his resignation, but I agree with you that it should probably not be repeated twice within a few paragraphs and placing it in the resignation section is better in order to follow chronology. On the second matter, I don't think it's a good idea to include the Evans News Report link that you posted, because I don't see how it is a reliable source. But I also agree that dropping "voluntary" is a good idea. It's a more neutral heading if nothing else. Central Midfielder (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

Can someone add a writeup concerning the subject's record of healing the sick with his holy touch and other miracles? I feel like the positive aspects of his career are not sufficiently covered. 24.182.239.226 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

  1. ^ https://evansnewsreport.com/2020/03/19/kansas-city-star-newspaper-exposes-itself-as-political-propagandists-as-they-continue-to-print-openly-false-misleading-and-malicious-information-about-eric-greitens/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Greitens&oldid=1014040429"