Jump to content

Talk:Herschel Walker

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Glenstorm85 (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 4 September 2022 (→‎Direct quotes of incoherent statements as policies: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2020 election

In this edit and two identical prior edits, Imnraged68 removed two sentences about Walker's words and actions after the 2020 election. So far, they have explained their edit as removing "innuendo and opinion". This content is sourced to non-opinion articles in CNN and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Imnraged68, would you please self-revert, per WP:BRD? Can you help me understand what about the content is classed as innuendo or opinion? I'd be happy also to hear the opinion of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced removals of this section twice since; and now protected the page so user registration is required to edit it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If anything, the section should be expanded per well-reasoned analysis in the GA review. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walker is not the only candidate for the Republican Senate nomination in Georgia to question the legitimacy of the 2020 results. But Walker has been particularly prolific and specific in his election-related dishonesty -- and he has by far the biggest megaphone. Walker has uttered false conspiracy theories on both Fox News and on Twitter, where he has more than 445,000 followers. And his dishonesty has not been limited to the subject of the election. Walker has also promoted false conspiracy theories about the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol and about Democrats. - https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/28/politics/fact-check-herschel-walker-2020-election-january-6/index.html

starship.paint (exalt) 07:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias

This page is politically bias. A lot of "claimed" facts on here. 45.37.13.66 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Every accusation is a confession." Also, that grammar error indicates someone following a GRU script. -- Jibal (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like bias even to claim he's a politician at this point. He has no track record as a politician, has yet to be in any serious campaign and has only won one primary... If I were a gambling man, I'd have to bet against him clinging to the status of "politician" all the way until his first actual election in November. The article should say something substantive and "professional" about all of the years since he stopped playing football, but I don't see how to describe those years beyond "Nothing much." Shanen (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walker doesn't "currently serve" on the President's council sports, fitness, nutrition science board

Herschel Walker was replaced on the President's council sports, fitness & nutrition science board in January 2022. He does not currently serve as the Wikipedia bio suggests.

REF: https://health.gov/news/202201/announcing-newly-selected-members-2022-presidents-council-sports-fitness-nutrition-science-board

[1] DrNick31522 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://health.gov/news/202201/announcing-newly-selected-members-2022-presidents-council-sports-fitness-nutrition-science-board

CNN Bias

CNN should not be considered a credible source of information where politics are involved. Their bias towards the Democrat Party is undeniable. 2600:1005:B02C:61E8:B485:306E:4237:CD32 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up at WP:RSP, where CNN had been deemed reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Every accusation is a confession." Jibal (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Democrat Party"? Referring to the Democratic Party this way is so cute.2601:205:3:DEE2:E153:FA74:3AE2:F76C (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: does Walker have any children? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022

Edit subject: Include Herschel Walker’s two previously unknown children as his children.

Suggested addition:

The 2022 Republican nominee from Georgia for the U.S. Senate, confirmed that he has two more previously unknown children, adding to another "secret" child that the former football star admitted to. Including these previously unknown children, Walker has a total of four children, only one of which was previously known (Christian Walker)

Walker has been repeatedly publicly critical of African American absentee fathers. This marks the third time he was forced to admit he had children out of wedlock after media reports of their existence.


Source: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/16/gop-georgia-senate-nominee-herschel-walker-reveals-more-children.html 24.192.170.21 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Based off a discussion below, there is currently an edit war regarding that topic, I would recommend joining the discussion below to offer your changes. Fbifriday (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about Walkers claimed law enforcement involvement

In June 2022, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that Walker's claims about working in law enforcement were either false or unverifiable. Despite his claim of being an honorary deputy in the Cobb County Police Department, the department did not have any record of Walker working with them.

The 2 sentences above are WP:UNDUE based on the current state of the section about his candidacy. This is just a minor news story about his candidacy, and there is no reason to believe it's particularly significant. Also most of the coverage of it dates to June 13-14, which raises concerns of WP:RECENTISM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you saying it's minor? Providing verifiably false statements in quite major, especially when it's regarding job experience. Banana Republic (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's insignificant because it's received little coverage and the coverage it did receive was over the course of like 2 days. It's just a news story.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the NBC News reference from today I put into the article regarding the other lying he's been accused of. Banana Republic (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a trivial mention. However, based on some of the coverage of his reported lying, there could maybe be a paragraph of similar length the current one that focuses on his lies in general rather than this specific one. That could be WP:DUE, but I think the WP:ONUS is with you to provide ample sourcing about his alleged lies for inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for substantial coverage to have endurance. Banana Republic (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, The Atlanta Journal Constitution gives his lying about his job experience a good bit of coverage in a story today. Banana Republic (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about we have a small paragraph under his campaign about his lying in general. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related edit war on Walker lying about the existence of his children

After several attempts to insert the sentences about the lying into the article based on WP:RS issues, a rock solid WP:RS was found, but Iamreallygoodatcheckers reverted using the WP:UNDUE excuse.
Seems to me that if the children were unacknowledged, and he made the statement that children growing up without a father is a big problem, that lying about the existence of his children prior to acknowledging them is absolutely due. Seems to me that the removal of the content is agenda-driven, and the original removal based on WP:RS issues was a red herring. Banana Republic (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the children grew up without a father? Does the citation say that? Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that your question is related to the topic of whether or not including the fact that he lied about the children runs afoul with WP:UNDUE. If anything, it shows that we should add to the article the fact that he lied about the existence of the children. There would have been no reason for Walker to have lied about the existence of his children if they lived with him. We don't have to make that connection. The readers can make the connection for themselves. Banana Republic (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“He later lied” !!?

The sentence stating “He later lied”. Is not a professional statement, doesn’t reflect the truth and should be removed 2601:584:101:B0D0:B847:7BFE:B5ED:3019 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a better way to write that, but Herschel Walker did lie about his lie. "Fact check: Herschel Walker falsely claims he never falsely claimed he graduated from University of Georgia". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion in campaign section

His view on abortion is WP:UNDUE. The section is about his campaign not necessarily his political views. Also, including it would make it the only view mentioned in the section, which creates an undue emphasis on that one issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is commonplace to include content about political positions in biographies of political candidates. Countless reliable sources say that banning abortion is among the most important issues in the 2022 midterm elections. If you want to create a new section for political positions, fine. If you want to add other political positions, fine. But removing this well-referenced and relevant content makes the article worse. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what universe is this WP:UNDUE other than your own apparently dislike for it? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not in the state right now where this position can be naturally introduced, and having a stray sentence just left at the bottom of the campaign section is not the way to do it. Until a more comprehensive section/paragraph can be constructed about his political views, we shouldn't be just giving the readers one. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the exact issues which make it unsuitable (as per established policy and accepted guidelines) because I am not seeing it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already cited WP:UNDUE above, specifically this statement: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. This is being placed to prominently and proper details around it are not available. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing undue isn't enough when you can't explain how it's undue. As you've failed to do even still. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's about it standing solo with no proper content around it and lacking context. That's the point. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So...move it to an appropriate section, that doesn't mean it's WP:UNDUE and in need of removal. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is I don't believe such a place exists in this article. At least such a place doesn't exist as of now. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You...don't think a major issue that is at the forefront of US politics is relevant in an article about a politician and their platform regarding said issue? Why? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Walkers platform is not described in this article; though, I believe it should be. I think his view on abortion rights would certainly be relevant alongside the rest of his platform. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned that this wasn't entirely in good faith considering your displayed ideology and lack of a reasonable explanation. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support restoring it (it's demonstrably due). I can see the point about it standing solo, but it's a problem best solved by expansion, not deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This USA Today piece briefly covers some other policy positions. Nothing as in-depth as the abortion coverage in the NYT. Otherwise, I'm having some difficulty finding coverage of Walker's platform. He's been in the news in a big way but it's mostly stuff that has little to do with his policy preferences. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed it can sometimes be challenging to find politicians platforms and ideologies being described in RS, but that USA Today piece looks pretty good. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is also decent wrt this topic. So are these two from The Hill (newspaper), total ban article, National Right To Life endorsement article and one from The Independent PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, you do not have consensus to cut way back on his political positions. What he says about the issues is relevant. I am expanding the section while you are slashing it. Gain consensus first. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: it wasn't really mass removal of content. The climate change, gun control, and school shootings sections are not policies they are gaffes, and they are described as such in RS. You reverted a well sourced paragraph I made detailing Walker's gaffe habit that include all 3 of the ones you put in. Additionally, the numerous little subsections looks kind of poorly constructed imo, and I think it's best to keep it in paragraph form. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is how Walker expresses himself on policy. Three hours ago you were complaining about there being only one section on policy, and so I set out to expand it. Now, you are complaining about too many sections. If you want to add more on policy, do so. Please do not take things away without consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the WP:ONUS on you, but I'll regress. I think its fair to want the policy section to look better than subsection heading, followed by one sentence, and repeat. That's not how we handle the political views section at Joe Biden. I think it look better if we modeled it similar to Blake Masters. Also, Walker has made gaffes like many politicians, but they aren't policies. How can it even be said those are policies? They aren't even coherent. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the comments by other editors in this discussion are supportive of expanding coverage of his stances on the issues. When he answers a direct question about a policy issue, then that is the best evidence we have about his stance. If he later answers in a clearer way as covered by reliable sources, then these sections can be expanded. I just added another sentence to the Abortion section and to the economy section, have added four references to significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and would like to expand the other sections as well. It takes work and I am doing the work. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can it even be said those are policies? Because they are literally part of his platform. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: wp:ONUS doesn't appear relevant here. And before citing wp:UNDUE and wp:10YT (which I think you did previously), please try to explain specifically why these criteria apply. A fact doesn't necessarily need to satisfy all notability criteria to be included. Also, it would be preferable for you to remain neutral on political articles generally, unlike this edit to Paul Pelosi, where you included his arrest in the lede, saying "this is lead worthy based on coverage of the incident" with no consensus, which Cullen328 himself later correctly removed, along with several other instances. And, as Praxidicae said above, you seem to be using wp:UNDUE when you perhaps mean wp:IDONTLIKEIT. And in this case, his views on abortion are relevant. Take a look at these: Chris Christie#Abortion, Political positions of Donald Trump#Abortion, Nancy Pelosi#Abortion, Chuck Schumer#Abortion, Mike Pence#Abortion...so, some precedent there. NytharT.C 10:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to have Paul Pelosi's DUI arrest was overwhelming supported by the community in an RfC and if you looked at that RfC on I took the moderate stance of being hesitant about including an earlier incident Pelosi was in when he was 16, but that's not about this ariticle. Also in the state of the article right now, I do not object to having the issue mentioned. This is issue is largely a settled issue now. Just because I want Walker's views to be presented in an appropriate manner does not mean I have a neutrality issue. 10YEAR has nothing to do with this. Also I'm still trying to figure out what I allegedly DONTLIKE about Walker's stance on abortion. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 11:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: You say "I want Walker's views to be presented in an appropriate manner". Hmm, would you call this edit, where you removed the part of his page which states his stance on abortion, as "views being presented in an appropriate manner"? You just removed the whole thing. In an unrelated topic, after Cullen328 removed that section from Paul Pelosi, it was reincluded to a more appropriate location in the article, instead of the lede. Imagine one of the most notable events he got involved in was a DUI. So, why include it in the lede? Moreover, I mentioned your argument of 10YEAR (I was mistaken here, you used wp:RECENTISM) on a previous incident unrelated to the current one just to emphasize the number of times you use such arguments to make major changes without consensus. I hope you now understand why other editors may have raised wp:NPOV concerns related to your edits. NytharT.C 17:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This content part of this discussion has led to improvement's in this article. The concerns I raised have led to improvements in this article. That is what matters here. There is no point in continuing this witch hunt. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, editors concerns about your POV pushing with regard to BLPs are relevant, and I'd encourage you to not refer to bringing up those concerns as a "witchhunt", as it definitely just lends credence to said concerns about your ability to edit. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: No, not a witch hunt. The essay you cite reads, "a witch hunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred". "Not already obvious"? I think it's easy to see POV issues in your contribs. Most involve the removal of sections about controversial topics from the articles of conservative politicians, and it's quite easy to see. The essay goes on to read, "it is a lack of assumption of good faith." Remember, wp:AGF is not a suicide pact. When editors raise concerns regarding multiple POV issues by the same editor, their concerns might have good reason, and wp:AGF doesn't force us to toss out these concerns. NytharT.C 00:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes of incoherent statements as policies

@Cullen328: @Marquardtika:

There is concern about recently added content of incoherent statements made by Walker being presented as political positions. It's all sourced to an article by GPB [1], titled "Herschel Walker's 'bad air' comments the latest in series of policy gaffes." I think there is a relatively simple solution to this. The way these quotes are being introduced now is not beneficial to the article or the reader. Reliable sources, including the one cited, refer to these as part of a series of policy gaffes, not policy positions. I think we should write up a paragraph about Walkers gaffes, which have become significant to his campaign. I introduced such a paragraph yesterday, only for it to be reverted. It read: During his campaign, Walker has repeatedly made verbal gaffes,[1] and CNN has described Walker as a "walking gaffe machine."[2] When questioned about climate change, Walker gave a nonsensical answer about "bad air" floating to China.[2][3] Additionally, he has made policy gaffes about gun legislation and school shootings.[3] I believe this is a fair and comprehensive solution to this issue.

References

  1. ^ CNN, Analysis by Adam Wollner. "Analysis: Do Senate Republicans have a candidate problem?". CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2022. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ a b Editor-at-large, Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN. "Analysis: Herschel Walker just proved (again) what a massive risk he is for Republicans". CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2022. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ a b Fowler, Stephen. "Herschel Walker's 'bad air' comments the latest in series of policy gaffes". Georgia Public Broadcasting. Retrieved 16 August 2022.

Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This man is a major party candidate for one of 100 seats in the United States Senate. He is not some hapless individual who needs to be protected from what he has actually said. Compare this matter to Ilhan Omar which devotes far greater attention to her "It's all about the Benjamins" comment, and all of that is in the "Political positions" section. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that various answers to questions about policy positions are "incoherent" and to exclude them on that basis. Walker freely chooses to express himself on policy matters as he sees fit, and readers are better informed by seeing what he actually says about policy, instead of anodyne "summaries" of things he did not actually say. We need to summarize what reliable sources covering Walker's campaign say about his stands on various issues, and these quotes are a major part of that coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether or not we see it as coherent or not. It's about how reliable sources are presenting these comments. GPB: Walker's most recent gaffe made the rounds..., CNN saysHerschel Walker is a walking gaffe machine. and follows with the quote. It's unheard of to be presenting gaffes as policy, that shouldn't be the standard here in the same way it's not the standard at Political positions of Joe Biden or Political positions of George W. Bush. Should we go add to Nancy Pelosi's page that she believes China is the "one of the freest societies in the world"? [2] Obviously, not. Also, no one is trying to protect Walker. Protecting him would be advocating for no mention of these gaffes. This is just providing out of context comments about someone that make them look stupid. Statements by candidates need to be presented in a manner similar to RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of context"? I do not think so. The correct context is articles in reliable sources trying to describe and present what Walker says about policy. If reliable sources report in days and weeks to come that Walker has said something about policy that people might consider more coherent, then of course those new comments can be added to the article. I fail to see how including direct uncontested quotations from the candidate is inappropriate. It is not as if I am cherrypicking quotes that reflect poorly on him. You are perfectly free to add well referenced quotes that are "more coherent" as you see it. I would happily add such quotes myself, if only I could find them in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of context is the lack of mention that these quotes has been described in RS as gaffes. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to add context, I have added a sentence to the beginning of the section saying that many of his policy comments have been described as "gaffes" and "head scratching". Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for your comparison to Nancy Pelosi’s China comment, that is ludicrous and spurious. Pelosi has a four decade record of vigorous opposition to the human rights abuses of the People's Republic of China and it is clear to all well-informed people that she was referring to the Republic of China AKA Taiwan instead of the Beijing dictatorship. Walker, on the other hand, has an exceptionally thin record of comments on public policy. I know that to be true because I have been sincerely searching for such comments. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the "walking gaffe machine" quote. Since you want context, I have added that for context. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that appropriate framing for most of these statements is "gaffes" rather than "political positions". The word salad he said when asked about school shootings isn't a political position because it isn't, well, anything. Political positions are more along the lines of votes taken, platforms published, campaign talking points, etc., rather than a one-off response to a question at an event. I'm fine including various gaffes if they were widely covered in the media, but agree they should be labeled and contextualized as such rather than presented as "political positions". Marquardtika (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are his campaign talking points though, and they are his positions. Just because it's word salad, doesn't mean it's not part of his material. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone discussing the merits or legitimacy of including Walker's gaffes under his political positions section, please refer to Wikipedia's own guidance on this very question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality
This is a politically charged moment in time and Walker is currently a player of great import to the political composition of the U.S. Senate -- personal opinions and feelings have no place in the maintenance of this Wikipedia page. Please follow the guidelines of the editorial board and maintain an editorial voice of neutrality in your upkeep of this page, regardless of your political affiliation. Glenstorm85 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herschel_Walker&oldid=1108394126"