Jump to content

Talk:Dan Crenshaw

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:2c0:c300:b7:9922:d361:2e74:d5ef (talk) at 02:05, 22 October 2020 (→‎Social Issues section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

SNL

It should be in the article, but per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, much less of it, maybe a sentence or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So edited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a candidate who spent nearly $6 million on her campaign.[17]"

To put this in context, it would be nice if we could find a good source for how much Crenshaw's campaign had spent at that point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshaw's views on major pieces of legislation are obviously WP:DUE

And since these views are reported on by WP.RS, what exactly is the reason to exclude his views? Stop whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the passage here. What purpose does that sentence serve exactly?--MONGO (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding of WP:FRINGE that the sentence belongs in the article, as it clarifies to readers that scientists do not disagree that human activity is a primary (versus a minor) contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that has been trimmed again. The sentence was a bit SYNTH anyway IMHO as this article is not the place to debate the scientific consensus on climate change.--MONGO (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is undue because Crenshaw's cherry picked tweets on a single bill do not offer us any sort of understanding on what his "political views" are. You've taken Crenshaw's very specific criticism about a very specific section of the proposed bill, and put it in his BLP to imply that he's somehow against expanding voting rights, or making voting easier, things he did not offer criticism or comment on. The only thing sourcing his views is the Politifact piece on the ballot harvesting topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text literally quotes his objections to HR1, and relies on RS coverage for the rest. The text does not say he's against voting rights. It says that his statements about the voting rights aspect of HR1 are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He clarified his exact issue with the bill, quoted in the Politifact piece - "Worth clarifying: HR1 enables ballot harvesting via mandatory no-fault absentee ballots and by not outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. Dems rejected our amendment to HR1 that would make it illegal. It should be illegal bc it allows fraud like we saw in #NC09," he tweeted." This is not mentioned in the article as to why he opposes the bill. This context is important, but missing. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, amazingly, I knew that you'd argue that,[1] and so before your comment here, I added a new source which clarifies how this clarification is still false and misleading (and how Crenshaw scrambled it together shortly after being contacted by the PolitiFact team). If you want, we can add a sentence that says "Crenshaw added X clarification after being contacted by PolitiFact. PolitiFact found this also to be false and misleading". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe HR1

According to PolitiFact, it's a bill that "aims to make voting easier". According to our own Wiki page for HR1, it's a bill "to expand voting rights". There's nothing controversial about these descriptions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The description ("aims to make voting easier") over simplifies what the bill is and what it is attempting to do. It gives the false impression that Crenshaw is against voting rights. It was removed by at least three different editors that agree that the descriptions provided by Snooganssnoogans above are over simplified and provide put Crenshaw in a false light.CharlesShirley (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is (1) indisputably what the relevant section of the bill does, (2) what the RS says the bill does, and (3) what our very own Wikipedia page on the bill says the bill does. How exactly do you propose we describe this bill if we are prohibited from using RS in doing so? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen?

Just my attempt at humor

Because of recent edits, I looked around for better sources to support this birthplace, but couldn't find anything really good. The one in the article [2] is a little meh, and these two are the same text:[3][4]. Unopposed, I'd say those were enough, but I note that another source says "Originally from the Houston area". Does anyone have anything better? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an edit on this again[5]. Still haven't found any better sources than above for whatever reason (americans tend to be interested in where their politicians were born). We could cut "born in" and just go with "grew up in" in this BLP for the time being, but the sources are not non-existent, just not very good. Are there any better sources that say "born in Texas?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

"He opposes federal funding to "subsidize college in general", but supports it in cases of vocational training."

This sentence is hard to understand for me as non-American. Could it be imoroved with a couple of relevant wikilinks? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshaw in Afghanistan image

Per the filepage [6], author and source are reddit-threads (one is r/MilitaryPorn, charming). Is this good enough for WP (Or Commons) use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding misleading text to PolitiFact assessment

An editor has violated 3RR to insert misleading text that gives the appearance that PolitiFact assessments of statements made by Crenshaw are inaccurate (when they are not). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there two Electoral History sections?

Can we take out one of the Electoral History sections before and after political positions section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariojack3 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 16% of Asylum claims are approved that is a fact

One editor keeps removing the fact that only 16% of asylum claims are approved. The politifact not accurate claim needs more context to make it a neutral presentation. Without pointing out the fact that only 16% are approved the presentation made it look like Crenshaw was completely off base. The reader needs the context. The not accurate rating is still in the paragraph. This is a long standing edit that many editors have attempted. It needs to be in the article.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Crenshaw's quote about oil and gas industry

One editor keeps removing the longer quote of Crenshaw concerning the Paris Agreement. Just quoting Crenshaw to saying PA was meaningless and costly without providing the rest of the quote does not provide a fair representation of Crenshaw's POV. The information with the just the two word quote is deceptive and not a NPOV presentation.--CharlesShirley (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the quote about climate change

One editor keeps quoting Business Insider and claiming that Crenshaw "rejects" climate change. That is simply is not true. That article does not say that Crenshaw "rejects" climate change. What is says is that he "doubts" the scientific consensus and that's all.--CharlesShirley (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lede paragraph is tiny?

Crenshaws lede paragraph is tiny, this is statistically the most important paragraph in the whole article, most people only read the lede before they surf on to the next article, Crensaws lede is lacking, we could definitely beef it up, summarize him a little better I think. Whats everybody elses thoughts on this?Eruditess (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eruditess, I agree that it was too short, so I added a paragraph. Feel free to add to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that User:Muboshgu, I'll try to come up with something to supplement that. I think I thanked you for the edit as well, hopefully it was the correct one.Eruditess (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Younger

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, the child is not notable, so we do not use the WP:DEADNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu Please look at the policy again: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in article space only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly."" All RSs, including the cited WaPo article, state, in one form or another, that he was born James Younger. It is notable. I am not removing "Luna." I am simply adding (born James Younger) per cited sources. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, that's the point, the child is not notable at all. They don't have a Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The child is not notable in general. But, per sources, the child is well-known as "James Younger." The WaPo article states that the governor and multiple congressmen refer to the child as "James Younger." The father also refers to the child as "James." It is completely appropriate to write (born James Younger) to not confuse the reader. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's only confusing when you add unnecessary details like a dead name. Content concerning minors is something we need to be especially careful with, so I don't see a reason we need to add more personal details about this individual if it can be avoided.
Also, regarding your claim that Fox News is a reliable source, see WP:FOXNEWS. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Fox article was written under the "News" section, which makes it a reliable source. Even if it was written under the "Politics" section, that wouldn't mean it's not a RS (there's no consensus). I have no clue how adding three simple words would make the article more confusing. Most publications refer to the child as James Younger, or at least in conjunction with Luna Younger. I'm really not trying to play politics here, I'm just trying to reflect what the reporting states. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I probably made a mistake in linking to WP:FOXNEWS instead of the direct discussion which determined its reliability. The conclusion of the site-wide request for comment that it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims.
As for the 3 simple words being confusing, it's a WP:MOS issue. If readers wanted the information on Luna Younger's birth-name, they wouldn't be expected to go to the article on Dan Crenshaw. It's pretty much the same reason we wouldn't add Luna Younger (born 2011) to the article.
Regardless, our guidelines are pretty clear about when multiple names should be mentioned (in the lead of the subject's article or in a section dedicated to their personal life), and this is not one of those cases. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand that if his name was exclusively or nearly-exclusively known as "Luna." But, considering the fact that's there so much controversy in regards to his name (and the case in general) adding both names would seem like the best way to assure NPOV. But, who am I to argue against Wikipedia's style manual? One more thing, how exactly do you define "contentious claims"? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the name entirely, per WP:BLPNAME and given the child's age. "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, per MOS:GENDERID there would be no pretext whatever to include the deadname of the child. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot see why the section even needs to be in this BLP. Is it to cast the subject as a transphobe?--MONGO (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social Issues section

Ok, there are a lot of problems here.

  1. Several sources (National Review, Washington Examiner) that have problems and at very least should be attributed, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
  2. The latest edit by "Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.D" misrepresents the actual Hegseth/Crenshaw video segment.
  3. The National Review source claiming he "opposes cancel culture" is an op-ed he penned, not actual coverage; the use of the term "cancel culture" is a pejorative in this case inappropriate for encyclopedic writing.
  4. "In the case of a then-7-year-old who at the age of 3 began to identify as a girl..." this paragraph is heavily tilted. The case involved a significant amount of abusive behavior by the father, to judge by the RS summation found here: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/11/20955059/luna-younger-transgender-child-custody

Submitting these here for discussion and hopefully to get the section cleaned up. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Crenshaw&oldid=984781214"