Talk:Jon Ossoff

Untitled

redirect makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by FideKoeln (talk • contribs) 17:10, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

The redirect makes sense as a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Distinct page makes more sense I guess. You are welcome to help improve it --FideKoeln (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Continues to get more news coverage, so worth including as distinct page, working on improving it --Anupamtree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cites as source a page that debunked the claim?

The article parrots Ossoff's claim that he "he drafted and managed legislative initiatives that passed the House and Senate." One source for this claim is the campaign itself. The other is from a Politifact article which largely debunks his claims to foreign-policy experience as "half true." The use of the plural ("initiatives") suggests that this was a normal role for Ossoff, but Ossoff was only a legislative correspondent, a role normally for replying to constituent questions. In fact, Politifact found a single legislative initiative -- a resolution, not an act -- that Ossoff could have had a role in. And that resolution did not pass the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.13 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I would like for an admin to restore this as a redirect, per my first edit. It's not a notable topic for a standalone page, but it's a reasonable search term for a topic that may become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Close challenge

I have requested NuclearWarfare review their close

I am curious as to your reasoning here. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that NPOL does apply in this case (8 delete or redirect and protect) vs 4 Keeps of which one is the SPA author and one is two are revived dormant accounts. Even discounting that the consensus that NPOL applies seems overwhelming. Thank you. [1]

as the initial step in deletion review. Jbh ^Talk 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you. How does this subject meet GNG when most of the coverage is of the election, not the candidate in the election? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For a close challenge that is pretty much irrelevant. What is at issue is the assessment of the consensus which existed at the time of the closing which seemed to be clearly that the article should be redirected and protected until/unless he wins per NPOL. The close seems to me to be a failure to properly assess the existing consensus ant to rather be a super-vote.

NW has not edited since the close so I will wait until tomorrow to open a deletion review so they have time to respond to my inquiry on their talk page. Jbh ^Talk 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. It should be tied to the better policy argument. Moreover, the vote was 4-8. I would suggest that if anything, it should be relisted to allow more editors to take part.Casprings (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are two of the keep votes:

"Keep Favored candidate on the democratic side, leading the polls, and generating national press, endorsements, and fundraising."

"Strong Keep Mr. Ossoff is a notable public figure and the upcoming election will be a major event in American politics. He clearly now meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN."

There's no good policy argument there. The first one cites "national press" but it's not the in depth type required for GNG. For the second, again the coverage is about the election and transient, not GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note :I have opened a deletion review [2] on this topic. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation format

Since @Muboshgu: and I disagree on this, I thought we should discuss it on the talk page and seek consensus. I agree that anything with strong national ties should have the date format for that country, but I don't see the point in doing so for citations. Is it really necessary to say that an article was accessed on "March 28, 2017" versus "28 March 2017"? Looking at MOS:RETAIN, I don't see the point in deliberately changing all of the citation formats to one particular form. Werónika (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is silly. Yes, date formats need to be consistent throughout the page, and that includes citations. The page was created in mdy format, and it already had the {{use mdy dates}} template at the top. This an article about an American subject, and so the mdy format should be used throughout per MOS:DATETIES. Why would you undo the edit? If you "don't see the point" in changing citation dates, why would you feel that you needed to change them back? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Werónika: the majority of the dates were in mdy format already, surely if we're following MOS:RETAIN then we should make them all into mdy format? Quasar G ^{t - c} 21:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: @Quasar G.: I changed them because I didn't see the need to make them? No big, I was just curious what the protocol was (since some of the articles on my watchlist use a variety of different formats). I'm fine with either one, so you know. Good to talk to you! :) Werónika (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Parents and Religion

Is the information about his parents' religion and having a Bar Mitzvah really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.167.118.42 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it, it's well referenced and was quite a large part of his early life, I'd imagine. Quasar G ^{t - c} 13:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Basic information about public figures' parents and religion is generally included in Wikipedia pages for people if it's reliably sourced. As long as it's presented neutrally and not given undue weight, it should be fine. V2Blast (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

add "President Donald J. Trump comented on the election by tweeting ' The super Liberal Democrat in the Georgia Congressioal race tomorrow wants to protect criminals, allow illegal immigration and raise taxes!' Congressional was misspelled in original tweet 2601:CB:1:E730:2960:BB17:85B3:F744 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done – Quasar G ^{t - c} 22:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Controversy Jon Ostroff doesn't live in Georgia's 6th Congressional district, which makes this special election unique. He stated here he resides outside the district he is running for: http://beforeyoutakethatpill.com/blog/2017/02/25/jon-ossoff-admits-he-doesnt-live-in-georgias-6th-congressional-district/. He has been accused of carpetbagging for this omission. 50.194.134.25 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – the article already mentions this: he currently lives with his girlfriend ten minutes south of the 6th District. A more reliable source than a blog is required if we are to describe it as a "controversy". Quasar G ^{t - c} 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quasar - - that should be a better source. I agree a blog isn't sufficient. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.134.25 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's legal for him to run in Georgia's 6th while not living in the district. The Hill article confirms he doesn't live in the district, but does not suggest it's a "controversy" of any sort. It doesn't include charges of carpetbagging. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Add an image of Ossof to the page (possibly this one?). UpperJeans (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Images can't be uploaded unless they're freely available. There's no indication that this image isn't copyrighted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

I wish to add the following picture to the main profile box ; Kkuchnir (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Image is currently tagged under WP:CSD for incorrect licensing. Please re-open the request once this has been resolved. — IVORK _Discuss 02:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Ossoff. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222084607/https://electjon.com/news/2017/1/4/jon-ossoff-announces-congressional-bid-in-georgia to https://electjon.com/news/2017/1/4/jon-ossoff-announces-congressional-bid-in-georgia

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

63.224.187.67 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jon Ossoff

File:Ext.jpeg

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Include relevant image in biography: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jon_ossoff_campaign.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markd315 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Why has the photo in the infobox been reverted to the current version? It seems blurry and unprofessional. Much better photos exist, is there any reason not to use them? --205.208.114.45 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they're protected by copyright. If you can find a non-copyrighted image, feel free to upload it to commons. — Quasar G. 19:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can find an non-copyrighted image, it's this one or no image at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Content added by SPA account

All of the content in the "Investigative journalism" section was added by an SPA account in April. It in no way meets our verification or reliable sourcing standards. Let's start with the first sentence, which says "Since 2013, Ossoff has been managing partner and CEO of Insight TWI, a small business based in the UK which produces investigations targeting corrupt officials and organized crime for international news organizations." The sources are a link to the "Contact Us" page of the company and an article in the Independent which mentions neither corrupt officials, organized crime, or international news organizations. Then we have a bunch of cite bombing about films produced by the company. And none of these sources even mention Ossoff. This Al Jazeera source doesn't. And this Al Jazeera source doesn't even mention the company, Insight TWI, so it's unclear what the connection is supposed to be. Then we have some self-sourcing to the Insight TWI page, some IMdB sourcing, oh, and a citation to a Tweet of Ossoff's. This is the type of content that might be appropriate for an article on the company, if such an article existed. But here it is just an out-of-place filmography that seems clearly to have been added to the article by someone with a close association to the article subject. It is not encyclopedic or well-sourced at all and should be removed. Marquardtika (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, agreed that the first Al Jazeera source mentions the company but not Ossoff, and the second mentions neither. We should upgrade that sourcing. But I do not agree that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Here's one source we can use.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do upgrade the sourcing. The fact that we're currently using the "Contact Us" form of a company website as a reference is pretty nuts. We should of course cover his career but I think the content currently in the section is all bathwater and no baby. Might be best to start from scratch. Marquardtika (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The article says that Jon Ossoff opposes defunding the police, but in his radio interview he said that he supports it

The article says that he opposes defunding the police, but in his interview he said that he supports defunding the police. [4] The article needs to be corrected. Yurivict (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't say that. This source, which is a small audio clip of a radio interview Ossoff gave, says he thinks "funding needs to be on the line" but the context is unclear, and it's unclear what "funding needs to be on the line" means. Marquardtika (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference? "funding needs to be on the line" means that he is for defunding. Yurivict (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a better photo available?

There is something off-putting and unnatural about the current one (to the point that it doesn't resemble how he looks normally). If I recall correctly, the previous one wasn't particularly good either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)