Jump to content

Talk:Chris Hollins (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Christopher G. Hollins)

Credit for creating this article

[edit]

The bulk of the initial version of this article should be credited to ChristaJwl who created this draft. I used it and the sources as the basis for the initial version that is now published. Thanks for creating this article! --David Tornheim (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: This isn’t necessary per WP:OWN. Editors agree to freely release all their contributions per the meta:Terms of Use and “credit” (if it matters) can be found in the page history of the article. The draft redirects to this article so the page history is preserved. If you want to add something that connects this article to the draft to this talk page, then perhaps {{Copied from}} or {{Merged from}} added to the WP:TALKLEAD would be a better way to do so. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible RS

[edit]
  • "Texas Supreme Court Blocks Harris County Clerk From Sending Voters Mail-In Ballots". NPR.org. Retrieved 2020-10-09.
  • Lower Court ruling before appeal:

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Tornheim - You didn't mark this article as reviewed, but based on the detail of your comments and edits, I will mark it as having passed your review and mine. I have concerns about articles that are created in both draft space and article space, and sometimes they should not exist in article space, but I think that this passes general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced and poorly source information to this article

[edit]

@BostickLaw: I added this to your talk page. You can reply at either place. I put this notice here so other editors know I am trying to address the issue:

Subject: Re: Christopher Hollins -- Please slow down
I notice you keep adding material that is not properly sourced. I think you are putting in material that is based on personal knowledge. I suggest you put your intentions on the talk page. Do you have a WP:COI? If so, you'll need to disclose that.
I have been removing unsourced material that you keep trying to add.[1][2][3] It was material like that that had slowed the publication down at WP:AfC. I suggestion you spend more time reading up on the rules at Wikipedia, particularly, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY --David Tornheim (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here: User_talk:BostickLaw#Re:_Christopher_Hollins_--_Please_slow_down --David Tornheim (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck COI question per [4]. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

[edit]

@BostickLaw: In this edit, I restore the language that said that the only people who could vote absentee had to be over 65. I'm pretty sure that is what the cited WP:RS said. I'm guessing you are an attorney and that you were citing law, and that those exception mentioned in the material are in the statutes or case law. But it's not in the articles cited. I have a paralegal degree and know how to perform legal research. But Wikipedia typically doesn't work like legal research. I wish I could find an essay that explains just how completely different it is here. You might try looking at WikiProject Law.

If you can provide the legal citations for what you added about exceptions other than age 65, I'll take a look. It's possible the reporters screwed it up. Was it mentioned in an online public document that is in the litigation? But it is unlikely it can go in this article unless Hollins is mentioned in WP:RS. That would be called WP:OR and/or WP:SYN.

Again what's in the article is all about what is in the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: The information I added was not improperly sourced. In fact, I found errors in some of the information you added which was improperly sourced. I have deeply researched this issue and am familiar with it, true, but I also have an alert that updates me when new news comes out so I have been updating it based on that new information and you are making it difficult for me to maintain the timeliness of the article in a rapidly evolving situation. I appreciate your feedback and your help here, but I would also appreciate some recognition of my credibility which seems to be constantly under review.
For the record, the articles do say what I mentioned as to the law. I am an attorney. I did not review the actual pleadings, but I did read the articles so I am clear on what the rulings were. I was able to paraphrase the ruling because I understood what the articles communicated on based on what the court said. Please consider communicating with me prior to deleting legal material because it took me hours to update that article appropriately.BostickLaw (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BostickLaw I answered some of your bigger concerns on the talk page. Please know that any material you worked on can easily be restored--it's all in the edit history. Nothing is actually lost. If you can convince us that the material is properly sourced and WP:NPOV, we will restore it. Please keep in mind WP:BRD that is the main rule for these cases.
If there is a specific sentence that you believe I improperly revised or deleted, please provide the sentence here and the sources that justify the content. I make mistakes too! :) I might have missed it in the sources you provided. I did a search, but I did not re-read the articles carefully. If you have quotes that back it up, that would help. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. BTW, CNN mentioned Harris County again today. It seems the governor's most recent request got shot down. What I saw did not mention Hollins, but the material might be able to be added to some of the relevant articles, e.g. the articles I changed in these edits:
I don't have time to mess with the articles right now, but you and others are certainly welcome to.
--David Tornheim (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see you added. This source says:
Those eligible to vote early by mail in Texas must be 65 years or older, be sick or disabled, be out of their county on voting days or be confined in jail but otherwise eligible.
With that source I restored the material from your edit that I had previously reverted. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BostickLaw: Wikipedia is not the news which means that it’s often better to wait until time has passed an secondary and independent reliable sources (as defined by WP:RS) have had to comment and interpret events than try and update articles to reflect the latest information. In addition, Wikipedia isn’t the place for us as editors to interpret things we know about the subjects of articles or to try and do our own synthesis of what we read in reliable sources, no matter our expertise on the subject matter.

The problem that I’m starting to see in this article that it seems to moving in a direction where the focus is more on the current cases Hollins is involved in and less on him as a person. The article is about him as a person, i.e. a WP:BLP; so, the effort should be being made to find more coverage in reliable sources about him outside of the cases he’s involved in; if the article starts to become too much of a WP:BLP1E so the focus is more on the cases he’s involved in than him as a person, the chance of the article being WP:DELETEd outright, or WP:MERGEd/WP:REDIRECTed to some other related article increase.

Hollins seems to be doing some really good things and I understand they are probably important in the context of the upcoming US presidential election, but it’s not Wikipedia’s role to serve as a platform for such things. While I think your intentions are the best, Wikipedia articles are not really meant to be up-to-date timely accounts of what’s going on out in the world. Sometimes we as editors have to wait for things to be sorted out and resolved (i.e. reliable secondary sources to catch up) before we try to add content about them to Wikipedia articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

[edit]

@Marchjuly: Another editor and I removed the maintenance tags after addressing your concerns. Feel free to add them or others back if you think they are needed. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the problems have been fixed (which seems to be the case), anyone can remove maintenance templates per H:MTR. Thanks to you and the other editor who resolved those issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image nominated for deletion

[edit]

The image used to identify Hollins has been nominated for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christopher Hollins.jpg. There's a bot that usually posts notifications on Wikipedia article talk pages when an Commons image being used in the article is nominated for deletion, but I'm doing so now as a courtesy just in case this one slipped through the crack and the bot missed it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this page

[edit]

I've boldly this page from Christopher G. Hollins to Chris Hollins (politician) as suggested by an IP on WP:AN. As I remarked when moving the page [5], all sources I looked at seem to use Chris Hollins & the 2 Hollins are from different countries active in different fields so there does not seem to be any natural disambiguation per WP:NCPDAB and the US Hollins notability seems to come from their involvement in politics, so it seems to me to be the best disambiguation if it's needed. I felt I wasn't furthering the move war since that seems to be mostly about the primary topic with some unfortunate very poorly implemented attempts at parenthetical disambiguation that followed. My move isn't intended as commentary on the primary topic, that can be resolved via an RM if needed, instead my hope is that this will reduce any concerns about the old title and allow editors to focus on whether they want an RM to establish whether either Hollins is the primary topic. I'd note that the same outcome could likely have been achieved without all the drama by simply starting a discussion here seeking help and then looking elsewhere for feedback if no one responded. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to guess at which the more notable was, I'd have to say the UK one, but that might change. And may seem rather subjective, according to one's location and area of interest. As neither seems hugely the predominantly primary topic, the dab at Chris Hollins seems to me to be the better approach. Otherwise the risk of mis-linking or misnavigation is fairly significant. Perhaps by the other side of the election things might be clearer either way. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty race source

[edit]

This isn't primarily on Hollins, but mentions him in the context of a "field [of] well-known names", so might be useful. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/amanda-edwards-houston-mayor/ It doesn't seem like we have pages on the elections, but we do also have List of mayors of Houston, which might be place to mention it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Edits

[edit]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers at this point we should pow wow here prior to making additional changes so as to avoid an edit war. Please discuss future changes at this link prior to uploading them and I will respond promptly.ChristaJwl (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristaJwl: we have a policy known as WP:BOLD. No one has to get permission from the community before making a change. However, when your change is disputed you discuss it, not edit war, as you have been doing in this article. What changes do you want to make and why? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is what we are both doing. I made the changes I want to make. Let me know what changes you would like to make and we can discuss it so as not to war about it.ChristaJwl (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of this moment, I think the article is fine. So I don't want any changes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing academic honors or using promotional language like 'pioneer' or 'Hollins also assisted multinational companies in improving results for the people they serve.' isn't going to fly. This needs to be a neutral biography, not a partisan campaign ad. I also cut a bunch of material that sounded like Democratic party talking points about election law - that has no place here. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Any content that is WP:PROMO should not be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like some other input as to the use of the word "pioneer." By vocation, I do a lot of legal writing, but I also am a creative writer and use those creative writing skills in my vocation, as well as in this forum. It is just how I write. I am not sure why using a more creative descriptor like "pioneer" is considered marketing. Does anyone else have any thoughts?ChristaJwl (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic writing has a different style, it takes a while to get used to it. You've got to suppress the urge to add flowery language or to lead the reader where you'd like them to go. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this edit added more promotional language ("well-recieved", "easier and safer"), and at the same time you removed 'Interim' again, which you know you don't have consensus to do. You've got to stop doing this. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop undoing my revisions and creating an edit war, then telling me not to edit war. If you want to discuss changes, you can discuss them here, but there will be no political overruling of the language used so that you can make the language more republican friendly because that is clearly what is going on.ChristaJwl (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ChristaJwl (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this matter to WP:AN3 MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

[edit]

@MrOllie: @ChristaJwl:

ChristaJwl has found this tweet from Sylvester Turner dated to July 8, 2021 saying happy birthday to Hollins. Hollins retweeted it in thanks. Now this Houston Chronicle[1] article dated to last month says Hollins is 35, meaning he turned 35 on July 8, 2021 (assuming Turners tweet is accurate). If this is all correct Hollins was born on July 8, 1986. The reason I didn't WP:BOLDly implement this is (1) I'm concerned that the Twitter source may not be reliable for encyclopedic reasons (2) This thought process may amount to WP:OR. What do you all think? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie @Iamreallygoodatcheckers
I thought that since his twitter is verified that it lended itself to being a reliable source of information. I do believe that is the intent of IG and FB making one go through such an intensive process to be approved for a verification. How do we get some input on the Template:Cite Tweet page as to how to deal with verified handles.ChristaJwl (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ABOUTSELF it is usable. On the other hand, we're not really supposed to include precise date of birth when it isn't widely published, because we don't want to assist identity thieves (See WP:BLPPRIVACY). MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scherer, Jasper (8 February 2022). "Former Harris County clerk Chris Hollins announces run for Houston mayor". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 8 April 2022.

Interim Designation

[edit]

@MrOllie @Iamreallygoodatcheckers

Can we also talk about this interim designation. I looked at the WP Interim and Acting (law) and the definition of an interim clearly is defined as someone who is temporary. Mr. Hollins was not appointed legally on a temporary basis. Rather, he was permanently appointed and then decided not to run for the position in the next election cycle. For that reason, I would like to remove all indications of interim or at least explain the discrepancy on is page. Thoughts?ChristaJwl (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source clearly says 'interim Harris County clerk'. We should keep the title as the source presents it. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was appointed until they could fill the position, which is what happened. That was what RS described him at the time and it's what they describe him as now. This Houston Chronicle article[1] dated to February 2022 says he was interim. Same thing for this Texas Tribune article[2], dated to last month. Any RS that doesn't specifically say interim is only excluding if for readability, not endorsing that he was not interim. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scherer, Jasper (8 February 2022). "Former Harris County clerk Chris Hollins announces run for Houston mayor". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 8 April 2022.
  2. ^ Svitek, Patrick (23 March 2022). "Former U.S. Senate candidate Amanda Edwards announces run for Houston mayor". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 8 April 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Hollins_(politician)&oldid=1217825653"