Talk:George L. Priest
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Crow/Thomas PP article
[edit]You attempted to add content from a ProPublica article that mentions Priest in a story about Thomas and his financial problems, titled A “Delicate Matter”: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign. The excerpt from the article that mentions him is: George Priest, a Yale Law School professor who has vacationed with Thomas and Crow, told ProPublica he believes Crow’s generosity was not intended to influence Thomas’ views but rather to make his life more comfortable. “He views Thomas as a Supreme Court justice as having a limited salary,” Priest said. “So he provides benefits for him.”
Your proposal is to add the following: In December 2023, Priest confirmed to ProPublica that he is aware of funds provided by Harlan Crow to Justice Clarence Thomas to, as ProPublica described, "make his life more comfortable." Priest has said that the arrangement is one in which "he provides benefits for him.”
My edit instead states this: Priest has vacationed with associate Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and real estate developer Harlan Crow. Amidst reporting by ProPublica on Thomas's financial problems and Crow's generosity towards Thomas, Priest stated that Crow's generosity was not intended to influence Thomas's views but rather to make his life more comfortable.
Can you explain the reasoning behind your edit, which does not mention at all how Priest believes "Crow’s generosity was not intended to influence Thomas’ views but rather to make his life more comfortable", and instead cherrypicks quotes without mentioning the full quote or the context of them being used to explain the reasoning behind Crow's generosity? KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. As the one seeking to add content, you have the burden of defending your proposed additions, which would violate WP:SYNTH. Secarctangent (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Secarctangent But you're the one who added the proposed ProPublica content? You've cited policies, but all of them would apply to you as well. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Stop repeatedly reverting content because your edit isn't accepted. That isn't good wikipedia behavior.
- Respond to the claim that you are violating WP:SYNTH. This isn't hard. Come up with a non-SYNTH edit. Secarctangent (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand the policies you keep citing. They do apply to you as well you know. My op links the diff of your initial edit, which shows pretty clearly that it's the first one to bring up ProPublica. It also quoted the verbatim passage on ProPublica and showed how my edit reflects the actual point of their mention of Priest, where he is contextualizing Thomas's financial problems and Crow's generosity by saying it was "not intended to influence Thomas’ views but rather to make his life more comfortable." Again, the policies you cite apply to you as well. Since you are the one "seeking to add content, you have the burden of defending your proposed additions," as you say. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Would you please actually reply to why this isn't SYNTH. For example, you could do so by saying, "my edit is not SYNTH because..." and then writing additional words. You appear to be pretty hostile here and I don't want to be accused by you of misrepresenting your position. Secarctangent (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand the policies you keep citing. They do apply to you as well you know. My op links the diff of your initial edit, which shows pretty clearly that it's the first one to bring up ProPublica. It also quoted the verbatim passage on ProPublica and showed how my edit reflects the actual point of their mention of Priest, where he is contextualizing Thomas's financial problems and Crow's generosity by saying it was "not intended to influence Thomas’ views but rather to make his life more comfortable." Again, the policies you cite apply to you as well. Since you are the one "seeking to add content, you have the burden of defending your proposed additions," as you say. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Secarctangent But you're the one who added the proposed ProPublica content? You've cited policies, but all of them would apply to you as well. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)