Talk:Jazz Lewis

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

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

• Lewis02 (2).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Del. Jazz Lewis speaks on the floor.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Page revert dispute

@Welovepapayas I dispute your page revert. What you've described in your edit description does not reflect the edits I made to the page at all. The quotes on the page also aren't from "police positions" at all -- they're quotes from Lewis himself. You'd see this if you read the articles I cited. In summary, the edits I made to the page:

• Added an image from the Maryland State Archives' public domain photo archives (Maryland GovPics), replacing one with an ambiguous copyright license. You can see the exact image I sourced Lewis' headshot from if you opened the image in Wikimedia. If you can get Lewis to give Wikipedia permission to use the image via email, you may replace the one on the page with your own.
• Reformatted the electoral history section to remove the unneeded subsections. I also did not include the 2022 primary because Lewis was not a first-time candidate to the district.
• Added sections to his political positions as well as citations for everything on the page. The edits you previously made to the page did not include any citations, which adds integrity to everything on the page. All of the sources that I used are from third-party sources, too, so there's no chance this violates Wikipedia's policy of using reliable and independent sources, as you stated in your edit description.
• Removed all conflicts of interest from the page. You said in your previous edits that you work for Lewis, creating a WP:COI. While we at Wikipedia welcome your edits, if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. I have already left some helpful information on your own talk page about this.

In short, I believe there is no reason to revert the edits I made to the page. Y2hyaXM (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

The edits were disputed because they represented policy positions based on magazine articles rather than legislative voting, which includes a floating article from Jewish insider with no title or apparent position. You cited twitter exchange with the headline "National politics" referring to an exchange with a Gubernatorial candidate (a statewide race.) With no explanation as to why you would a thorough history of legislative actions with a Twitter exchange that has no biographical relevance. I included extensive citations to government websites for all additions, as they were all legislative in substance. Footnotes can be found at the bottom of the page. You removed legislation written and passed by Delegate Lewis in favor or what he reportedly "supported" along with hundreds of other delegates who supported each bill. It seems that you watered down the factual nature of this page for an unknown agenda. Magazine quotes about policy issues are generally seen qs less preferable than properly cited legislation that the individual wrote and passed. You not only removed electoral history which more accurately represented the election, as no new candidates were added in the general election, you removed more relevant information. The page of Delegate Lewis reflected the content of his peers such as Former Delegate Luedtke or Senator Hayes.

I short, it is evident that the page became erroneous as well as less biographical and legislative based, as the biography of a legislator was made to be devoid of legislation written and passed by the legislator in favor of social media exchanges and biographically insignificant quotes from inferior sources. Let's make Wikipedia useful for those looking for substantive information. Welovepapayas (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I dispute the claim that I write pages for these legislators to advance some kind of agenda. I always write on Wikipedia in a neutral point of view, and hold few opinions of the legislators I write about. As for your other points:

• It's true that I reduced the amount of content in the biographical sections of the page, but it's because much of it was uncited. Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory. In accordance with the biography of living persons policy, unsourced information of this type is likely to be removed on sight. As for the legislative sections of the page, I largely included what you already had; I just rewrote it to read less like a résumé. What I wrote about the legislation was also backed up by the references I included, which strengthens the integrity of each section.
• Lewis' post was covered by Maryland Matters—a local media outlet whose work I've referenced on many other pages—so it's not like I'm using Twitter as the only source there. Besides, if I were doing that, it'd be against the Wikipedia guidelines of using third-party, independent sources.
• The Jewish Insider article includes quotes and sentences from Lewis talking about his positions on Israel and health care policies. If Lewis says he supports something, then it's valid to include it on his page. I don't need to rely on Lewis introducing a bill in the legislature for him to make his political positions clear.
• Including all of the bills Lewis has introduced and writing about them in an extensive manner would mean including an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. I try to only write about bills introduced by legislators if there's relevant news coverage of them.
• The sentences in the electoral history section are unnecessary. Anybody can make the same conclusions that you wrote just by looking at the election data, except for the part about Lewis receiving "more votes than any candidate for the House of Delegates in the history of Maryland's 24th Legislative District." This sentence also feels like original research, and should not be included unless an accompanying source can be found for it.

Additionally, if you're going to use that image of Lewis, please get written permission from the delegate to use it. Otherwise, it will be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Please also refrain from reverting my edits unless a consensus can be reached on the page's content. Y2hyaXM (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If your preference is to only write about bills the individual introduced, why remove those bills in favor of one of many bill they simply "voiced support" for? Why were primary election results removed and not simply added to, as is the common practice for pages belonging to members of the House of Delegates, if your goal is accuracy? The sentence you reference could have easily been removed without removing the pertinent primary election results. My confused is the substance of your edits. If your goal is that the page read more like a biography and less like a resume, the inclusions are extremely random and nonbiological. Has the governor become a federal, and not statewide, position? These are the points of profound confusion. Welovepapayas (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

My older edits added multiple primary election results to other state delegate pages, that's true; but I no longer add multiple primary election results to pages (unless they're for multiple difference races, e.g. if a state delegate decides to run for state senate or the U.S. House of Representatives) after seeing other pages with electoral history sections not doing this. Also, I only include bills introduced if they've received coverage from third-party sources, and as Pemilligan said, the General Assembly's website is a primary source and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. Y2hyaXM (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Welovepapayas: I think magazine articles, as you put it, better fit Wikipedia's preference for independent sources (also called third-party sources) than does citations to the General Assembly's web site, which sound more like a primary sources.

Please be aware of the three-revert rule: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period.

Also, please remember Wikipedia's "assume good faith" principle. Saying that someone is acting on "an unknown agenda" does not promote a healthy discussion.

-- Pemilligan (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we disputing the notion that a gubernatorial election is by definition not national politics? Welovepapayas (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I would consider a gubernatorial election to be statewide politics, as opposed to national politics. But the reason I included that sentence in the "National politics" sentence is because the January 6 Capitol attack is national politics. Also, at the time Cox made those comments, he was still a state delegate and had not entered the 2022 Maryland gubernatorial election yet. Y2hyaXM (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia's Sockpuppetry policy, which can be investigated and result in deletion of all accounts. Welovepapayas (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, and I only replied to your reply to Pemilligan to add to the conversation. Y2hyaXM (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)