Talk:Francis Slay

Untitled

Not a reference article.

The article reads like a "puff piece" in commercial or political advertising - not a balanced article on Mayor Slay. There is an almost total lack of criticism of what is, after all, the Mayor of a declining city - people keep leaving, in spite of (or because of) the Mayor's high spending policies. Big city newspapers tend to get into bed with local government (due to advertising considerations), but one would have hoped that Wikipedia would be different.2.221.63.146 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. It needs a total rewrite, beyond my ability or I would do it myself. -- Davidkevin (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, though I think there are some simple edits (such as the removal to fluffery language in some parts) that could bring this a step forward in making it more neutral. If there are no objections, I might attempt to clean up this page a bit this weekend. Inkyhack (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

{{BLP noticeboard}} FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Two users (User:Illusion87 and User: FreeKnowledgeCreator) are edit warring in this article. They need to stop and come to the talk page and discuss the issue(s).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please inform me how these edits are violating anything why they keep getting removed. Some of the very most important topics during the Mayors term was items like the Ferguson unrest, Budweiser being sold and the Rams moving? Historically he will always be remembered for these events and for the Wiki to remain true and factious these must be included in his biography as a Mayor. These are all sourced topics and are facts. -illusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusion87 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Illusion87 is making edits that are questionable under WP:BLP, and I make no apology for reverting them. The content he added has been removed by no less than three users now - first Goethean, then me, and mostly recently, MPS1992. Illusion87 needs to stop this behaviour right away. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest Keithbob remove the "Wikipedians looking for help from an administrator" request. There has been no reply after several days, which probably suggests that one will not be forthcoming. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, FreeKnowledgeCreator, but nevertheless, I was drawn here and am responding to the admin help request. Illusion87, when you are reverted, especially by multiple users, what needs to take place is discussion—through a talk page like this one and not through edit summaries asserting your position and returning the disputed content, regardless of whether you strongly believe you are in the right about the underlying issue or even where you are actually correct about it. That is one way we keep Wikipedia from being a battleground. The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" is a good guide to such matters.

This has been a "slow edit war" and the letter of the three revert rule has not been violated, though I think the spirit was. But I am encouraged by the fact that there have been no further returns since the last revert, four days ago. As of now, keeping out the edits is the necessary status quo, especially where, as here, a potential BLP issue is involved. So, wearing my admin hat, I am telling you that you must not return this content until some rough consensus is achieved. As far as I can tell, no focused discussion has taken place, though I appreciate the fact that your initial post in this thread, in response to Keithbob, is just such an invitation. Note that you can always escalate the process of discussion, to seek outside opinions, through processes described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Taking off my admin hat, my opinion on the underlying issue is that these edits do not belong for a few reasons.

You question how and why the biographies of living persons policy is involved, and note that the edits are sourced. You're right that negative material may be included under the BLP policy, if appropriate under other policies, guidelines and editorial judgement, where the material is verified through reliable sources. However, this appears to be pure and improper, original research (as Goethean cited when reverting you), through the vehicle of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. But that is exactly what you're engaged in here.

You have taken a series of negative events and included them under the header "Controversies During St. Louis Mayoral Term", patently for the purpose of implying that Mr. Slay's mayorship is the reason for their occurrence (and of course, not located and cited some series of random, positive occurrences during his mayorship, that just as easily might have been included). Either way, the issue is not whether each event occurred. The issue is that none of your sources verify the cause and effect you clearly imply (or at least none of the ones I could check; the links to a number of the sources you cited are not working). Every source for each event would have to discuss that causal nexus quite directly.

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.... "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."

In the absence of such sources directly supporting the cause and effect implication of this list, this is also a quite direct BLP violation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please inform me how these edits are violating anything why they keep getting removed. Some of the very most important topics during the Mayors term was items like the Ferguson unrest, Budweiser being sold and the Rams moving? Historically he will always be remembered for these events

According to you - random guy on the internet. You have cited no source which supports these claims. That's why your edit violates WP:OR. — goethean 00:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How can you have the Mayor of St. Louis' Wikipedia page without mentioning he was the Mayor when these major historical events occurred? Ex. Rams leaving? and Ferguson unrest? They are huge events that happened during his term and for history to be accurate of his mayorship, to have them not included is simply hiding the truth because of partisan political theories. Should we also remove the 9/11 information on Rudy_Giuliani Wiki page? Illusion87 (talk)

Illusion87, I am afraid that you do not really understand the situation. There has been a discussion on the talk page about the material you added, and the overwhelming consensus by now is that it is inappropriate. Every user who has commented on the matter, other than you, opposes your addition. Under circumstances like this, it is absolutely wrong for you to continue re-adding that material, regardless of how right you think you are. The problems with your edits have already been elaborately pointed out to you, and you have simply failed to understand them. Fuhghettaboutit, could you please intervene? This restoration of likely BLP violations cannot be allowed to continue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User has been issued a final warning on their talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Illusion87: your analogy is Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 is an inapt red herring. If you locate reliable, secondary sources discussing this subject, discussed by those sources directly in relation to those events, no one has said that could not be included in this article, if of due weight to include. The issue is you listing events that occurred, sourcing only the fact that they occurred, but not in relation to this topic. The contextual thrust is clear–you are connecting this subject to those events, without any such connection appearing in the sources. That is unverified, original research, and a BLP violation without that connection being sourced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand, 2-1 is considered overwhelming consensus. Pretty much every topic in "Term as Mayor" is not sourced, can I remove these until someone finds proper sourcing? Also, he announced recently he is not running for another term, can I add that with a source without FreeKnowledgeCreator stomping his feet? Can we re-add the controversial topics and label the header as "Controversial Events that Occurred During Mayoral Term?" If not, can I create a new Wiki page labeled "Events that Occured During Francis Slay's Mayoral Term" and link from this page? Illusion87 (talk)

Illusion87 —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. If you had a good faith basis to believe other unsourced facts in the article were incorrect, you could indeed. Please see WP:BURDEN – the thrust of which is that any challenged fact that is not reliably sourced through an inline citation may be removed, and the burden for returning such fact is on the person who wishes to retain it, to source it using an inline citation. But doing so here would be quite improper—because your reasoning to do so is retaliation for not including the unsourced content you want to keep in (yes, unsourced, b/c the sources you have cited thus far for that content do not make reference to the facts in relation to this topic). Doing so would pretty clearly fall under Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and would be properly reverted.
2. As far as I can tell, the only reason that content was removed was because it was made in the same edit that the other, disputed content appeared, and can be added back. However, your citation is very poorly attributed for readers. it should instead be something like:

   <ref>{{cite news|newspaper=St. Louis Post-Dispatch|title=St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay announces he will not run again next year|last=McDermott|first=Kevin|date=April 8, 2016|url=http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-louis-mayor-francis-slay-announces-he-will-not-run/article_f6fa3913-7c4a-56e7-9b3e-01559452b99a.html}}</ref>

3. No, that is a distinction without a difference. Still original research. Still drawing a connection between his term and these events. The same would be just as true in a separate article. Find proper sources and we would be having an entirely different conversation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see discussion and an emerging resolution to this issue. Thanks everyone for your time and participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Puff piece

I am not really writing in connection with the above discussion, but because it drew me here, I ended up reading the article. I agree with the first thread on this page. It reads like a puff piece from a PR firm (and is mostly unsourced, in a WP:BLP). Most of the content I am talking about is in the "Term as Mayor" section. Even the sourced material in that section is problematic. For example the unsourced and glowing statement "The Slay administration and its public and private partners have received national and international recognition for St. Louis's renaissance", is followed by a sourced statement of an award won by the city, not Slay, and relies on the truth of the unsourced content, as does the next tidbit regarding the "Amanda Burden Urban Open Space award". This material is pretty far afield. As to verifiability, as a test, and randomly, I took a look for sources that verified that he was in some way directly involved in any negotiations that resulted in "construction of Busch Stadium", and found nothing. Doesn't mean it isn't true, but given the tone and the fact I could not source what I looked for, I challenge this section's content, per WP:BURDEN. The tone needs adjusting of course, but as to the content, I have added tags, and will wait a suitable time for inline citations verifying these facts, say a week, before removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Slay. 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/20130720014459/https://www.stlbeacon.org/ to https://www.stlbeacon.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)