The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Janice McGeachin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 sourcedmust 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.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Hi @GoodDay:, thanks for the ping and the suggestion. I believe the issue at the Noticeboard needs to be resolved first. Then I'll address the article. But I do agree with you. It is very interesting, as I pointed out in my last edit here - which is the subject of the Noticeboard. It is also being noted elsewhere, including just recently here. X4n6 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a safe bet that all elections between now and 2024 will be interesting. But particularly, in the primaries. With Idaho being no exception. X4n6 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since any more reverts will bring us beyond the WP:3RR: User:MarchantTrust, do you want to explain why the sources provided aren’t “good enough” in your view? They’re all cited and properly referenced and on those grounds should stay on Wikipedia, regardless of your own assessment of this politician’s views - so if you want this excluded, you’ll need to demonstrate with proper sources and find consensus to remove it, rather than just going back and forth. I’d also remind you of WP:NPA - as much as I’m flattered you’d see my efficiency as being “bot-like”, I’m not a “bot” and I don’t see what my nationality has to do with any of this. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)06:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t want to get into a protracted political discussion, but I wanted to discuss this more and answer some of your concerns. I had several issues with the entry and here is the list:
Far-right: I see that term a lot these days and I don’t think anyone really knows what it means. So, a quick trip to several dictionary sources reveal that it applies to “extreme” ideology; specifically conservative. However, these days, it seem to be applied to anyone or any idea that is deemed “conservative” or even “moderate.” I actually live in Idaho, and I reviewed every candidate’s historical background in order to make an informed decision, and although McGeachin did not get my vote today (today (05/17/22) is our primaries) I still did my due diligence and researched her background. When I saw “far-right” I wanted to look further. I looked into her personal life (as far as my background software could go. I am a retired detective) and I saw no sign of that ideology. I see a female business owner who has several small businesses and services all manner and type of public customers. I researched her State representative voting record, and again I saw no sign of extreme ideology. In fact on several occasions, she voted against the conservative majority on several matters that would adversely affect her constituents. I looked into her political background and the only thin g I saw was that she supported some guy named “ENGEL,” which I assume is “Todd Engel.” I also did more research and found out Engel’s story [https://engelforidaho.com/about]. I don’t know much about that Nevada standoff, but it seemed like the usual Federal over-reaction (Like Ruby Ridge, like Waco, etc. So, yeah, he was an Idaho resident and yeah he was screwed over (I mean the 9th overturned the conviction, The 9th Circus! Must have been a real doozie of a case. ) Still, I saw no extreme ideology. What I did see were TONS of “hit pieces.” I mean The Daily Beast??? Really? If you did deep enough you see many were funded directly, or with current Governor Brad Little’s money or PACs. Kind of sad actually, as I see how one could search her name and come up with tons of articles that say what they say, but who wrote them and why?? Anyway interesting times we live in.
You mentioned would your Country be an issue. Well if even a slight interest in any news were undertaken, you would see tons of articles regarding election interference from foreign entities. The packet sniffer I have tied you to a server out of Ireland. Perhaps it was just a server loop, or perhaps it was just routing. If it is I apologize.
Lastly my cites. I am rarely on social media anymore. I just signed back on to Twitter, but if that deal falls through I am off so fast my keyboard would alite in fire! I did not miss it. It was like reading stuff on a bathroom wall from ill-informed or mis-informed people. I just don’t have the time or energy to fight all the stupidity in the world. Life is way, way too short. Some of these “people” post what they ate for breakfast, or where they went last night. Like anyone cares!
I have rarely edited Wikipedia. I realize it is not a true source and is not recognized as a source by the American Psychological Association (APA) for academic papers citation, but it is a place to start. I did when researching papers and topics when I was in school, but in graduate school they would kill you if you used Wikipedia. But it is a great source to start, and it provided tons of great reading. I applaud the editors that take their job seriously to make it a better site.
So, in conclusion, I apologize if there was any animosity, I really though you were a bot. My bad. I am a rookie. But I am not going to pursue it anymore. Everyone has their own opinion, I thought I saw a wrong and tried to right it. I do pose a question though: If she is “far-right” what would an Arian Brotherhood member be? Far-far-right? Super-far-right? If you, as an editor, set that bar that low, there is no room for the real idiots in life.
Thank you for your response. I'd highly disagree on your assessment that everyone is dubbed as "far-right" these days - the vast majority of the Republican Party aren't referred to as "far-right" on Wikipedia, only the ones who hold what are seen as far-right political positions - and based on the amount of sources in the media referring to McGeachin as having far right views, that's what goes on Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's core policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (an essay I'd highly recommend reading because it explains it better than I could) - if it's verifiable by multiple respectable sources, it's what goes in, because verifiability is what Wikipedia deals in. And while I do understand you did your research on this candidate, another one of Wikipedia's tenets is Wikipedia:No original research - again, we just go based off what the majority of high quality sources say. And when various sources on the Wikipedia:Perennial sources list (New York Times, The Guardian, NPR and ABC to give you just four of them) describe McGeachin as holding far-right positions, that's what stays. (For reference, the source noticeboard does reflect that The Daily Beast is a biased and opinionated source and advises against using it, hence why it's not used in the article.) On the final note, yes, it's true that I am Irish (though I was actually editing from another European country at the time, so I suspect your packet sniffer may not be working) - but this shouldn't really make a difference in terms of the article - editing articles to add what the media is already saying is certainly not any sort of sinister electoral interference in my view, and I would hope you aren't accusing me of that - always remember WP:AGF! Long story short, what goes on Wikipedia is based on entirely what reliable and verifiable sources say, and it certainly appears to me that the majority of these describe McGeachin as holding far-right views, so it's reflected on here. Hope this helps. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)07:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarchantTrust@Ser! I'm not getting involved in this article, but what we say about The Daily Beast at WP:RSNP is actually "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Note that we do use biased sources at times, it is kind of hard not to. See [WP:BIASEDSOURCES]]. Doug Wellertalk12:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAudit: please cease the edit warring. The content you’re removing is cited by reliable sources. If you have an issue with page content, the onus is on you to discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD and WP:3RR, instead of removing it over and over when other editors disagree. ser!(chat to me - see my edits)18:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
