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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Draft:Andy Ogles page were merged into Andy Ogles on August 26, 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There have been multiple edits citing this representative as being "far-right" from what some editors on Wiki are now considering biased news sources. AP, NYTimes, ABC, NBC are all considered trusted sources by Wikipedia but over the course of the past several years those media outlets have all become exceedingly partisan. Lets contrast this to an edit to AOCs page sourcing Fox News, I'm certain that wouldn't be accepted, why are we accepting sourcing from news outlets that have well-documented bias? see:
/info/en/?search=Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal
Unironically, Wikipedia has extended the ability for only a select elite cadre of media outlets to be sourced for encyclopedic content -- and if other editors can't see the problem with that, I suppose the sites trust will continue to erode until they do. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 13:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It appears there has been a edit protection request. I would be in favor of this. The lede of a Wikipedia article should provide a summary of the most important and widely accepted facts about the subject of the article. Information about Andy Ogles being far-right has not been verified by primary sources and appear to be based on opinions or viewpoints rather than facts. Including unverified or disputed information about Andy Ogles being far-right in the lede of the article could give undue weight to a particular viewpoint and could be misleading or inaccurate. Would it be more appropriate to include information about how Andy Ogles has been characterized by media outlets or other sources in a separate section of the article, rather than presenting it as fact in the lede? Kcmastrpc ( talk) 04:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
without bias, without undo weight, and without inline citations
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
CharredShorthand.
talk
;
10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I have proposed that the matter be closed on the Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andy_Ogles closure request board. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The far right label should be removed until it is shown that this is the overwhelming common descriptor, not just that it has been used by some sources. This is clearly a contentious label. Springee ( talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last3=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
As this isn't a RfC there is no reason to close the discussion. Springee ( talk) 23:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Follow up to my comments above. One of my concerns with cases where we apply a label in an opening sentence or even paragraph, is editors often say, "RSs use the term so we should to". However, a fair question is how many sources use it? It's easy to do a keyword search to find such sources but are they really that common? Two finger in the wind tests we can use is to do a web search for news sites (typically Google news) and see how many hits we get for the name vs the name + "far-right". Another test is to look at say the first two pages of hits (about 20) when we search for just the name and see how the person is described in that first two pages. Doing the # of hits, I get 5010 Google News hits for "Andy Ogles". That drops to 819 if I add "far-right" to the search. Of course we don't know what percent of those hits directly call Ogles "far-right". Regardless, at only 16% we are already not looking good for a contentious label in Wiki voice.
As for the second test, here is what I found after filtering out the obviously not useful hits:
There were two more news articles in that first two pages but they were paywalled from the Tennessean. Anyway, so in two pages I found only one reference to far-right and it wasn't a direct statement that he is "far-right". If this were his defining characteristic then I think we should see at least a few solid hits in the first two pages. Springee ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I've got it figured out. If an editor doesn't like a particular passage, just say that it amounts to a "contentious label". All sorts of things can be recast as "contentious labels" -- and then somehow the idea is it will have to be removed. Well, let's be precise: WP:LABEL is a redirect for WP:WTW -- part of our manual of style. Sure, we can argue about style in these terms. But there's no obvious course of action here. Even if other editors accept that something is a "contentious label" -- and assertions of that sort can be evaluated, rather than accepted merely at face value -- the idea that all such descriptions must be avoided is a misconception. It's perfectly fine to be led by the sources in the usual way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity ( talk • contribs)
Well, now that we've resolved the issue with the closure of the RfC, as the text in question has been struck, should we start looking at a possible medium on this? I was thinking something along the lines of Matt Gaetz's page, which describe him in the second sentence as being "widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics", or Don Bolduc, which states he "has been described by newspapers and wire services as a far-right politician" in the second paragraph (though there is more content in these article's leads than the current one-sentence in this one). Given the amount of sources detailed above (and as other users have said they would not object to this description, just not in the first sentence), I was thinking something along the lines of:
"William Andrew Ogles IV (born June 18, 1971) is an American politician and businessman who has served as the U.S. representative from Tennessee's 5th congressional district since 2023 and served as mayor of Maury County, Tennessee, from 2018 to 2022. He has been described by news sources as a far-right politician."
I feel the addition of the news sources avoids the WP:WEASEL issue that might arise from saying "he has been described as far-right". How does this sound to others? ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
His politics have been described as far-right (no wiki link) in news media." This puts the "far-right" in context where it makes sense. Also, I would oppose linking it to our far-right politics article. The issue is "far-right" is not a clearly defined term. Wikipedia's article highlights some very negative "far-right" positions that may not be reflective in Ogles's positions. Linking to our far-right article can imply Ogles supports things which no sources, even thoughts that describe him as far-right, support. That is a BLP concern. Springee ( talk) 06:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
He has been described by news sources as a far-right politicianis warranted? If only some are doing that (particularly if only a minority are doing that), we'd run into an issue with representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on him in a fair and straightforward manner. What else have news organizations called him? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A member of the Republican Party, he is widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics as well as an ally of former president Donald Trump."as the second sentence, and in John Fetterman's article in the opening paragraph it says
Generally described as a progressive, (...). ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
References
The inclusion of this is not implying consensus for inclusion in the first sentence. This IP edit was reverted, and perhaps it was a misstep to reintroduce it, but we should reopen this discussion before including it in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE to gain WP:CON. Additionally, I don't agree that media is a good qualifier here, as only a subset of media outlets have described him as such, should we qualify that with "some" or "opposition"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone keeps vandalizing this page by adding political editorialization by characterizing someone as "far-right" when they are not. Wikipedia should be objective. 143.231.249.133 ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ser! (
chat to me -
see my edits)
18:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Is there a reason there is still extended edit protection on this page? Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Daniel Case: Thank you for adding the information from the WTVF NewsChannel 5 investigation. The discrepancies certainly warrant mention. However, the amount of text devoted to it should be in proportion to the prominence in the totality of sources on Ogles. Per WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia should not devote extensive details to items merely because they are new or true. The material from the WTVF investigation currently dwarfs Ogles' entire early business and mayoral career, and rivals his Congressional career section, which I think is grossly imbalanced. While this story will likely get more attention in the coming days (predictably Salon and MaddowBlog are amplifying the story, without adding any new reporting), Wikipedia should show restraint in adding new info, ensuring due proportionality. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, biographies must be fair at all times, not distorted with the hopes that other balancing content will be added some time later. Do you think the "Alleged false biographical claims" can be condensed to the essentials so that it does swamp other content? --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The article is now just over 40K. The section as I wrote it is less than 3K. This would make up maybe 10 percent of the article. Does anyone feel that even that would be too much? Daniel Case ( talk) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've expanded the content since there are many more sources now, which you can refer to here. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
There have been a number of edits recently requesting citations for contentious material that is in the lead. I don’t have strong feelings about this either way, but because these claims are considered controversial should they not be cited? Additionally, is there enough WP:WEIGHT for this material and prose to be included in the lead? Kcmastrpc ( talk) 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to have a lot of vandalism recently, I think it should be locked at least temporarily from editing. GatewayPolitics ( talk) 18:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2024 He openly advocated for the genocide of all of gazas children, openly inciting genocide. Widely available sources on this including video. This should be on his English Wikipedia page. 2603:7000:A600:ACA:8BB:AB2E:BF2E:D18D ( talk) 03:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, for some reason my last edit has been reverted with basis in a policy that did not even apply there. Interesting, for sure, but OK… I posted this link: https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1760129439671726106, which can be helpful when searching for reliable sources about what this politician has sadly declared. (So NOTFORUM does not apply; stop treating IPs as second-class citizens.) Thanks! 2804:14D:5C32:4673:A78:626A:118B:7CE2 ( talk) 14:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XXc0vEpAs Doug youvan ( talk) 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
https://newrepublic.com/post/179177/republican-congressman-andy-ogles-kill-them-all-palestinian-children-gaza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug youvan ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/21/us-congressman-andy-ogles-stirs-outrage-with-gaza-comment-kill-them-all Doug youvan ( talk) 13:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Draft:Andy Ogles page were merged into Andy Ogles on August 26, 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There have been multiple edits citing this representative as being "far-right" from what some editors on Wiki are now considering biased news sources. AP, NYTimes, ABC, NBC are all considered trusted sources by Wikipedia but over the course of the past several years those media outlets have all become exceedingly partisan. Lets contrast this to an edit to AOCs page sourcing Fox News, I'm certain that wouldn't be accepted, why are we accepting sourcing from news outlets that have well-documented bias? see:
/info/en/?search=Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal
Unironically, Wikipedia has extended the ability for only a select elite cadre of media outlets to be sourced for encyclopedic content -- and if other editors can't see the problem with that, I suppose the sites trust will continue to erode until they do. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 13:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It appears there has been a edit protection request. I would be in favor of this. The lede of a Wikipedia article should provide a summary of the most important and widely accepted facts about the subject of the article. Information about Andy Ogles being far-right has not been verified by primary sources and appear to be based on opinions or viewpoints rather than facts. Including unverified or disputed information about Andy Ogles being far-right in the lede of the article could give undue weight to a particular viewpoint and could be misleading or inaccurate. Would it be more appropriate to include information about how Andy Ogles has been characterized by media outlets or other sources in a separate section of the article, rather than presenting it as fact in the lede? Kcmastrpc ( talk) 04:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
without bias, without undo weight, and without inline citations
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
CharredShorthand.
talk
;
10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I have proposed that the matter be closed on the Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andy_Ogles closure request board. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The far right label should be removed until it is shown that this is the overwhelming common descriptor, not just that it has been used by some sources. This is clearly a contentious label. Springee ( talk) 18:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last3=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
As this isn't a RfC there is no reason to close the discussion. Springee ( talk) 23:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Follow up to my comments above. One of my concerns with cases where we apply a label in an opening sentence or even paragraph, is editors often say, "RSs use the term so we should to". However, a fair question is how many sources use it? It's easy to do a keyword search to find such sources but are they really that common? Two finger in the wind tests we can use is to do a web search for news sites (typically Google news) and see how many hits we get for the name vs the name + "far-right". Another test is to look at say the first two pages of hits (about 20) when we search for just the name and see how the person is described in that first two pages. Doing the # of hits, I get 5010 Google News hits for "Andy Ogles". That drops to 819 if I add "far-right" to the search. Of course we don't know what percent of those hits directly call Ogles "far-right". Regardless, at only 16% we are already not looking good for a contentious label in Wiki voice.
As for the second test, here is what I found after filtering out the obviously not useful hits:
There were two more news articles in that first two pages but they were paywalled from the Tennessean. Anyway, so in two pages I found only one reference to far-right and it wasn't a direct statement that he is "far-right". If this were his defining characteristic then I think we should see at least a few solid hits in the first two pages. Springee ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I've got it figured out. If an editor doesn't like a particular passage, just say that it amounts to a "contentious label". All sorts of things can be recast as "contentious labels" -- and then somehow the idea is it will have to be removed. Well, let's be precise: WP:LABEL is a redirect for WP:WTW -- part of our manual of style. Sure, we can argue about style in these terms. But there's no obvious course of action here. Even if other editors accept that something is a "contentious label" -- and assertions of that sort can be evaluated, rather than accepted merely at face value -- the idea that all such descriptions must be avoided is a misconception. It's perfectly fine to be led by the sources in the usual way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity ( talk • contribs)
Well, now that we've resolved the issue with the closure of the RfC, as the text in question has been struck, should we start looking at a possible medium on this? I was thinking something along the lines of Matt Gaetz's page, which describe him in the second sentence as being "widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics", or Don Bolduc, which states he "has been described by newspapers and wire services as a far-right politician" in the second paragraph (though there is more content in these article's leads than the current one-sentence in this one). Given the amount of sources detailed above (and as other users have said they would not object to this description, just not in the first sentence), I was thinking something along the lines of:
"William Andrew Ogles IV (born June 18, 1971) is an American politician and businessman who has served as the U.S. representative from Tennessee's 5th congressional district since 2023 and served as mayor of Maury County, Tennessee, from 2018 to 2022. He has been described by news sources as a far-right politician."
I feel the addition of the news sources avoids the WP:WEASEL issue that might arise from saying "he has been described as far-right". How does this sound to others? ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
His politics have been described as far-right (no wiki link) in news media." This puts the "far-right" in context where it makes sense. Also, I would oppose linking it to our far-right politics article. The issue is "far-right" is not a clearly defined term. Wikipedia's article highlights some very negative "far-right" positions that may not be reflective in Ogles's positions. Linking to our far-right article can imply Ogles supports things which no sources, even thoughts that describe him as far-right, support. That is a BLP concern. Springee ( talk) 06:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
He has been described by news sources as a far-right politicianis warranted? If only some are doing that (particularly if only a minority are doing that), we'd run into an issue with representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on him in a fair and straightforward manner. What else have news organizations called him? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A member of the Republican Party, he is widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics as well as an ally of former president Donald Trump."as the second sentence, and in John Fetterman's article in the opening paragraph it says
Generally described as a progressive, (...). ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 03:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
References
The inclusion of this is not implying consensus for inclusion in the first sentence. This IP edit was reverted, and perhaps it was a misstep to reintroduce it, but we should reopen this discussion before including it in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE to gain WP:CON. Additionally, I don't agree that media is a good qualifier here, as only a subset of media outlets have described him as such, should we qualify that with "some" or "opposition"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone keeps vandalizing this page by adding political editorialization by characterizing someone as "far-right" when they are not. Wikipedia should be objective. 143.231.249.133 ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ser! (
chat to me -
see my edits)
18:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Is there a reason there is still extended edit protection on this page? Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Daniel Case: Thank you for adding the information from the WTVF NewsChannel 5 investigation. The discrepancies certainly warrant mention. However, the amount of text devoted to it should be in proportion to the prominence in the totality of sources on Ogles. Per WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia should not devote extensive details to items merely because they are new or true. The material from the WTVF investigation currently dwarfs Ogles' entire early business and mayoral career, and rivals his Congressional career section, which I think is grossly imbalanced. While this story will likely get more attention in the coming days (predictably Salon and MaddowBlog are amplifying the story, without adding any new reporting), Wikipedia should show restraint in adding new info, ensuring due proportionality. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, biographies must be fair at all times, not distorted with the hopes that other balancing content will be added some time later. Do you think the "Alleged false biographical claims" can be condensed to the essentials so that it does swamp other content? --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The article is now just over 40K. The section as I wrote it is less than 3K. This would make up maybe 10 percent of the article. Does anyone feel that even that would be too much? Daniel Case ( talk) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've expanded the content since there are many more sources now, which you can refer to here. starship .paint ( exalt) 07:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
There have been a number of edits recently requesting citations for contentious material that is in the lead. I don’t have strong feelings about this either way, but because these claims are considered controversial should they not be cited? Additionally, is there enough WP:WEIGHT for this material and prose to be included in the lead? Kcmastrpc ( talk) 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This page seems to have a lot of vandalism recently, I think it should be locked at least temporarily from editing. GatewayPolitics ( talk) 18:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2024 He openly advocated for the genocide of all of gazas children, openly inciting genocide. Widely available sources on this including video. This should be on his English Wikipedia page. 2603:7000:A600:ACA:8BB:AB2E:BF2E:D18D ( talk) 03:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, for some reason my last edit has been reverted with basis in a policy that did not even apply there. Interesting, for sure, but OK… I posted this link: https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1760129439671726106, which can be helpful when searching for reliable sources about what this politician has sadly declared. (So NOTFORUM does not apply; stop treating IPs as second-class citizens.) Thanks! 2804:14D:5C32:4673:A78:626A:118B:7CE2 ( talk) 14:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XXc0vEpAs Doug youvan ( talk) 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
https://newrepublic.com/post/179177/republican-congressman-andy-ogles-kill-them-all-palestinian-children-gaza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug youvan ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/21/us-congressman-andy-ogles-stirs-outrage-with-gaza-comment-kill-them-all Doug youvan ( talk) 13:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)