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 page is about an active 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. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's an article here about an attempt by Parson to prosecute a journalist who exposed a security defect in a state-run computer system--a defect that had been there for ten years, since responsibility for the database was assigned under Parson's Office of Administration. Parson commissioned the Missouri Highway Patrol to produce a report--a report which exonerated the reporter. Seems worth including here, although I'll leave it to others to decide. Mcswell ( talk) 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Parson. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, My edit ("states 'The governor shall fill all vacancies in public offices unless otherwise provided by law, and his appointees shall serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified.' [1] However, the Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 states that the governor can fill all vacancies 'other than in the offices of lieutenant governor, state senator or representative, sheriff, or recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis'. [2]") is not original research and should not have been reverted. Straight from the lede of WP:OR, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist..." This is clearly not the case here. Not only were there reliable sources for what I typed, but I quoted them verbatim and cited them. I did not synthesize sources or offer any analysis of what I think they mean. I merely quoted them. WP:OR does not say you can not use any primary sources (like laws) whatsoever. Here's what it says about using primary sources "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation..." What I did fits because I offered no interpretation, and I used the sources with care. Merely quoting sources verbatim cannot be OR. JMM12345 ( talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
References
The link in citation 86, "Missouri governor: Pardon of 4-decade inmate not a priority". Associated Press. June 9, 2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021., is not working for me. I'm just getting sent to the Washington Post homepage. Does anyone have a better link? If so, that should probably be put in the citation instead. JMM12345 ( talk) 19:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
Snooganssnoogans, the reversion of my change, "Parson argued that the Missouri Independent article was "purposely misleading" and that it took data out of context. A DHSS spokeswoman said "We do not have any official studies drawing conclusions solely from mask mandates being in place[.]" [1]", was totally inappropriate. KHQA-TV is a reliable source, and if I was not properly representing what they had to say, the proper response would have been to edit it to be more close to the source material rather than to revert. In fact, I was going in to edit it because I realized that I accidently typed "purposely" instead of "purposefully" when I saw that it had been reverted. Edit wars are not ideal, and in general it would be better to take it up in the talk section if there is a disagreement between editors about what the article should say, it would be better to put it in the talk section than to just revert without discussion. Assuming by "misleading stenography", you meant my accidental replacement of "purposefully" with "purposely" because it would otherwise be unclear what you meant by "misleading stenography", I'm going to put it back in with that change. JMM12345 ( talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
Also, just a heads up Snooganssnoogans, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring specifically states "Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive." I wasn't personally that offended by it, but just for future reference, it is probably not a good idea, and is technically a violation of wikipedia's policy I believe. JMM12345 ( talk) 04:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
References
Neutrality, You've made some good changes to the article recently, but I do disagree with your removal of the following content.
Your reason for the removal is that it "mostly cited to Twitter and not very substantive; 'elected official condemns crime' is pretty standard" but that doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons. First, because it didn't mostly cite to Twitter. The Tweet was only one of the three sources. One out of three isn't most, and it didn't actually need to be there for the statement to be fully sourced. There was also a local news source and an Al Jazeera source which talked about Parson's response. Secondly, because whether Wikipedia editors think it is standard or not, reliable sources determine notability. The Wikipedia community considers Al Jazeera to be a reliable source listed on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, and Al Jazeera considered his response notable enough to talk about in their article and quote in its entirety.
And in any event, even from a common sense perspective, what sorts of crimes a politician goes out of their way to condemn and how strongly they condemn certain crimes can certainly be notable and speak to their priorities. If you don't think it should have the original Tweet as a source for the statement, we can leave it out, as the Tweet was entirely quoted in the Al Jazeera article and embedded in the local news story. In which case the paragraph would read
It is still fully sourced, but now doesn't have the primary source that you objected to. Would you find this acceptable? JMM12345 ( talk) 03:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
References
References
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 page is about an active 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. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's an article here about an attempt by Parson to prosecute a journalist who exposed a security defect in a state-run computer system--a defect that had been there for ten years, since responsibility for the database was assigned under Parson's Office of Administration. Parson commissioned the Missouri Highway Patrol to produce a report--a report which exonerated the reporter. Seems worth including here, although I'll leave it to others to decide. Mcswell ( talk) 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Parson. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, My edit ("states 'The governor shall fill all vacancies in public offices unless otherwise provided by law, and his appointees shall serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified.' [1] However, the Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 states that the governor can fill all vacancies 'other than in the offices of lieutenant governor, state senator or representative, sheriff, or recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis'. [2]") is not original research and should not have been reverted. Straight from the lede of WP:OR, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist..." This is clearly not the case here. Not only were there reliable sources for what I typed, but I quoted them verbatim and cited them. I did not synthesize sources or offer any analysis of what I think they mean. I merely quoted them. WP:OR does not say you can not use any primary sources (like laws) whatsoever. Here's what it says about using primary sources "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation..." What I did fits because I offered no interpretation, and I used the sources with care. Merely quoting sources verbatim cannot be OR. JMM12345 ( talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
References
The link in citation 86, "Missouri governor: Pardon of 4-decade inmate not a priority". Associated Press. June 9, 2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021., is not working for me. I'm just getting sent to the Washington Post homepage. Does anyone have a better link? If so, that should probably be put in the citation instead. JMM12345 ( talk) 19:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
Snooganssnoogans, the reversion of my change, "Parson argued that the Missouri Independent article was "purposely misleading" and that it took data out of context. A DHSS spokeswoman said "We do not have any official studies drawing conclusions solely from mask mandates being in place[.]" [1]", was totally inappropriate. KHQA-TV is a reliable source, and if I was not properly representing what they had to say, the proper response would have been to edit it to be more close to the source material rather than to revert. In fact, I was going in to edit it because I realized that I accidently typed "purposely" instead of "purposefully" when I saw that it had been reverted. Edit wars are not ideal, and in general it would be better to take it up in the talk section if there is a disagreement between editors about what the article should say, it would be better to put it in the talk section than to just revert without discussion. Assuming by "misleading stenography", you meant my accidental replacement of "purposefully" with "purposely" because it would otherwise be unclear what you meant by "misleading stenography", I'm going to put it back in with that change. JMM12345 ( talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
Also, just a heads up Snooganssnoogans, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring specifically states "Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive." I wasn't personally that offended by it, but just for future reference, it is probably not a good idea, and is technically a violation of wikipedia's policy I believe. JMM12345 ( talk) 04:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
References
Neutrality, You've made some good changes to the article recently, but I do disagree with your removal of the following content.
Your reason for the removal is that it "mostly cited to Twitter and not very substantive; 'elected official condemns crime' is pretty standard" but that doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons. First, because it didn't mostly cite to Twitter. The Tweet was only one of the three sources. One out of three isn't most, and it didn't actually need to be there for the statement to be fully sourced. There was also a local news source and an Al Jazeera source which talked about Parson's response. Secondly, because whether Wikipedia editors think it is standard or not, reliable sources determine notability. The Wikipedia community considers Al Jazeera to be a reliable source listed on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, and Al Jazeera considered his response notable enough to talk about in their article and quote in its entirety.
And in any event, even from a common sense perspective, what sorts of crimes a politician goes out of their way to condemn and how strongly they condemn certain crimes can certainly be notable and speak to their priorities. If you don't think it should have the original Tweet as a source for the statement, we can leave it out, as the Tweet was entirely quoted in the Al Jazeera article and embedded in the local news story. In which case the paragraph would read
It is still fully sourced, but now doesn't have the primary source that you objected to. Would you find this acceptable? JMM12345 ( talk) 03:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
References
References