This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephanie Grisham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
X1\ ( talk) 00:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't add that because the truth could be considered biased but it is actually true. Please do not whitewash or lock this page and please do not use it as a chance to try and be funny. https://www.salon.com/2019/08/27/the-strange-saga-of-stephanie-grisham-maga-is-a-reward-program-for-mediocre-white-people/ ExCITEable ( talk) 18:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
None of the articles mention the last name of the second son. He was born around the time of her short marriage to Grisham. Several articles mention that his father is unknown, the kind of detail that is unusual given that there are court records.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 14:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi William Allen Simpson. I noticed your recent edits to Stephanie Grisham included using thefamouspeople.com and heavy.com as references. The consensus at RSN is that thefamouspeople.com is not reliable. The WP:RSP#Heavy.com entry cautions, "When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead." Also, I couldn't find where the reference actually verified Grisham's birth name. Did I miss something? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Stephanie Grisham was previously Stephanie Ann Sommerville. A marriage record on Ancestry.com says she was married in Nevada to “Danny Don Marries” on April 7, 1997. He is the father of her son, Kurtis Marries.
|successor2 = TBD
Added 2019-06-25T22:52:13 by User:Therequiembellishere:
After 5 months, has recently been removed twice by a single purpose IP address located in Washington DC.
Obviously, this is not partisan. "TBD" does not have anything to do with the Democratic Party. Contrary to the assertion that she "is in the position indefinitely", several articles indicate that she resigned the former position, but that no succesor has yet been named. Holding 2 positions is generally illegal (although there are exceptions where the 2nd position receives no pay).
So, what do we do here?
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Recently, there were a series of edits by CharlesShirley ( talk · contribs), who removed important details that are necessary to understand controversy, with unhelpful comments such as:
The guy didn't "get the chair", he was gasping for his life for 2 hours. Her controversial comments made national and international news. A cite specifically has the word "controversial" in the title, and the others have even more contentious labels in the body. I've tried to remove such labels during my cleanup, but the reader shouldn't have to click through to the ref to understand why it is there. We need to keep some level of detail.
Likewise, there are a series of edits to her criminal past that were edited into obscurity.
And the edit commentary isn't helpful. These are details that explain the controversy. BTW, there's is nothing about this in Beto O'Roarke's article. Likewise, it is the fact that she got off very lightly after violating parole during her advocacy for Trump that make it so nationally controversial. Anybody else would have spent years in the hoosegow.
Finally, CharlesShirley has been moving things around out of order and removing paragraph white space.
MOS:BLP#Order of events states the biography should be in chronological order. With such a large number of controversies, it helps to make things nicer and neutral to have at least something near the top that is more pleasant to read.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 02:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, after a long absence, CharlesShirley removing white space between unrelated paragraphs (and a block quote that serves as a subparagraph heading) obscures the underlying controversy.
Like the
previous quotation (over 14 months ago), this serves as a transition highlighting the following content with a clear explanation. An alternative in each case might be to add a new subheading, providing an even stronger highlight.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 09:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, CharlesShirley keeps making slightly different edits to remove white space and bury details into other paragraphs or subparagraphs. Several folks have reverted these variations, and I've reverted yet again today:
Although each cleverly seems like a slightly different edit to avoid WP:3RR, they are really all the same change, as reported earlier.
Moreover, the only recent difference seem to be embedding a named source in the text, Washington Post or a reporter's name, seemingly to denigrate the statement by making it appear the source is a biased outlier. While this is one way of handling WP:SUBSTANTIATE, these are not biased opinions. This is a well documented controversy of national importance that has garnered considerable attention by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a time frame of over 6 months. There could be potentially dozens of citations.
I've been careful to select major publications among the many that were in this page before I began cleaning up. This has resulted in a reviewed change from Starter to C class.
As to the plaint that this should be taken to Talk, obviously several folks have already done so. S/he needs to come to Talk and achieve consensus for removal, as this style and these details have been present in the article for many months.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 20:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thia past week, there have been many significant articles characterizing her current job performance. My approach has been to cite 3rd and 4th party references. For example, two prime-time CNN segments by Anderson Cooper. Rather than quoting him directly, I've quoted major reviewers who independently decided what was the most important. Specific language was taken from 3rd and 4th party headlines and article content. Hopefully, this yields a more neutral perspective.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 16:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Suppose that I change this to 35th WH PS. Who is going to challenge my edit? I'll gladly list the prior 34. Someone needs to correct the miscounts going a long way back. 161.38.130.16 ( talk)—Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 24 May 2020
Agreed, this needs some cleaning as her direct successor Kayleigh McEnany is seen as 32nd (George Stephanopoulos and several others were acting or de facto, see White House Press Secretary ). Voncken1996 ( talk) 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
There continues to be removal of the litigation that Stephanie Grisham is currently in from her wiki page. The litigation stemmed from an opinion piece she authored in the Washington Post. The court rejected the dismissal of the case ruling in favor of the plaintiff, and against Grisham. The sources have been added but are removed. Jstew8 ( talk) 02:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Does the same standard apply for that whom she is in litigation? That page is the basis for my material on the lawsuit. Jstew8 ( talk) 12:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephanie Grisham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
X1\ ( talk) 00:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't add that because the truth could be considered biased but it is actually true. Please do not whitewash or lock this page and please do not use it as a chance to try and be funny. https://www.salon.com/2019/08/27/the-strange-saga-of-stephanie-grisham-maga-is-a-reward-program-for-mediocre-white-people/ ExCITEable ( talk) 18:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
None of the articles mention the last name of the second son. He was born around the time of her short marriage to Grisham. Several articles mention that his father is unknown, the kind of detail that is unusual given that there are court records.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 14:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi William Allen Simpson. I noticed your recent edits to Stephanie Grisham included using thefamouspeople.com and heavy.com as references. The consensus at RSN is that thefamouspeople.com is not reliable. The WP:RSP#Heavy.com entry cautions, "When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead." Also, I couldn't find where the reference actually verified Grisham's birth name. Did I miss something? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Stephanie Grisham was previously Stephanie Ann Sommerville. A marriage record on Ancestry.com says she was married in Nevada to “Danny Don Marries” on April 7, 1997. He is the father of her son, Kurtis Marries.
|successor2 = TBD
Added 2019-06-25T22:52:13 by User:Therequiembellishere:
After 5 months, has recently been removed twice by a single purpose IP address located in Washington DC.
Obviously, this is not partisan. "TBD" does not have anything to do with the Democratic Party. Contrary to the assertion that she "is in the position indefinitely", several articles indicate that she resigned the former position, but that no succesor has yet been named. Holding 2 positions is generally illegal (although there are exceptions where the 2nd position receives no pay).
So, what do we do here?
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Recently, there were a series of edits by CharlesShirley ( talk · contribs), who removed important details that are necessary to understand controversy, with unhelpful comments such as:
The guy didn't "get the chair", he was gasping for his life for 2 hours. Her controversial comments made national and international news. A cite specifically has the word "controversial" in the title, and the others have even more contentious labels in the body. I've tried to remove such labels during my cleanup, but the reader shouldn't have to click through to the ref to understand why it is there. We need to keep some level of detail.
Likewise, there are a series of edits to her criminal past that were edited into obscurity.
And the edit commentary isn't helpful. These are details that explain the controversy. BTW, there's is nothing about this in Beto O'Roarke's article. Likewise, it is the fact that she got off very lightly after violating parole during her advocacy for Trump that make it so nationally controversial. Anybody else would have spent years in the hoosegow.
Finally, CharlesShirley has been moving things around out of order and removing paragraph white space.
MOS:BLP#Order of events states the biography should be in chronological order. With such a large number of controversies, it helps to make things nicer and neutral to have at least something near the top that is more pleasant to read.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 02:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, after a long absence, CharlesShirley removing white space between unrelated paragraphs (and a block quote that serves as a subparagraph heading) obscures the underlying controversy.
Like the
previous quotation (over 14 months ago), this serves as a transition highlighting the following content with a clear explanation. An alternative in each case might be to add a new subheading, providing an even stronger highlight.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 09:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, CharlesShirley keeps making slightly different edits to remove white space and bury details into other paragraphs or subparagraphs. Several folks have reverted these variations, and I've reverted yet again today:
Although each cleverly seems like a slightly different edit to avoid WP:3RR, they are really all the same change, as reported earlier.
Moreover, the only recent difference seem to be embedding a named source in the text, Washington Post or a reporter's name, seemingly to denigrate the statement by making it appear the source is a biased outlier. While this is one way of handling WP:SUBSTANTIATE, these are not biased opinions. This is a well documented controversy of national importance that has garnered considerable attention by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in a time frame of over 6 months. There could be potentially dozens of citations.
I've been careful to select major publications among the many that were in this page before I began cleaning up. This has resulted in a reviewed change from Starter to C class.
As to the plaint that this should be taken to Talk, obviously several folks have already done so. S/he needs to come to Talk and achieve consensus for removal, as this style and these details have been present in the article for many months.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 20:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thia past week, there have been many significant articles characterizing her current job performance. My approach has been to cite 3rd and 4th party references. For example, two prime-time CNN segments by Anderson Cooper. Rather than quoting him directly, I've quoted major reviewers who independently decided what was the most important. Specific language was taken from 3rd and 4th party headlines and article content. Hopefully, this yields a more neutral perspective.
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 16:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Suppose that I change this to 35th WH PS. Who is going to challenge my edit? I'll gladly list the prior 34. Someone needs to correct the miscounts going a long way back. 161.38.130.16 ( talk)—Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 24 May 2020
Agreed, this needs some cleaning as her direct successor Kayleigh McEnany is seen as 32nd (George Stephanopoulos and several others were acting or de facto, see White House Press Secretary ). Voncken1996 ( talk) 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
There continues to be removal of the litigation that Stephanie Grisham is currently in from her wiki page. The litigation stemmed from an opinion piece she authored in the Washington Post. The court rejected the dismissal of the case ruling in favor of the plaintiff, and against Grisham. The sources have been added but are removed. Jstew8 ( talk) 02:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Does the same standard apply for that whom she is in litigation? That page is the basis for my material on the lawsuit. Jstew8 ( talk) 12:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)