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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Mistake: Disambiguity with Steven Roberts (Missouri politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Andrew nyr: was the removal my addition of the partisan affiliation of Roberts in the lead of the article that you undertook in this edit intentional, or was it just something that got caught in the crossfire with the IP section blanker? I presume the latter, but I want to make sure. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@
Mhawk10 and
Andrew nyr:
CBS news article
"will not be charged because evidence does not support the allegation, a special prosecutor announced Tuesday."
Adakiko (
talk) 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This should be added to the references. [1]
This should be added to the references Sexual Assault Allegations Vanished From Potential Cori Bush Challenger’s Wikipedia Page -- Ubh [ talk... contribs... 10:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Is The Missouri Times an RS that's BLP level? The site lists a whopping three employees, it doesn't appear to be an established newspaper, and I'm not immediately finding WP:USEBYOTHERS that makes it reliable. It feels an awful lot like a political blog that's dressed up as a news outlet. The founder's been convicted of forgery before. Sometimes there are websites like this that are some of the better sources for statehouse reporting (the New Jersey Globe, which is run by David Wildstein generally gets high marks across the aisle for its detailed political reporting). But this sort of stuff definitely gives me pause considering it's currently used in the article, which currently reads a lot like a puff piece now that the allegations of assault are gone. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
MOFacts did not make any Wikipedia edits and presumably created its account February 14, 2022, when they added a bunch of favorable information for the Wiki page for Steve Roberts. They then did not engage in any activity until February 28, when they repeatedly deleted factual, correct, and significant information on the Wiki page for Steve Roberts that was not favorable (multiple sexual assault allegations). Steve Roberts has been considered a potential candidate for Missouri's First U.S. Congressional District, with filing opening last week, which makes me suspect that this deletion of unflattering but true information is done in connection with his campaign, which is extremely unethical and antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. They've literally just removed the sexual assault information three times in a row...what motive could they possibly have for doing this? And I truly hope that they are not paid by Roberts and his campaign, because that would be more unethical than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GL382 ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I have been reprimanded for removing content without explanation, which is a false statement. The only content removed from the page has been that which has been drafted using Paywall sources. Such sources cannot be considered public due to a reader’s inability to freely and independently verify its content. These sources include STLToday and St. Louis Post Dispatch, both of which require paid membership to view the articles.
There have also been accusations of bias in my edits, which again are false. All edits have been made using free, public sources, the contents of which can be independently verified by the public. To date, I have not seen any reprimand against those who continue to use private, Paywall sources. MOfacts ( talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries(emphasis added). In other words, reliable sources that have a paywall are fine to use in articles. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10 Thank you for the clarification. No more removals will be made on my part, just was unable to validate the sources through my own browsing. MOfacts ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
We now know the reason MOfacts removed this info, check my post below this one linking the Intercept article about this debacle. Perfecnot ( talk) 12:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
https://theintercept.com/2022/03/21/missouri-senator-steven-roberts-wikipedia/
IP address came form the Missouri capitol, crazy piece and I would suggest reading it. Perfecnot ( talk) 12:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the "citation needed" for this source, https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/mcclellan-roberts-case-raises-questions-on-rape-culture/article_1e0c70c0-91b9-5471-9430-798cf0885f4b.html, stating that charges were not filed in relation to the 2015 investigation. Perfecnot ( talk) 22:18, 22 March 2022 (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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Mistake: Disambiguity with Steven Roberts (Missouri politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovin'Politics ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Andrew nyr: was the removal my addition of the partisan affiliation of Roberts in the lead of the article that you undertook in this edit intentional, or was it just something that got caught in the crossfire with the IP section blanker? I presume the latter, but I want to make sure. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@
Mhawk10 and
Andrew nyr:
CBS news article
"will not be charged because evidence does not support the allegation, a special prosecutor announced Tuesday."
Adakiko (
talk) 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
This should be added to the references. [1]
This should be added to the references Sexual Assault Allegations Vanished From Potential Cori Bush Challenger’s Wikipedia Page -- Ubh [ talk... contribs... 10:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Is The Missouri Times an RS that's BLP level? The site lists a whopping three employees, it doesn't appear to be an established newspaper, and I'm not immediately finding WP:USEBYOTHERS that makes it reliable. It feels an awful lot like a political blog that's dressed up as a news outlet. The founder's been convicted of forgery before. Sometimes there are websites like this that are some of the better sources for statehouse reporting (the New Jersey Globe, which is run by David Wildstein generally gets high marks across the aisle for its detailed political reporting). But this sort of stuff definitely gives me pause considering it's currently used in the article, which currently reads a lot like a puff piece now that the allegations of assault are gone. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
MOFacts did not make any Wikipedia edits and presumably created its account February 14, 2022, when they added a bunch of favorable information for the Wiki page for Steve Roberts. They then did not engage in any activity until February 28, when they repeatedly deleted factual, correct, and significant information on the Wiki page for Steve Roberts that was not favorable (multiple sexual assault allegations). Steve Roberts has been considered a potential candidate for Missouri's First U.S. Congressional District, with filing opening last week, which makes me suspect that this deletion of unflattering but true information is done in connection with his campaign, which is extremely unethical and antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. They've literally just removed the sexual assault information three times in a row...what motive could they possibly have for doing this? And I truly hope that they are not paid by Roberts and his campaign, because that would be more unethical than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GL382 ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I have been reprimanded for removing content without explanation, which is a false statement. The only content removed from the page has been that which has been drafted using Paywall sources. Such sources cannot be considered public due to a reader’s inability to freely and independently verify its content. These sources include STLToday and St. Louis Post Dispatch, both of which require paid membership to view the articles.
There have also been accusations of bias in my edits, which again are false. All edits have been made using free, public sources, the contents of which can be independently verified by the public. To date, I have not seen any reprimand against those who continue to use private, Paywall sources. MOfacts ( talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries(emphasis added). In other words, reliable sources that have a paywall are fine to use in articles. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10 Thank you for the clarification. No more removals will be made on my part, just was unable to validate the sources through my own browsing. MOfacts ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
We now know the reason MOfacts removed this info, check my post below this one linking the Intercept article about this debacle. Perfecnot ( talk) 12:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
https://theintercept.com/2022/03/21/missouri-senator-steven-roberts-wikipedia/
IP address came form the Missouri capitol, crazy piece and I would suggest reading it. Perfecnot ( talk) 12:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the "citation needed" for this source, https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/mcclellan-roberts-case-raises-questions-on-rape-culture/article_1e0c70c0-91b9-5471-9430-798cf0885f4b.html, stating that charges were not filed in relation to the 2015 investigation. Perfecnot ( talk) 22:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)