Talk:Dan Crenshaw/Archive 1

Archive 1

SNL

It should be in the article, but per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, much less of it, maybe a sentence or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So edited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"a candidate who spent nearly $6 million on her campaign.[17]"

To put this in context, it would be nice if we could find a good source for how much Crenshaw's campaign had spent at that point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How to describe HR1

According to PolitiFact, it's a bill that "aims to make voting easier". According to our own Wiki page for HR1, it's a bill "to expand voting rights". There's nothing controversial about these descriptions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The description ("aims to make voting easier") over simplifies what the bill is and what it is attempting to do. It gives the false impression that Crenshaw is against voting rights. It was removed by at least three different editors that agree that the descriptions provided by Snooganssnoogans above are over simplified and provide put Crenshaw in a false light.CharlesShirley (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

That is (1) indisputably what the relevant section of the bill does, (2) what the RS says the bill does, and (3) what our very own Wikipedia page on the bill says the bill does. How exactly do you propose we describe this bill if we are prohibited from using RS in doing so? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Crenshaw's views on major pieces of legislation are obviously WP:DUE

And since these views are reported on by WP.RS, what exactly is the reason to exclude his views? Stop whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the passage here. What purpose does that sentence serve exactly?--MONGO (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding of WP:FRINGE that the sentence belongs in the article, as it clarifies to readers that scientists do not disagree that human activity is a primary (versus a minor) contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that has been trimmed again. The sentence was a bit SYNTH anyway IMHO as this article is not the place to debate the scientific consensus on climate change.--MONGO (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It is undue because Crenshaw's cherry picked tweets on a single bill do not offer us any sort of understanding on what his "political views" are. You've taken Crenshaw's very specific criticism about a very specific section of the proposed bill, and put it in his BLP to imply that he's somehow against expanding voting rights, or making voting easier, things he did not offer criticism or comment on. The only thing sourcing his views is the Politifact piece on the ballot harvesting topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The text literally quotes his objections to HR1, and relies on RS coverage for the rest. The text does not say he's against voting rights. It says that his statements about the voting rights aspect of HR1 are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

He clarified his exact issue with the bill, quoted in the Politifact piece - "Worth clarifying: HR1 enables ballot harvesting via mandatory no-fault absentee ballots and by not outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. Dems rejected our amendment to HR1 that would make it illegal. It should be illegal bc it allows fraud like we saw in #NC09," he tweeted." This is not mentioned in the article as to why he opposes the bill. This context is important, but missing. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Somehow, amazingly, I knew that you'd argue that,[1] and so before your comment here, I added a new source which clarifies how this clarification is still false and misleading (and how Crenshaw scrambled it together shortly after being contacted by the PolitiFact team). If you want, we can add a sentence that says "Crenshaw added X clarification after being contacted by PolitiFact. PolitiFact found this also to be false and misleading". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Political positions

"He opposes federal funding to "subsidize college in general", but supports it in cases of vocational training."

This sentence is hard to understand for me as non-American. Could it be imoroved with a couple of relevant wikilinks? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Crenshaw in Afghanistan image

Per the filepage [2], author and source are reddit-threads (one is r/MilitaryPorn, charming). Is this good enough for WP (Or Commons) use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding misleading text to PolitiFact assessment

An editor has violated 3RR to insert misleading text that gives the appearance that PolitiFact assessments of statements made by Crenshaw are inaccurate (when they are not). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Aberdeen?

Just my attempt at humor

Because of recent edits, I looked around for better sources to support this birthplace, but couldn't find anything really good. The one in the article [3] is a little meh, and these two are the same text:[4][5]. Unopposed, I'd say those were enough, but I note that another source says "Originally from the Houston area". Does anyone have anything better? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit on this again[6]. Still haven't found any better sources than above for whatever reason (americans tend to be interested in where their politicians were born). We could cut "born in" and just go with "grew up in" in this BLP for the time being, but the sources are not non-existent, just not very good. Are there any better sources that say "born in Texas?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is there two Electoral History sections?

Can we take out one of the Electoral History sections before and after political positions section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariojack3 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Only 16% of Asylum claims are approved that is a fact

One editor keeps removing the fact that only 16% of asylum claims are approved. The politifact not accurate claim needs more context to make it a neutral presentation. Without pointing out the fact that only 16% are approved the presentation made it look like Crenshaw was completely off base. The reader needs the context. The not accurate rating is still in the paragraph. This is a long standing edit that many editors have attempted. It needs to be in the article.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Restored Crenshaw's quote about oil and gas industry

One editor keeps removing the longer quote of Crenshaw concerning the Paris Agreement. Just quoting Crenshaw to saying PA was meaningless and costly without providing the rest of the quote does not provide a fair representation of Crenshaw's POV. The information with the just the two word quote is deceptive and not a NPOV presentation.--CharlesShirley (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the quote about climate change

One editor keeps quoting Business Insider and claiming that Crenshaw "rejects" climate change. That is simply is not true. That article does not say that Crenshaw "rejects" climate change. What is says is that he "doubts" the scientific consensus and that's all.--CharlesShirley (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

lede paragraph is tiny?

Crenshaws lede paragraph is tiny, this is statistically the most important paragraph in the whole article, most people only read the lede before they surf on to the next article, Crensaws lede is lacking, we could definitely beef it up, summarize him a little better I think. Whats everybody elses thoughts on this?Eruditess (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Eruditess, I agree that it was too short, so I added a paragraph. Feel free to add to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that User:Muboshgu, I'll try to come up with something to supplement that. I think I thanked you for the edit as well, hopefully it was the correct one.Eruditess (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Luna Younger

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, the child is not notable, so we do not use the WP:DEADNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Please look at the policy again: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in article space only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly."" All RSs, including the cited WaPo article, state, in one form or another, that he was born James Younger. It is notable. I am not removing "Luna." I am simply adding (born James Younger) per cited sources. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, that's the point, the child is not notable at all. They don't have a Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The child is not notable in general. But, per sources, the child is well-known as "James Younger." The WaPo article states that the governor and multiple congressmen refer to the child as "James Younger." The father also refers to the child as "James." It is completely appropriate to write (born James Younger) to not confuse the reader. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's only confusing when you add unnecessary details like a dead name. Content concerning minors is something we need to be especially careful with, so I don't see a reason we need to add more personal details about this individual if it can be avoided.
Also, regarding your claim that Fox News is a reliable source, see WP:FOXNEWS. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Fox article was written under the "News" section, which makes it a reliable source. Even if it was written under the "Politics" section, that wouldn't mean it's not a RS (there's no consensus). I have no clue how adding three simple words would make the article more confusing. Most publications refer to the child as James Younger, or at least in conjunction with Luna Younger. I'm really not trying to play politics here, I'm just trying to reflect what the reporting states. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that I probably made a mistake in linking to WP:FOXNEWS instead of the direct discussion which determined its reliability. The conclusion of the site-wide request for comment that it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims.
As for the 3 simple words being confusing, it's a WP:MOS issue. If readers wanted the information on Luna Younger's birth-name, they wouldn't be expected to go to the article on Dan Crenshaw. It's pretty much the same reason we wouldn't add Luna Younger (born 2011) to the article.
Regardless, our guidelines are pretty clear about when multiple names should be mentioned (in the lead of the subject's article or in a section dedicated to their personal life), and this is not one of those cases. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I would understand that if his name was exclusively or nearly-exclusively known as "Luna." But, considering the fact that's there so much controversy in regards to his name (and the case in general) adding both names would seem like the best way to assure NPOV. But, who am I to argue against Wikipedia's style manual? One more thing, how exactly do you define "contentious claims"? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the name entirely, per WP:BLPNAME and given the child's age. "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In any event, per MOS:GENDERID there would be no pretext whatever to include the deadname of the child. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I really cannot see why the section even needs to be in this BLP. Is it to cast the subject as a transphobe?--MONGO (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Social Issues section

Ok, there are a lot of problems here.

1. Several sources (National Review, Washington Examiner) that have problems and at very least should be attributed, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
2. The latest edit by "Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.D" misrepresents the actual Hegseth/Crenshaw video segment.
3. The National Review source claiming he "opposes cancel culture" is an op-ed he penned, not actual coverage; the use of the term "cancel culture" is a pejorative in this case inappropriate for encyclopedic writing.
4. "In the case of a then-7-year-old who at the age of 3 began to identify as a girl..." this paragraph is heavily tilted. The case involved a significant amount of abusive behavior by the father, to judge by the RS summation found here: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/11/20955059/luna-younger-transgender-child-custody

Submitting these here for discussion and hopefully to get the section cleaned up. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• The latest edit by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d [7] is a revert that fixes a clear BLP issue. The cited source, nor does Crenshaw himself, ever mention Crenshaw advocating for the "cancellation" of the athlete.
• Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, it's completely appropriate to use an opinion piece by the subject of the article. 'Cancel culture' is clearly defined in the Wiki article, so it doesn't matter if you believe it's a pejorative term.
• As for the last point, I'm not exactly sure what you're objecting to. The sentence you quoted was written by the very same admin who you had initiate an arbitration case against me. How is it "titled"? This article is about Crenshaw--talking about the exact merits of the case seems rather UNDUE. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

1. You need to watch the segment then. Clearly you have not.
2. If we're going to use the opinion piece, it needs to be clearly marked as such, especially since it was published in an otherwise dubious source (National Review).
3. Failing to correctly describe the case, and the reasons that the father lost custody rights, gives Crenshaw's quotation the undue weight.

Also, it's spelled "tilted." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh and... why are you referring to yourself in the 3rd person? ... don't answer that, I think I know. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I know you're new here, so I'm gonna AGF, but it's considered bad form to point out a spelling error in such a snarky way.
• What segment are you talking about? The only video in the Washington Examiner article, which is the cited source, makes no reference to Crenshaw.
• If you want to state "In a National Review opinion article, Crenshaw denounces cancel culture..." be my guest, but there is absolutely no reason to remove that line.
• Readers don't come to a Dan Crenshaw article to read about some custodial battle. The paragraph as written is NPOV--trying to 'pick sides' in such a heated case violates neutrality.
• I referred to myself in third-person because I was imitating your language: "the latest edit by..." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

# The segment of Crenshaw and Hegseth is available. The text was consistent with it.

1. Failing to correctly describe the custody battle violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This was not a "both sides" thing, and the motivation behind Crenshaw's statement (and other conservatives) was anti-LGBT bigotry, as seen by the legislative push that followed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/10/26/texas-is-afraid-of-a-7-year-old-transgender-girl/#8d2c64f56fa5 https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/1/29/21083505/transgender-kids-legislation-puberty-blockers And though Daily Beast is in the "no consensus" area, I'll leave this here as well, as it illustrates how the battle became much more about right-wing media (and Crenshaw's statement playing into the anti-LGBT bigotry in that regard) than the safety and health of a young girl. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-right-weaponized-a-7-year-old-trans-child IHateAccounts (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC) (struck comment by sock puppet)

For the 10th time, the cited source makes no reference to the "Crenshaw and Hegseth" segment. You're right that the Daily Beast is in the no consensus area, however, it should be used with "caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Per WP:FORBESCON, a Forbes Contributor is not a RS and should not be used for claims about a living person. Additionally, the highly partisan Vox article you cited makes no reference to Crenshaw. Trying to paint Crenshaw as a 'anti-LGBT' bigot violates neutrality and is not based on reliable sources. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I stated up front that the Vox article was for larger-picture background, but you still scream "highly partisan". Sigh. I guess I'm going to have to get used to you stonewalling and whitewashing. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No you didn't. You said that the Daily Beast article was for background. Please, AGF and don't accuse me of 'stonewalling' or 'whitewashing' Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

New commendations section as written and illustrated

Afaict, everything not in the "Military service" text is uncited and needs WP:RS. Also, the subsection is honking big, should it be included per WP:PROPORTION, do we generally include every decoration in this manner? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I checked a couple of military bios with active political careers (Lloyd Austin, Don Bacon (politician)) and they don't have those. It was added yesterday by Altair110 and I have removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. I note also that the medals we mention in text aren't in the ref. I found one bio with a similar thing: Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain#Military_awards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I'm a little disappointed that you removed that entire edit. The user obviously spent a great deal of time creating that section. We do, in fact, have those types of sections for veterans or military personnel with active political careers. See: Michael Flynn, Mark Kelly, Tom Cotton, H. R. McMaster, etc. I reached out to the user on his talk page: [8], because I thought moving that section towards the bottom of the page (in step with other articles) would be more appropriate. I too was concerned because I was unable to find refs for some of the decorations that the editor included. After doing some digging, I found this source that lists out all of Crenshaw's awards/decorations. The National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Navy Good Conduct Medal is not listed, so those should be removed (and the "Navy Commendation Medal" should be retitled to the Navy & Marine Corps Commendation Medal.) However, those awards can be replaced with the Army Achievement Medal, and the Korea Defense Service Medal, which the user did not originally include. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I removed unsourced content that had been recently added. This was not long-standing content, which we do usually provide more deference to. It can be readded, if it is sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Fair enough. Does the source I provided suffice? Also, do you agree it should be moved to the bottom? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Election Results

I added the results for the 2020 TX-2 election. I'm unsure if the source I used is satisfactory as it does not take you straight to the election results but instead to the official Texas Election Results website where you must locate the results through drop-down menus. Benmsch (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethics Probe and Allegations

Would this story be notable enough to merit a place on his page? It seems like something that is still underway but I am opening up the floor to the collective voice of Wikipedia. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bgrus22, Newsweek went downhill in 2013 and its reliability for post-2013 work is considered questionable at best. See WP:RSP for more. I did look into that story last month and didn't see other publications running it, so did not add anything. If there are sources from better outlets, perhaps it can be added. But if it's only Newsweek, we should leave it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: the most reliable sources I am aware of that mention this is a VA government document, linked here, and the Houston chronicle, a major paper for the city, linked here. Honestly I see the point you make about the lack of coverage though, which is why I was curious what everyone else thought. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We already have this story included in the article: "The Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs implicated Crenshaw and V.A. Secretary Robert Wilkie in a 2020 report as having engaged in a campaign of disparagement toward a female veteran who reported sexual assault to the Navy. Crenshaw said, "The Democrats created this narrative"" Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement About COVID-19

I believe that the comment "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Crenshaw said that Democrats and the media were exaggerating it" should be removed, unless a citation from a reliable source is provided. It is not sourced in any fashion.

As stated on the talk page, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article . . . ." If it is kept, I would hope that any supporting material would have Crenshaw saying "Democrats and the Media are exaggerating." Obviously, "exaggeration" is a characterization. If he took exception with a specific issue, describing the issue instead of characterizing it would seem to be preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In looking at this issue further, I notice that the "Texas Tribune" article (cited a couple of sentences later) states the following: "Like many other Texas Republicans, Crenshaw has been more focused on weighing the pandemic against its economic toll, while accusing Democrats and the media of exaggerating its impact." But there is nothing in the article other than this statement. In other words, the reporter never said "for example, on August 1, Crenshaw said about the media, 'They're alarmists on COVID-19.'" It is simply a characterization by the reporter. There are direct quotes in the article from his election opponent about a lack of leadership. Perhaps a fair statement, instead of the one in the article which attributes statements to Crenshaw that I cannot find support for, would be "Political opponents criticized Crenshaw for showing a lack of leadership on COVID-19." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've heard no objection, so I'll make the edit.Kolg8 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolg8, I object to your edit on POV grounds. Political opponents criticized...[9] is a setup that allows the reader to immediately dismiss whatever comes next. Here's a source using the word "exaggeration".[10] If Crenshaw's exact wording was "they're alarmists", we can use that if you prefer, as it means the same thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolg8: I agree that the sourcing was poor. I do see that Houston Chronicle says that Mr Crenshaw said in an interview that was part of the Texas Tribune Festival: "that the Democrats are exaggerating the risks of voting in person during the pandemic" (I'm quoting the Houston Chronicle's words not Dan Crenshaw's). If that is the basis for "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Crenshaw said that Democrats and the media were exaggerating it" then those words should not have been inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine mandate

Can you create a bill such as the one in Oklahoma that gives the rights to the employee to sue the employer for these ridiculous mandates! 2603:8081:2300:34DF:455A:9015:B008:A3B2 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are trying to tell Dan Crenshaw something, Wikipedia is the wrong place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Dan also spent 2 years growing up in Caracas, Venezuela. The source is his own speech which he made to the people of Venezuela. 69.58.146.14 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: You made the same exact request last night. Why would I respond any differently than they did? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Dan also spent 2 years growing up in Caracas, Venezuela. The source is his own speech which he made to the people of Venezuela. 69.58.146.14 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean this? I se that it says "His family lived in Caracas, Venezuela for two years." I don't think that's good enough. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"Crenshaw spent four years living in Colombia and a year and a half in Ecuador. His family lived in Caracas, Venezuela for two years." can be read (by me at least) like he didn't necessarily live in Venezuela, but I may be misreading that that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)