Talk:Jack Conway (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matthew Conway[edit]

October 23, 2010, It was reported Jack Conway received a telephone call from a supporter that told Conway that he had overheard a detective discussing the drug investigation involving Matthew Conway (Jack Conway's Brother).[1] Jack Conway, then called his brother and said they needed to meet the following day, according to the records Conway wanted to know if police were working on a case involving his brother. The meeting was held at Jack Conway’s home. When asked to discuss his knowledge of the investigation involving his brother and the meeting with Adams, Jack Conway’s statement did not address either issue.

When The Courier-Journal made a request for elaboration Allison Gardner Martin, communications director for the attorney general’s office, said Conway “does not deny” that his brither's attorney met with him and his brother. But she declined to address what Conway knew about the decision to have the defence attorney visit the police chief.[2]

This section was taken out thought some of it may need to be salvaged--Duchamps_comb MFA 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't see my comment, so I moved it here from the section which I had pointed to: I removed a passage about Conways brother put in the election section, the relevance of which did not become apparent after reading even though it's two paragraphs (reasoning closely resembles that of the content discussed above, documenting stuff as it happens). I looked at the cited source and it describes the content as "Nothing incriminating, but not what you want to have surfacing this close to an election." Unless something of this is used in the election it does not fit in the election section. Hekerui (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my last edit. --October 23, 2010, it was reported by The Courier-Journal that it had made a request for elaboration of an ongoing drug investigation involving Matthew Conway (Jack Conway's Brother) and the role of Jack Conway's involvement with the case. Allison Gardner Martin, communications director for the attorney general’s office, said Conway “does not deny” that his brother's attorney met with him and his brother at his home. But she declined to address what Conway knew about the decision to have the defense attorney visit the police chief.[3] Conway's statement was “My brother told me of the matter. I advised my brother that he should engage counsel. Once he retained counsel, I was not involved in the matter.”[4]
I did not just just revert your edit, I made a good faith attempt to reword the paragraph. How can you say this has nothing to do with the election? He has released an official statement, and may have abused his position as attorney general in an investigation about his brother. Your "nothing to see here move along" attitude about this scandal is disturbing. So where does this information belong if not in the election section, the attorney general section?--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just made Yahoo news. [5], Fox news [6], Salem news [7], not just a tempest in a tea pot, very relevant to the election.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Politico source originally cited said the opposite, and this appears to be a story very much in flow. So if there are sources discussing the impact this story has one could report about it, but I urge caution, because right now it's questionable that this has any importance in the election, or does it "overburden the article with documenting controversy as it happens" like the stuff discussed in sections above? Hekerui (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's written now is misleading, "he tipped his brother off" when the source says "might", and the source is the Daily Caller, which is a partisan blog. The Salem News is not an actual news source and not one of the sources say this was made an issue in the election by either Paul or Conway. That leaves nothing. And of course the tags are appropriate, I think there is recentism and POV and I mentioned on the talk page why. We're not TMZ and WP:BLP means no insertion of potentially libelous information. Hekerui (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look you obviously do not know how to use the NPOV tags or know how they are to work. You are to list you case as to why you feel/think the tags apply. Try to talk it out with others as to improve the article. You seem to have done none of the basics here. I advise you state why you feel they are needed. --As far as my section you act as if it is not sourced, I have used the courier-journal, FOX news, and yahoo news. I suggest you do a little more research before you call the The Daily Caller a "partisan blog". How can you state my sources are "nothing", and has nothing to do with the election? Due to your last comment I thought it was acceptable to add this information. If you have a problem with the section please add or correct my work, add "might" if you like but don't delete the entire section.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, give any evidence that this even belongs into the "election" section. It's about his brother. Has any reliable independent third-party source said it will have an influence on the election? Has it become an issue in the election? Then cite that in a sentence, but don't clutter the page with stuff just because it is considered controversial. This is an election, such stories are not uncommon, but this is an encyclopedia and we use an encyclopedic style that concentrates on relevant verifiable facts, not speculation, especially on WP:BLPs. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken Conway’s Role in Brother’s Drug Probe Raises Questions One Week Before Election [8] , and Jack Conway may have tipped brother off about drug investigation [9] are both third-party source.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent) If you want to put it in the election section it has to be relevant. What in the Daily Caller article makes this relevant for the election? I see only that an investigation is happening and that Conway denies any improper involvement - the rest is speculation, notice how the story says "After hearing rumors ..." and "But it appears he ..." The Fox News article is a summary of a Louisville Courier-Journal article and says nothing related to the election either, other than that Conway's brother is accused of drug trafficking and that said brother "was never charged with any crimes related to drugs", that an investigation happens and that Conway denies any wrongdoing. That's not something for an election section, because it does not discuss Conway's election. Hekerui (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be zero evidence that Jack Conway did anything wrong aside from a desire by right-wingers to speculate that just maybe he did. Until/unless interest in these allegations expands, it is unlikely to merit inclusion in this article.betsythedevine (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10/31/10 New politico article, Questions about Conway's role in brother's case[10].--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best allegation this article comes up with is that Conway may have sought to learn if his brother was under investigation. The speculation you prefer is that he knew his brother was under investigation and improperly warned him. I am also going to change the very POV title of this section to "Matthew Conway." betsythedevine (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The speculation you prefer is that he knew his brother was under investigation and improperly warned him." YES, that is exactly what I, the police records, as well as the The Courier-Journal's article states. That is obstruction of justice...--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal[edit]

I've been doing some work on this article because, if Conway is elected governor, the article would need to reach Good Article status to keep the Governors of Kentucky Good Topic intact. (I plan to work on Bevin, too, but there's less out there about him, so I thought I'd start here.) I propose removing the following paragraph:

In November 2009, Conway asked Governor Steve Beshear to set execution dates for three men on death row. This was criticized by opponents of the death penalty. The Kentucky Supreme Court decided to stay executions until the Kentucky Department of Corrections follows mandatory administrative procedures.

The second sentence is vague in terms of who criticized the decision to ask for the death warrants, and it is uncited. I suspect that these criticisms may have been of the use of the death penalty itself, not necessarily Conway's decision to ask for the warrants. The third sentence is specifically tagged as uncited. I have found reference to the case in question, but the decision had nothing to do with Conway. It seems to have hinged on the Department of Corrections not properly dotting i's and crossing t's. So really, we're left with the fact that Conway requested three death warrants, none of which have actually been served due to administrative and legal delays. Perhaps this is an indication that Conway is pro-death-penalty, or perhaps this is just part of his job that he is required to do regardless. I honestly don't know. If the former, maybe it merits mention in the "Positions" section. Otherwise, it should be deleted entirely, imo. I'll leave this here for comment, with the understanding that, after an appropriate amount of time, silence equals consent. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. It reads like an ordinary detail of his job, followed by unreferenced statements. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack Conway (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jack Conway (politician). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jack Conway (politician). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Conway_(politician)&oldid=1159724530"