Talk:Matt Bostrom

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

Background of editor & comments on notability[edit]

I am really am Grace Kelly. I am citizen journalist and an MBA student. I know about local policing because I write on that topic. I noticed that Wiki is missing information on some important influential people like Matt Bostrom. Matt Bostrom is important because he is a leader for other Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. His work is copied and emulated. He is a popular speaker as well as a professor. He is interviewed on television, written up in the state newspapers, cited as an expert and testifies before the state legislature. When I searched for "Matt Bostrom" on wiki, I was surprised to not find an entry. I resolved to do something about that. It took me more than a year to finally get around to it. I had planned on more. Apparently I have to have more history before I can upload pictures. Do note that I passed the proposed text past Sheriff Bostrom before I posted it, to check accuracy as well as checking cited sources.

If this is not considered a notable person, please advise on what you are missing. You have Joe Arpaio listed in wiki. This Sheriff Matt Bostrom has the positive popularity equivalent.Thegracekelly (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all the reasons that Sheriff Matt Bostrom is notable:

1) Sheriff Bostrom is in an elected area that is almost exactly the same as US Representative Betty McCollum. This entirely urban county contains the capital of Minnesota, St Paul as well as being half the Twin Cities of Minnesota. Sheriff Bostrom was the head of local security for Republican National Convention that happened in St Paul in 2008. Even his election to Sheriff is noteworthy because 4 term incumbents do not get beaten by 14%.

2) Sheriff Bostrom is noted opinion leader on community policing, civil rights and homeland security. He is interviewed on TPT Almanac and MPR as well as short segments on local TV news. He has had several articles written about him in the major newspapers, numerous citations in other articles, many articles in local blogs and several articles in the community papers. He speaks in front of community groups. He has been the keynote speaker at events.

3) Concurrently he is a professor who teaches and publishes papers!

4) Sheriff Bostrom is a leader in law enforcement. He testifies before the state legislature. His policies on gun rights have been directly copied by other sheriffs.

Now according to the wiki documentation that I read, that all makes him notable. Thegracekelly (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a commitment right now, I will add multiple citations later today Thegracekelly (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, multiple easily verifiable citations have been added. There are many more if needed. Some newspaper articles are not online but can be easily cited. I do not think that there is concern for libel since this is all positive, this is all verified in multiple sources, and the person, Matt Bostrom, has verified all of this information.

I am planning to add to the Ramsey County page soon, so this page will not be an orphan.

I am rather shocked about the statements about political information be of low importance. People have trouble understanding how government works and if this wiki does not start providing local government information, then we have to provide that elsewhere. People look in the wiki first, it should be here.Thegracekelly (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one of the reasons that Matt Bostrom is very important is that he as leader and teacher in community policing. With community policing, people get to protest without getting police harrassment and police abuse. This is important. I don't know how to get that into this article. A summary line gets deleted. More detailed information gets deleted. I give up. Thegracekelly (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for communication[edit]

PLEASE LEAVE A MESSAGE not boxes, talk to me!!!!!Thegracekelly (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips on making these converations easier to read[edit]

The Wikipedia interface is a pain to learn but here are some tips that will make talk page comments easier to read and will help others join in.

  • Give each new conversation or topc a heading by putting a title between equal signs at the top like this: ==Heading==
  • Each time that you reply as part of a previous topic (even if it's just replying to yourself to clarify something) indent your reply. There's two ways to indent. You can put a bunch of colons in front of your reply. (Put just one more colon than the person before you.) Or you can do the same trick with asterisks.

Cloveapple (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added headings to earlier comments and moved your most recent comment to the bottom. My apologies for this refactoring, I just wanted the page to be easier to read. if you object it's certainly within your rights to change it back. :-) Cloveapple (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with current version of article (mostly an issue of sources)[edit]

Ok, the tags getting put on the article are about sources and notability. Right now I see three tags: one asking for additional citations, one saying notability is uncertain, and one tag saying not to use either primary sources or sources affilliated with the subject. Three tags is discouraging. However it's not as bad as it looks. In reality it all boils down to one problem that should be completely fixable.

First I'll tackle the notability question. One of the ways Wikipedia judges notability is by whether or not multiple independent reliable sources are discussing a topic. If a lot of those sources are discussing the topic in depth (not just passing mentions) then it's notable.

So that takes us to the issue of what a reliable source is. The big long description of what a reliable source is is over on WP:RELY but most newspaper articles, books, and magazine articles qualify. Official blogs that are part of a newspaper also usually qualify.

Next thing is the idea of "sources affilliated with the subject." Basicly Wikipedia wants sources that are as independent of the subject as possible. So that tends to rule out information from the subject's own web site or press releases. Sometimes that information can be used but it's not optimum. (For example a personal website could be the source of a direct quote but could not be used to back up any factual information that might ever be questioned.) Information from an employer is a grey area that's best avoided if there are other options. Also sources connected with the subject don't help show notability in the same ways independent sources do.

So let's take these ideas and look at the actual sources. I see several newspaper sources. That's good. But I also see some nos.

  • We've got Twin Cities Scoop. If that's officially by Pioneer Press staff it's golden.
  • We've got a Star Tribune editorial. I'm not certain about use of editorials. I'll ask around and find out.
  • We've got what looks like the subject's own web site (mattbostrom.org). That can be an External link but it should be avoided as a source.
  • Linked isn't considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because it has user generated content.
  • I'm not familiar with Police Chief Magazine but without looking further than the name I'll put it in the reliable column.
  • I'm not familiar with mnpost.com but I looked and saw that it has editorial staff but also maybe reader contributed material. If the cited article was from the staff it should be fine.
  • That leaves the co.ramsey.mn.us stuff. I would avoid using his profile from work. I don't know whether it's information he has edited or vetted but for the sake of this conversation let's assume that he might have a say in what's posted there which makes it non-independent. The election relults are probably ok coming from the county though a secondary source of independent confirmation might be even better.

I hope this helps. Cloveapple (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking updated sources on October 7[edit]

Now that some sources have been added and I've had a chance to look at all the actual sources (not just their listings) I'll go over the references again as they are on October 7. Remember that I'm only commenting on whether they are useful in Wikipedia terms. These are not comments on the source's integrity.

  • "New Ramsey sheriff lays out early plans", Star Tribune. Good. It's what Wikipedia calls an independent secondary source.
  • a web news piece by Minnesota Public Radio staff. Again, fine.
  • Ramsey County election results on official county web site. This is a primary source so for WP purposes it doesn't bolster a claim of notability. (There are also other reasons to prefer secondary sources on WP.)
  • City Hall Scoop. Again this is fine. (I dug on the website and confirmed it's by official Pioneer Press staff.)
  • RNC8 Report. Sorry, I'd avoid this one. It's a press release from the Saint Paul Police Dept.
  • Sun Newspapers article. This one is both good and bad. I'd avoid citing any facts to it. For positions and quotes it's good. I'd consider using it for a little of that. For showing media coverage (bolstering notability) it's good. The bad is that these aren't fact checked statements where the reporter and editors are standing behind them. These are statements right from Mr. Bostrom. So in some ways we'd have to treat it more like a primary source. (Please understand this has nothing to do with Bostrom's credibility. It's how I'd treat a serties of quotes from Abe Lincoln!)
  • The Police Chief. I hadn't realized this was authored by Bostrom instead of about him. For this article it would be a primary source and an affilliated source. So while useful, it doesn't directly prove notability. If we can find commentary (reviews/criticisms/responses) of hiw writing then that can help show notability by showing that multiple sources find his writing and ideas important. So keep this but be aware it doesn't directly show notability WP style.
  • article by Bostrom that was published elsewhere and is now hosted on his website. Same as the article I just discussed.
  • Minnpost article. Fine.
  • Minneapolis Star Tibune editorial "New leadership for Ramsey County". Sorry I haven't yet asked at the reliable sources noticeboard about editorials. I think it should be fine since for what you're using it for since it's not a guest op ed and is the official voice of the paper. If you use an editorial to back up an opinion such as one candidate being "better" then I'd say you'd have to more careful and say it was the paper's statement, but you're not using it for that. I could be wrong though.

Cloveapple (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Matt Bostrom. 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) 17:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a resume[edit]

Questions over notabillity have already been raised, and as it stands this article reads like a resume or publicity piece / press release. I question its continued presence on Wiki. Drlegendre (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drlegendre: Thanks for pointing out the problem. Some of the inappropriate text was a copyright violation, and I requested revision deletion. twsabin 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Bostrom&oldid=1200283969"