Jump to content

Talk:Matt Schlapp

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

Removed UNDUE material[edit]

I've reverted this recently added edit [[1]]. First, this is UNDUE in the scope of the article. The content of the article is rather limited and generally sticks to high level facts. With this new edit the political career section increased in length by 50%. This material clearly casts the BLP subject in a negative light. Is the sourcing sufficient for such inclusion? There is very limited information regarding the reliability of The Week as a source or source of weight for the claims it is making. The final sentence about closing "the magazine" (The Standard?) seems to be nothing more than a random Trump coatrack and appears to have little connection to the rest of the newly added material. Springee (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing seriously wrong with my edit, but you continue to effectively delete my posts of anything to AP2 articles that, no matter how thoroughly sourced in notable might negatively affect U.S. right wing political officeholders or actors. You seem to believe you have the right to effectively topic block me on the subject. I got so tired of spending three hours on carefully doing edits to such articles, only to have you automatically spending three seconds deleting all my work, that I have nearly refrained from editing AP2 articles for many months. I deleted 76 SPA spammy posts that appeared to be coming directly from the American Conservative Union back in October by USER "Nacamier Nunoi." (That's an anagram for American Union, of course.) This has got to stop. You consistently seem to make a mockery of presumptions of "good faith" editing. You have had this problem with dozens of other editors, so much so that the last time I checked, almost 20% of all your voluminous edits were spent in Noticeboard disagreements. Activist (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the section above I outlined the issues with your edit. If you disagree I think BLPN would be a good place to ask for a second opinion. While time put into editing can result in article improvements, it doesn't always. In this case the edit was problematic. The objective of a BLP is not to tar the subject, it's to summarize the most important aspects of the person and or their accomplishments, political positions/actions etc. Springee (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I wouldn't think of say, tarring David Bernhardt's time as Secretary of the Interior by associating it with his prior legal and lobbying work, or besmirching Jack Abramoff's illustrious movie producing career with any mention of subsequent events. I just Googled Schlapp and "lobby" and got 83,000 hits, no doubt an aberration. Activist (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Springee I note that 218 of your last 1,000 edits have been to Noticeboards. Are we seeing a pattern here? That was up from about 19% of your edits, many months ago when I last checked after you'd been warned about Stalking and Wikihounding me. That's when you canvassed another User requesting that they revert my edits, to evade the consequences of failure to abide by that warning. Activist (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Springee In response to your anticipated objections, I did a search on American Conservative Union Director/Cove lobbying principal Schlapp and mainly his business got 83,000 hits, the subject is hardly Undue. I made those edits on 7/16. The next day, 3,472 Wikipedia viewers looked at them. Since then, before today, another 3,357 WP viewers have looked at them. None objected, deleted, or posted anything to Talk. After that you reverted my edits, a continuation of your long-standing practice of Wikihounding me, following me from one AP2 article after another, exercising what you feel is your prerogative of erasing any edits I make. So, after over 8,000 views of my edits to the Matt Schlapp article with no editor or reader taking exception to them, you once again claim that you have an absolute licence to delete any edits I've made, even though you have no consensus whatsoever for doing so. You've gone to dozens of articles that I've edited, all about persons in the current political sphere, and deleted them massively, abusively claiming BRD. You've been warned not to do it, yet you persist. You've even requested that others become your surrogates to delete my edits, after you've been warned off. Some of those edits I've made have stood for many years with no one having a problem with them. These are articles I've been posting to for over a decade in some cases, often dozens of times, articles you've never edited before, and you whitewash one after another. BRD is really your substitute, one could gather, for "I don't like it." This violates the spirit of Wikipedia. You've driven me off from editing the topic on a regular basis. Instead I've done so very infrequently since essentially it would just waste considerable time that I've managed to devote to the encyclopedia in an otherwise extremely busy life. I've really had enough. I've left comments about differences of opinions I've had with other editors to remain on my Talk page, and you've solicited those editors, no matter with how much equanimity the bulk of those differences have been amicably resolved, in hopes that they might join you to support your Stalking of me. You can take this anywhere, but now, and in the future, I'll join the hundreds of other editors whose work you've contested and prioritize responding to you over my editing to articles dealing with history, the arts, athletics, archaeology, etc., etc., because I'm sick of it and you must be doing the same thing to many others if your ubiquitous presence on Noticeboards is any indication. Activist (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is UNDUE in the context of this short article. Your justification based on views is a novel yet not policy compliant way to assess WEIGHT. Most of your post is not FOC so I won't address it here. You are welcome to discuss it on either of our talk pages. Long standing is not a universal defense of article content. It's possible the article didn't get enough traffic or notice for others to bother with the edit. Since this isn't a case of long standing content such a defense is not relevant here. BRD is an accepted practice. When others challenge your edits the ONUS is on you to justify their inclusion. Restoring when there is disagreement is a violation of WP:NOCON. Back to this article, how do you justify the inclusion of the last sentence? It has nothing to do with this topic. Springee (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Kavanaugh related material as it seems more about a claimed reason why a publication failed rather than about Schlapp. Also it had BLP and IMPARTIAL violations. It's ultimately not clear how that story is about Schlapp the person rather than something about The Standard. The paragraph on changing payments is conspriatorial but doesn't say if this was actually illegal, unethical etc. It's like having a paragraph that said, "after a weekend alone together Schlapp's wife was seen with a black eye". Such a claim (one I just invented) suggests wrong doing even if the actual explanation is something as simple as got hit by a ball playing tennis. Material that suggests wrong doing needs to be explicit and clear. This material was not. Springee (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False claims of fraud in the 2020 election[edit]

That this person is lying about fraud in the 2020 election and stoking doubts about the election is clearly WP:DUE and belongs in the article. It's been covered by RS, and it clearly meets DUE that this obscure character is on the President's legal team and using that power to try to delegitimize US elections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "lying" please? SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No RS use the term "lying" nor did I argue that we should use the term "lying". They say[2][3] his voter fraud claims are baseless and false, which is what the Wikipedia article said before Springee removed it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I agree that is noteworthy in the context of Schlapp's life and work and should be in his bio. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans, SPECIFICO, Springee. This is well sourced, notable material that Springee has removed. He does this regularly, whitewashing articles about right-wing political figures, so this is no surprise. He has been Wikistalking me for years whenever I edit AP2 articles, has canvassed other editors to join him in his inappropriate deletions of my edits, and has even solicited at least one other editor to revert my edits so that Springee did not personally violate 3RRs. Activist (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any such concerns would need to go to AE, but not on an article talk page, please. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this material is UNDUE per RECENT. This is a BLP and such claims need to be robust vs just the latest dirt we can pin on a person. Springee (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

≠″===Failing to note that his claims were "false"=== After Springee's most recent whitewashing, the text no longer says in Wikipedia's voice that Schlapp's claims were false or unsubstantiated. Now it just says he "made claims" even though those claims were indisputably false and baseless per RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politifac offered their opinion. We have that in the article. We don't say "falsely claimed" in Wiki voice. The idea that this is whitewashing is wrong since the very sentence after the claim is followed by the source that says the claim is false. Also, we really need to be careful about taking Politifact as some sort of gold standard of truth. They aren't immune from bias (links not specific to this topic but PF in general [[4]][[5]][[6]]. Remember that the original sources said only that the claims were unsubstantiated, not false. As written the "false" was incorrectly being attributed to 4 sources vs just Politifact. We impartially state what was claimed then attribute the assessments of the statement's validity. Springee (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PolitiFact is generally reliable per WP:RSP regardless of what your youtube videos say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RSP says it should be attributed. That is what we have now. We didn't have that before. Springee (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of sexual assault[edit]

Several editors have added/removed an accusation of sexual assault against Schlapp. The original source used in the article was The Daily Beast and is a very poor source for such an allegation. However, other RSs have covered the accusation. However, this is a BLP and this is an accusation. Since it is recent, NOTNEWS applies. We can wait and see if this accusation amounts to anything. If it doesn't then presumably the 10YEAR test applies as we can't see this accusation would have any lasting notability. If this leads to charges or a trial then we can add the coverage then. With all of this we need to keep BLPCRIME in mind. In general accusations of crimes stay out of BLPs until there is something substantial to cover (the trial, clear impacts due to canceling etc). We don't have that at this time thus this material needs to stay out. Springee (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "matt schlapp" into Google and got this first page of results:
But WP:NOTNEWS, of course. We should wait for this to be published in an actually reliable source, not the tabloid rags like these. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I question why @Springee seems so set on having this removed... Matty1019 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS. There is no time limit and it's OK if we wait to see if this accusation amounts to something or not. This is a BLP and one of the primary rules of a BLP is do no harm. Springee (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secarctangent, An accusation like this [7] should never be sourced to the Daily Beast. Also, per the discussion above, this should stay out until it's more than an accusation per BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS. Springee (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It is factually the case that the first report was there, and I added in the high-reliability sources from CNN and NBC News. Secarctangent (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review NOTNEWS. This is a BLPCRIME issue and absent substance we should wait to see how things pan out before adding accusing of crime to articles. A foundation of BLP is err on the side of do no harm and caution. Also, at this point it's clear this is disputed content so it should stay out absent consensus to include (see ONUS). Springee (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a BLPN discussion here [8] to get additional input on the inclusion of this material as this appears to try to balance BLPCRIME, NOTNEWS with the view that enough reasonable sources have covered the accusation to establish weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from BLPN. I think this needs to be mentioned briefly. Since Schlapp is a public figure, and a large number of top-quality sources have reported on the allegations, WP:BLPPUBLIC applies more than WP:BLPCRIME. I don't think there's any part of WP:NOTNEWS that would suggest we exclude the info, though we should exercise care that this recent info is not "emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". To me, that means a short mention, along with Schlapp's denial. I don't really care whether we cite Daily Beast or not, but one of the ultra-reliable sources should be cited. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we supposed to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subjects discussed in our project's articles? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here from BLP/N. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot definitively say that he committed any crime. It would be due, however, to mention the accusations, as they've been reported by multiple reliable sources. The accusations should not dominate the article per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think that's an issue. I would object to the inclusion of Daily Beast as a source for this (or for any controversial subject). I also want to give a shout out to WP:INSCRUTABLE; it's always good to consider whether you would be as active in supporting/opposing this if it were someone on the other end of the political spectrum and whether your editing history reflects this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I reviewed WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think it provides any reason to exclude this story from WP. It refers to "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities". Which of those categories applies to this story? --Nbauman (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should always err on the side of keeping this sort of content out until we know if anything becomes of it. This is the 10YEAR test part. If we assume nothing more is every published on this claim should we still include it? I would say include if it leads to some clear ramifications (loss of position, response beyond simple denial, possibly if it is investigated by police, certainly if criminal charges stick). However, as a BLP I think we should always err on the side of exclude until it's impact becomes clear. I think this is something that should apply regardless of political views (ie we should always do this regardless of which political side someone is on). In the spirit of NORUSH there is nothing wrong with taking a wait and see rather than acting first. Combine that with BLP's view that we should do no harm and I see nothing wrong with, in fact a preference for, waiting to include. Springee (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if consensus in this discussion is for inclusion then that is consensus. Unlike some of the IP editors, the named editors are being reasonable about the scope of inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this deserves a brief, scrupulously neutral mention. If all we had was the initial Daily Beast article and other outlets parroting it, I would recommend keeping it out. But the NBC News coverage includes original reporting, including lots of additional details, based on interviews with the alleged victim, and videos that person made in the hours that followed. That being said, I think that Springee's concerns are reasonable, and this is a borderline case. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the allegation and cited NBC News. Springee (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schlapp Allegations![edit]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/politics/cpac-matt-schlapp-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html 134.16.82.17 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Schlapp&oldid=1210535472"