Talk:Matt Schultz

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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: Iowa

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thinkprogress reference[edit]

I don't believe the Thinkprogress article referenced in the Voter Fraud section is reliable. Thinkprogress as a publication is of questionable reliability, and the article itself has at least one factual error: It claims that the investigation has cost the state of Iowa $150,000. However the investigation has been funded by a federal grant. The article is clearly nothing more than an attack piece intended to influence public opinion. CFredkin (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bleedingheartland.com[edit]

Bleedingheartland.com is not a reliable source per WP:reliable. It is a blog without editors.CFredkin (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement sourced to Huffington Post[edit]

The following statement is not supported by the source provided. The source does not state that the convictions would not have been prevented by voter ID laws in Iowa. It also does not state that no cases of impersonation were reported:

It was found none of the 5 guilty convictions, nor any of the 9 latest convictions would have been prevented by voter ID laws in Iowa. To date, 0 cases of voter impersonation were reported. CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Auditor[edit]

The source provided clearly indicates that the following statement was made by State Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington (not the State Auditor):

“the review by the State Auditor concludes HAVA does not specifically allow the Secretary of State to hire a law enforcement officer to conduct criminal investigations of Iowans.”CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a lot of this BLP was speculative - Wikipedia sticks to facts in BLPs as much as possible. Collect (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Schultz' approval rating as Secretary of State per an unbiased local newspaper, is informative and should be included. -Schultz' challengers in the Republican primary, David Young, & Brad Zaun should be included. As should Democratic opponent Staci Appel. -The statistic of the investigation(representing 0.00075% of the 1.58 million registered voters in the state of Iowa). Was considered highly important in Iowa, and should be considered. -It is important to note that the Schultz' $150,000 investigation yielded 0 cases of voter impersonation that it was searching for, instead prosecuting 20+ cases of felons w/ their voting rights removed. -It is important to use neutral language. "Aggressively championed" is not neutral, whereas "supported" or "pressed for" are. -ThinkProgress.org and BleedingHeartland are reliable sources. The Des Moines Register frequently cites Bleeding Heartland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right "aggressively championed" is not neutral and it was taken out by Collect's well chosen revert. As articles are not the news, we don't report on current campaign details. And the "0 cases" was totally uncited. It's "importance" should be dictated by third party sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my restoration of "aggressively championed" (originally inserted by TKN) was unintentional. CFredkin (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polls where half say "no opinion" are not important to be in any BLP, and I would note your interesting labeling of the official Iowa Secretary of State website as "Schultz's website" does not impress me. Bleedinghartland is not RS, and the fact that it gets quoted by a newspaper does not make it RS, and Thinkprogress is considered primarily an "opinion website" for any claims in a BLP. Please read the Wikipedia policies being cited, and avoid edit war like the plague. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should approval rating be included? As well as information relating to the investigation.-TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if there is reason to believe that they are relevant to an encyclopedia article about the person. In the case at hand, where it mainly shows "no opinion" it is about as useful as a fifth leg on a horse. Campaign rhetoric about an investigation is not pertinent here at all, unless you think it shows the person is acting criminally in some way, in which case WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for any such accusations or allegations -- far stronger than unsupported claims made by political opponents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approval ratings change with every poll. Include only if they're notable (e.g., a historic high or low). And there's enough on the investigation in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland visit[edit]

I've added information about Schultz' November 2013 visit to Switzerland into the article, citing a report from Iowa's largest newspaper, and adding viewpoints of the two major political parties, in support of the visit, and opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A report of Democratic operatives attacking Shultz for taking a trip is not notable.CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A notable controversy relating to his duties as Secretary of State, as well as his participation in a Young Leadership conference for international affairs is noteworthy. -TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, criticism by political opponents is not. You need to stop editing with what appears to be an agenda. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Season[edit]

Wikipedia is not well situated to be used as a campaign tactic, and those who view it as one shall be disappointed. Adding any talking points on any partisan basis is to be discouraged utterly. Collect (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Rights Restoration[edit]

TheKillingNoise, since this is a WP:BLP, you are responsible for clearly demonstrating how the numbers you reference are cited in the sources provided. Also, as previously indicated, WP:SYNTH is not allowed.CFredkin (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I demonstrate the phrases are included in the articles I've provided. I do not wish to be banned but the phrases "many of the 16 charges" as well as "8 out of the 9. . .the ninth charge" exist in the articles I provided? User:TheKillingNoise —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And which of your sources stated "23 of 25" pray tell? Wikipedia takes misuse of sources quite seriously. Collect (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None, that was an error on my part, I combined information from two sources citing 14/16, and 9/9 into 23/25, which I now know is against the rules. The first article cited "many of the 16 cases..." and the second I cited for "8 out of the 9..." and later "the ninth" all charges are from felons whose voting rights had not been restored.TheKillingNoise (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin has made an edit. Can we (please god) agree it's acceptable or else discuss changes here first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFredkin's edit is flawed, regarding the ninth charge the article states "The ninth case comes from Lee County, where a woman is charged with felony perjury. Like the accused in Black Hawk County, she is a felon who did not have her voting rights restored. She registered and voted in a 2013 city election." therefore, 9/9 charges are on felons w/o restored voting rights.TheKillingNoise (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've edited again. I think it's correct now. It's a modified version of TKN's last post.CFredkin (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFredkin your new edits are the best I've seen yet. I would request a partial lock of the article at this point.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balance?[edit]

By my rough estimate, about 60% of the article has to do with voter fraud and policies. Is this what Schultz is mainly known for? To such a degree? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the primary responsibility of a Secretary of State is to administer the electoral process for a state, so I don't believe there's necessarily undue weight given to that subject currently. However, I do believe the following is probably overkill and provides undue weight to Democratic criticisms.

Iowa Democrats say that he is attempting to disenfranchise voters,[12] and the ACLU of Iowa says that voter fraud is not a problem.[13] Iowa Senate Democrats blocked the legislation,[14] and the Democratic Senate majority leader said it was an "overreaction."[15] The Gazette, an eastern Iowa newspaper reported, "Schultz has turned a reasonable, principled position into a political sideshow".[16]CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting with "A northern Iowa county auditor reported that votes from three Iowans were not counted in the 2012 election because they were incorrectly included in a list of felons maintained by the Secretary of State's office..." seems pretty trivial to include in a biography, especially if there's a dispute as to who is responsible. What impact does this have on Schultz's life/career/views? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you've got a good point. I'd propose that we remove that paragraph and the following phrase:

"...and the Democratic Senate majority leader said it was an "overreaction.""CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Schultz. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20140112012342/http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2014/01/09/elections-chief-matt-schultz-to-jump-into-race-for-congress/article to http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2014/01/09/elections-chief-matt-schultz-to-jump-into-race-for-congress/article

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) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]