Talk:Andy Biggs/Archive 1

Requested move 18 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved. —Guanaco 03:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

– Andy Biggs (politician) has vastly more views than Andy Biggs, and Biggs is a sitting U.S. Congressman, making him the more notable individual between the two. Having Andy Biggs (politician) on the main page, Andy Biggs, with a link to Andy Biggs (photographer) I think would make more sense. Calibrador (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Andy Biggs (politician) → Andy Biggs
 * Andy Biggs → Andy Biggs (photographer)
 * Support per nom. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 00:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Andy Biggs. 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://web.archive.org/web/20130920214102/http://azsos.gov/election/2010/Primary/Canvass2010PE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Primary/Canvass2010PE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920230737/http://azsos.gov/election/2010/General/Canvass2010GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/Canvass2010GE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112230133/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/Primary/Canvass.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/Primary/Canvass.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224125542/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/General/Canvass2012GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/General/Canvass2012GE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026113534/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2002/Primary/Canvass2002PE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2002/Primary/Canvass2002PE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026113339/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2002/General/Canvass2002GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2002/General/Canvass2002GE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041022135941/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/Primary/Canvass2004PE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/Primary/Canvass2004PE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041126091050/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/General/Canvass2004General.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/General/Canvass2004General.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926060630/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/Primary/Canvass2006PE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/Primary/Canvass2006PE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206201428/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/Canvass2006GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/General/Canvass2006GE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090424062550/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Primary/Canvass2008PE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Primary/Canvass2008PE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219172036/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/General/Canvass2008GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/General/Canvass2008GE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Bias
"Biggs, incidentally, has accepted campaign donations in the past in the amount of $19,500 from the same members of the Telecom industry that stand to profit from the elimination of Net Neutrality guidelines"

I am sure HRC article has listed every vote where she voted for her donor's interests.

Also despite being a huge issue for activists on the internet Net Neutrality does not deserve its own paragraph in such short article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.5.74 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable Outlier votes and positions
Biggs voted in a minority of two to reject a bill to fund an aggressive response to the rapidly spreading lethal and economy destroying CORVID-19. He voted in only a very slightly larger minority to address it further. deleted references to those positions. Back in October 2017, Springee deleted substantial text relating the Biggs' radical climate denialism. IMHO, these deletions amount to whitewashing of the article, are notable and should remain in the article. Activist (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is UNDUE and RECENT. Just voting against a particular bill is not a notable contribution to the BLP of a politician.  We don't know why they voted against it and it would be very wrong to assume they voted against it because they are against the issue in general.  I'm sure, like many bills, there is some pork in here.  Perhaps they are against the pork.  Perhaps they are mad they didn't get some pork.  Simply listing they voted for or against a particular bill isn't something that would normally be included and certainly not when the bill is less than a week old.  As I said elsewhere, I would suggest raising this question, BLPN is likely best, so we can have a general opinion to point at rather than scattering the discussion over many pages.  Springee (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lyle Waggoner died yesterday. Someone has had the nerve to confirm his death in his Wikipedia article. Do you think that's too soon? Should news be kept from the public? Outlier votes such as taken by Biggs and Buck are highly significant. I Googled "Biggs" "vote" "coronavirus" and "House" and got: "About 112,000 results (0.45 seconds)"  His WP article got 1,200 views on 3/7. Do you think that was because it was his wife's birthday, or might it have had something to do with intense public interest in who he is and why he votes the way he does? Wikipedia is not censored, and how is erasure of such info not censorship? Activist (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in whataboutism/WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's easy to see the death of a person is going to be a significant item on a BLP.  It's not clear this vote will be.  I would suggest you raise the issue at BLPN. Springee (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that Activist's remark "Springee deleted references to those positions", and Activist's suggestion that Springee edit warred, are exaggerations. Biggs was in a minority of 2 in the 415-2 vote re funding on March 4 and in a minority of 40 in the 363-40 vote re relief on March 14. The article history shows that Springee reverted material about only one of the positions, the March 14 vote. And reversions of a controversial insertion in a BLP are okay as long as there is no consensus on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Activist has opened a BLPN discussion related to the edits in question. [] Springee (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
U|Peter_Gulutzan, U|Springee User Springee deleted text and a indispensable citation regarding Biggs' comments about his March 3rd House coronavirus vote, and those actions thereby conflating the March 17th vote with the first, as if the two were one. I don't understand the motivation for doing so. Perhaps Springee can explain this to other editors. I have corrected Springee's errors. Activist (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Activist, please be careful about accusing others of editing in bad faith as you did here []. You are giving UNDUE weight to an issue and you are using POV language to discuss the bill in question. Remember that per ONUS you are trying to insert new material thus the burden is on you to establish weight.  Also remember that per NOCON and BLP material is out until consensus is established.  Springee (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

""Springee, I've quoted directly from Biggs himself. How can that be a violation of NPOV or UNDUE WEIGHT? I quoted directly. I'm not adding my opinion, but following the source as closely as possible without plagiarizing. How can directly and precisely quoting the subject of the article and retaining context be a BLP violation? Did you bother to read the source? Do you understand that you've combined two separate votes that took place two weeks apart, as if they were one? Do you understand by your deletion of the citation you have left the text you want to keep, unsupported? Are you unable to admit you've made multiple errors and restored them when they've been corrected? How can you defend repeating and retaining your mistakes? Activist (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a direct quote means you have addressed WP:V. It doesn't address DUE.  Springee (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I let you know last week that I Googled "Biggs" "Vote" "Coronavirus" and "House" and got 129,000 hits, I think. I just checked again. It's up to 149,000. There's no question that it's DUE.  Have you fixed your mistakes or are you trying to go down with the ship? Activist (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to make that case at BLPN. Springee (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just beware WP:GOOGLE -- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same search today gives 194,000 hits. My guess is that Biggs knows that if he says or does something particularly boneheaded, he'll get scads of publicity and he thrives on it. The median # of page views on the article is 143/day. He got over 6,000 hits one day last July, got more than that in the first week of December, for whatever reason he drew that attention, and the page views have soared again in the last four weeks, spiking on February 6 at about 800, March 7th at 1,250, and March 17th at 1,550. It wasn't because he was wearing a leprechaun's suit for Saint Paddy's Day, but rather for the news Springee would rather not see mentioned. Activist (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rules & Ethics of Congress section
This material was removed by. restored it and added an additional sentence []. I agree that this material is UNDUE for the article. The source is an article with a number of small updates related to the impeachment process news cycle. There is no evidence this has any long term notability (in context of the article, not WP:NOTE). Additionally, the newly added sentence fails WP:IMPARTIAL. The use of "sound bite" type quotes is problematic. We should accurately summarize the points of each side (assuming the material is DUE) rather than use selective quotes. Additionally, the use of quotes in this case is to suggest one side is being reasonable while the other is not. I agree this material should be removed. Springee (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Activist also added that Mr Biggs intruded "while possessing a prohibited electronic device" but I can't see where the cited source says that. It does say "House Republicans, some of whom brought cellphones" but doesn't name them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, these additions are absurd WP:BLP violations. There is nothing in any of the sourcing about Biggs "possessing a prohibited electronic device". And then saying "Biggs hyperbolically described" is Wikipedia 101...we don't describe things like this in Wikipedia's voice. "Hyberbolically" is an editor's opinion and not in the source. Very clear example of WP:WIKIVOICE. And in the source I'm seeing only one sentence about Biggs...so how could several sentences about him possibly be WP:DUE? Marquardtika (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you're enjoying your weekend, Marquardtika, so I've supplied the info confirming the possession and use of the prohibited electronic device from inside the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility by Biggs himself.

Rep Andy Biggs @RepAndyBiggsAZ Reporting from Adam Schiff’s secret chamber.... There are still about 15 Republican members in the SCIF, including @RepMattGaetz, @SteveScalise, @RepMarkWalker and myself. 5,130 8:44 AM - Oct 23, 2019 Jane.. Titanium Jane @TitaniumJanes Oct 23, 2019 Replying to @MiekeEoyang And this guy is transmitting from inside the SCIF!!! Quote Tweet Rep Andy Biggs @RepAndyBiggsAZ Oct 23, 2019 All tweets sent out when I’m in the SCIF are being transmitted to staff for publication. So, any more questions about his behavior? Activist (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * First question, are you familiar with WP:OR? Springee (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Alleged involvement in organizing of capitol storming
It's been reported by multiple news sources including CNN and AZ Central (digital version of Arizona Republic) with article names such as "Reps. Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs credited in video with organizing Trump crowd in DC on day of riot" that Andy Biggs was involved in organizing what became the 2021 capitol storming. The sources rely on a December video by a conservative activist who thanked Biggs for support and stated regarding motivation that "It was to build momentum and pressure and then on the day change hearts and minds of Congress peoples who weren't yet decided or who saw everyone outside and said, 'I can't be on the other side of that mob." This has led to critical statements by members of Congress regarding the actions of Rep. Biggs that e.g. "If a Member of Congress willingly violated their oath of office and tacitly encouraged a mob to overturn the results of democratic elections, their actions should be investigated and they should face consequences. If that includes expulsion, so be it." According to Springee, any inclusion of this subject in the article is inapplicable because "This is crossing over into a claim that Biggs was involved in a criminal conspiracy. That would take very robust sourcing which this is not."

Springee, what would constitute robust sourcing for yourself, if allegations featured in CNN and the Arizona Republic are considered insufficient? I am already been much more cautious with my wording than the Arizona Republic has been [they've gone with e.g. "Arizona Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar implicated by activist in Capitol insurrection" which is frankly quite intemperate] Reyne2 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is effectively accusing a BLP subject of being involved in a crime. We need to be vary careful how that sort of accusation is handled.  I would suggest raising the question a BLPN since, based on your edits, this will cover a number of people.  Remember that not everyone there was rioting or storming the capitol.  Thus someone might have been with the protesters outside and doing nothing illegal.  Unless it's shown that Biggs did more than tell people to come to DC and protest, I think we have to be VERY careful about tying his calls to protests with an endorsement to break the law.  Again, a BLPN discussion may be helpful here.  Springee (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific allegation was from a conservative activist sympathetic to Biggs and involved in organizing the storming [which the activist supported and called "very peaceful".] The activist states that Biggs and two other congressmen were working with him in planning. The specific discussion of the plans stated by that activist was to organize a mob to "put maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting", which would seem to be illegal. Biggs has denied everything, but the allegations are being widely reported, and there is no apparent reason for a right-wing activist who supported the capitol storming to frame a sympathetic supporter. There is more evidence for the other Congressmen [who have not yet issued a denial], as they had been active in engaging with the activist on Twitter. What is your proposed way of handling it? I don't think it makes sense for us to not mention it at all, and I'm not familiar with BLPN. Reyne2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And that is the issue. If the claim was Biggs was involved with planning a protest that later turned violent/illegal etc then I think this level of sourcing may be fine.  The problem is if the claim is he was involved in "organizing the storming" then we are saying, even via attribution, that he was involved in a crime.  Using terms like "mob" also suggests crime in a way that "making sure our voices are heard" does not.  Springee (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the word 'mob' was used by the organizing activist in question. The fact that he described his own activity [and that of the Congressman, if indeed involved] in a way that suggested crime, as you put it, is precisely why it received so much attention. Regardless, it is pretty clear that we are talking past each other at this point. Reyne2 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I Do not see any harm in stating it as a quote by Ali Alexander. --FideKoeln (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See: . It's not about the wording per se. It's more about the weight. I don't see the point of including every allegation an extremist makes about a politician. I think it would better to wait and see if there's any evidence to corroborate the allegation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

- Please participate in this conversation regarding the content you are adding to the article. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * - just read my comment two above --FideKoeln (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - don‘t understand how, your deletion is per talk page. You claim there is a legal risk. The way it was phrased, it is just quoting the allegation by Ali Alexander. I tried to phrase it, so you concerns would be recognized. Please explain before deleting --FideKoeln (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is this is a poorly sources accusation that suggests association with a crime. Since this is a WP:BLP that is not acceptable.  Again, please see the discussion at BLPN (linked a few lines above by Dr.Swag). Springee (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the standard required as per that discussion page is „ These accusations need to be clearly attributed to sources and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's editorial voice.“ . Source and status as allegation was clearly mentioned --FideKoeln (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

13th January 2021 edit request
In the Storming of the US Capitol section:

Change "During the Insurrection taking place at the United States Capitol 2021 Biggs was ushered with many congressional colleagues to a secure location. Later, video footage of him surfaced, where he rejected to wear a mask which is in violation of House rules."

To: "During the Insurrection which took place at the United States Capitol, Biggs was ushered , along with many congressional colleagues, to a secure location. Later, '''a video  of Briggs surfaced, in which he was shown refusing to wear a mask, which is in violation of House rules." ''' Requested in the interest of better grammar and clarity. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dems have requested FBI investigation for Biggs involvement/support of riot
https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/az-democrats-call-for-fbi-investigation-into-potential-involvement-of-state-legislators-in-us-capitol-riots/75-f30c4fd7-5786-4439-920e-dbe372a0a4f0

>Democratic members of the Arizona House and Senate are asking for an investigation into four lawmakers who may have been involved in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

>The letter asks for a joint DOJ-FBI investigation into Congressmen Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, as well as state Rep. Mark Finchem and former Rep. Anthony Kern, for their involvement in the riot.

This info should be added the section about the storming of the capitol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. This is a BLP which means we don't put in vague allegations of possible crimes, especially when the allegations are coming from groups with a clear political motive.  This is RECENT and we can wait to see if it develops into something more than vague allegation etc before adding it to the article.  Springee (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not about vague allegations, but about lawmakers filing a claim. We can point out, that it is a so far unproven allegation. --FantinoFalco (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is about vague allegations. The actions of the Dems aren't vague but the original person making the claims is and it's not reliable.  This BLPN discussion applies here as well [] Springee (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clearly sourced and also described as allegations. --FantinoFalco (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)w
 * Please observe BRD as well as NOCON. Also please see the BLPN discussion.  It doesn't matter that the source reliability repeats the claim. What matters is that the claim is from a questionable source, the person, and is being used to infer a BLP was involved with organizing a crime.  I will add this article to the previous BLPN discussion to get additional input.  Please self revert per NOCON while we get additional feedback. Springee (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this edit was rejected as editorializing in the edit summary.[] Since you wish to refer to the event with a name other than the consensus one please explain why. Springee (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No it was not and you should not revert before reaching consensus. --FantinoFalco (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You added that just a few days ago. There is no reason to rename the established event name and your chosen name is POINTY.  That is certainly how your edits are coming across.  Springee (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a redirect from U.S. Capitol insurrection and I chose this different wording, as it would otherwise just repeat the wording in the headline. Your edits come across as trying to get rid of content you don't like and you just come up with new concerns. As mentioned before. --FantinoFalco (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try to get along. This is a very contentious article covered by discretionary sanctions. Also, this, ,  is considered to be WP:HOUNDING. You can't stalk users around in an attempt to dispute every argument they make. This could easily lead to a block. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pardons
This material was recently added[] sourced to a news blog. The writer is also the editor of the 4 person blog. That article references this CNN article as it's source []. Given this is a BLP this CNN article is not sufficiently sources to suggest Biggs decided he needed a presidential pardon. The CNN article cites unnamed sources. Additionally, it is not clear if CNN's source simply said GOP legislators or if Biggs was mentioned by name. Given the very vague nature of the allegations and sourcing along with the implication of a crime this material should be removed from the article. Springee (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CNN is a reliable source and they like any other reputable news organization source n background. That is no reason for removal. There is no requirement under BLP to cite only flattering news. --FantinoFalco (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First, the edit isn't sourced to CNN. Second, when CNN runs speculative content that implies someone may have committed a crime we need to leave it out.  That is a core of the BLP policy.  Springee (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It clearly states, that this is based on a report of CNN and not first hand testimony. That is not in violation of BLP policy. This is a BLP about a political person, there is no reason to not cite such information with the necessary qualifiers --FantinoFalco (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not adequately sourced for a contentious claim about a BLP. Also, your edit summary here [] is misleading as I did not request the addition of a source which I said is not sufficient. Knowingly misrepresenting the statements of editors is a civility problem. Springee (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. The CNN article says: "Several Republican lawmakers who are alleged to have been involved in the rally that preceded the deadly riot on the US Capitol have sought clemency from Trump before he leaves office, but after meeting with his legal advisers for several hours on Saturday, the President decided he would not grant them, according to two people familiar with his plans. The fear of legal exposure is not limited to Republicans who promoted or spoke at the rally, including Reps. Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks and Paul Gosar. Those who participated, organized and fundraised for it are also concerned, sources told CNN, including his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle, who both spoke at the rally."
 * The article never explicitly says that Biggs sought a pardon/clemency from Trump. It says that several Republican lawmakers sought a pardon from Trump. Then, it looks like, CNN is implying that Biggs, Brooks, and Gosar could be in potential legal trouble. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, this Arizona Republic opinion article confirms my interpretation of the article : It is not entirely clear whether Arizona Republican U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs actually asked President Trump for a pardon for their involvement in the U.S. Capitol insurrection. CNN reported that several GOP lawmakers “alleged to have been involved in the rally that preceded the deadly riot on the US Capitol have sought clemency from Trump before he leaves office.”The next paragraph then mentions Gosar, Biggs and Mo Brooks among those with potential legal exposure for involvement in promoting or speaking at the rally that led to the Capitol siege...We don’t know for sure whether Gosar and Biggs actually asked for a pardon... Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , agree, it's a blog, if there's more credible reporting we can include it then. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , you do not have consensus to include this material []. Several editors have removed the content.  Per wp:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.".  That means it gets removed until you can show consensus for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * you have no consensus to remove this content. Discuss it, if you don't like it.

--FantinoFalco (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you misunderstand policy. I have argued the material is UNDUE.  It doesn't pass the 10 year test.   removed the content with the following edit summary, "Wikipedia articles are meant to act as a encyclopedia article outlining one's life, notable accomplishments, and a variety of other key points in one's life. All of these statements are solely news reporting of current events that have no rational of being in a summary of one's life and notable accomplishments. If this were so, we could easily follow a congressperson around and document/publish literally anything they say or do. That is not how these articles are supposed to be." Per policy the burden of getting consensus for inclusion is on you, not me.  Springee (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you and support FantinoFalco on this. This clearly passes the 10 year test. It is not just some everyday activity, but his siblings are demanding him to resign. This clearly is something not happening every day and is worth to be reported. Also, why is this under Pardons here? --2601:282:1800:4950:190D:9317:AE07:B7F2 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then find a better source. If it passes the ten year test, there will be a better source than a blog. Blogs fail the ten minute test. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the material you reverted is different than the question here. There were two issues.  The blog was what was used to support the claim that Biggs was seeking a pardon.  The second issue was if it was DUE to include that his sibling wrote a letter criticizing him which was reported by the paper which carried the letter to the editor.  My feeling is that is the sort of trivial news that ends up cluttering up many political BLP.  Basically any negative thing that has ever been published in a RS gets pushed into the pages of controversial people.  A similar example is the wish to include the rabble's response to a politician saying "amen and awomen".[]  Springee (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , seems pretty DUE to me.
 * NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/us/republicans-trump-capitol-riot.html
 * Independent (UK): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/brothers-denounce-lawmaker-who-challenged-biden-victory-joe-biden-brothers-brothers-doubt-ap-b1790988.html
 * Waco Tribune: https://wacotrib.com/news/national/brothers-denounce-lawmaker-who-challenged-biden-victory/article_13363cab-6f51-5bd4-987c-a4c81eb87ce5.html
 * Plenty more where they came from. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guy, this seems like a RECENT thing. It might make sense if it were integrated into a clear, concise response to his post election statements/actions.  However, as a stand alone paragraph and when only citing a local paper I don't see it as due.  Even now I'm not sure it really passes the 10 year test unless it leads to something bigger.  I don't mean any mention of the post election actions, that is surely a 10 year thing.  No, I mean just a stand alone comment that his sibs (looks like strained relations) decided to write a negative letter to the local press.  Again, this comes across as trying to find negative content rather than taking an impartial view of the subject.  Springee (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * AZCentral is the website of the The Arizona Republic. That isn't a blog--FantinoFalco (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , you have been made aware of the BLP and AP2 discretionary sanction rules []. Restoring this disputed text [] violates WP:NOCON as there is no consensus for this material.  I've already said, this is UNDUE. The fact that Bigg's siblings decided to write to a local paper complaining about their brother doesn't pass the 10 year test.  Springee (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * wahr are you attacking me again? I did not say anything since your last post?--FantinoFalco (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you. I'm making sure you understand that we need to follow consensus policies here.  Several new editors (or a single editor with more than one IP) and I have disputed the inclusion of this material.  You might be right that the material should stay but, as Guy is showing, you need to make the case on the talk page, not edit war.  Once you were reverted once you shouldn't have restored the text until it was discussed on the talk page and a consensus was reached.    Springee (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You made a point and some other editor added to this conversation. I didn't even weigh in and you decided to attack me again. This is not, how I want to be treated --FantinoFalco (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You improperly restored the disputed content here []. Not long ago you were also edit warring to put new, disputed material in the article [].  That is why I reminded you that you had been notified about the discretionary sanctions that apply to this article.  Springee (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)