Talk:Jason Ravnsborg

Sourcing problems
I have now repeatedly deleted a section on the "2nd Amendment" due to lack of appropriate sourcing. In its most recent version, it had three references - one was to "South Dakota War College", a seemingly self-published blog-and-comment site, which would violate WP:BLPSPS. The second was a source on the sd.gov site... but the link was not functioning. The final was to an article that didn't mention Ravnsborg at all. Additionally, this section was spinning the subject as a "strong support of the 2nd Amendment" when there is vast disagreement about what that amendment means - as seen by the use of the inappropriate spin term "Constitutional Carry" in that section to describe the lack of requirement for a gun permit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

==I wrote about this subject patterning off of other AG pages, like Ken Paxton of Texas. AG Paxton lists many similar sign-ons on his page to the one I posted about the Sprint/T-Mobile merger. Another article I see was an Equifax settlement by someone else, but I don't see how these are different than other AGs, who have similar posts. I think they both should be included.SDEditor101 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In May, an IP editor added 21 unsourced military decorations Ravnsborg was claimed to have received to this article. I deleted many which appear trivial, but they were rapidly restored to the article. I've now deleted all of them, given a complete lack of sourcing for their appearance in the article. If any are restored, there should be Reliable Secondary Sourcing provided for each, and I would suggest that such proposed additions to the article be restricted to being done by a non-anonymous editor, and to be the subject of an RFC. Thanks to all who have labored to improve this article. Activist (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We would generally need signs of vandalism or ongoing disruptive editing before putting this page under page protection. I don't think we're there yet. And calling for everything to be done via the WPRFC process is a mite aggressive; usually, we can just discuss things on the Talk page and seek consensus among those already editing the article. RFC is more called for when things are particularly intractable or far-reaching. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Claim vs. said
Someone just replaced a statement that Ravnsborg claimed he had hit a deer with saying that he said that he had hit a deer, citing WP:CLAIM. However, WP:CLAIM doesn't say to never use "claim"; rather it notes that the word has implications that the statement made might be false. (To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.) That makes it perfectly reasonable to use here, because the statement, from all reliable reporting, was indeed false. He had not hit a deer. Calling the statement's credibility into question is not improper. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * - I changed that word (and maybe someone else did as well; I haven't searched for that). I think a distinction needs to be made between something that a person knows is false ("He claimed to be in New York City when the murder occurred") and something that a person might believe is true, even though it's not, which could well be the case for Mr. Ravnsborg - he certainly could really believe that he struck a deer.


 * I cited WP:NPOV because I think that we can be more neutral with the language here. "Claimed" implies that somehow we have insight into Mr. Ravnsborg's mind - that we believe that he knew what he said was false. That's not a neutral position to take. And I don't think it's necessary, at all, in order to get across to the reader that there in fact exists evidence that is contradictory to Mr. Ravnsborg's statement. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Claimed" is not "lied". As WP:CLAIM says, it's for where there was a question of whether it is credible, which is not the same as honest. He may or may not have believed that he hit a deer, but we can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that he did not, so "claimed" is a reasonable construct. The only thing that "claim" implies is that there will be a "but", and there is a "but" here. NPOV is not a matter of ignoring the facts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV says "Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, 'Jim said he paid for the sandwich'."


 * I note that this policy doesn't say anything about evaluating credibility. It doesn't say anything about whether (for this example) video cameras recorded Jim walking out of the store without getting anywhere near a checkout line. It simply says to avoid loaded words like "claimed". [I'm withdrawing my prior analysis - see strikethrough; I shouldn't have tried to read between the lines the way I did.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read that entire paragraph you're quoting, it starts off with "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care"... and using with care is what we're talking about. Does it include the POV that the statement might not have been true? Yes. But that appears to be the neutral point of view. I've not seen anyone, Ravnsborg himself included, claiming that he actually struck a deer. It is understood by all that he struck a human being, that the statement that he struck a deer was not credible, and we should not be putting effort into avoiding saying that. I'm someone who has removed a lot of "claim"s from Wikipedia; this is one that should stay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

911 call transcript contradicts claim in lede
Mr. Ravnsborg's 911 call recording has been released, and he does not say that he hit a deer, contrary to what is currently claimed in the lede. ("He had initially called 911 and reported that he had hit a deer that had totaled his car.") The closest the 911 call comes is:
 * Dispatcher: Oh no. Okay, do you think it was a deer or something?
 * Caller: I have no idea…
 * Dispatcher: Okay…
 * Caller: Yeah…It could be…I mean…it was right in the roadway and…

Refs: -- ToE 01:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2020/10/13/jason-ravnsborg-fatal-crash-read-full-transcript-911-call/3640658001/
 * https://www.foxnews.com/us/south-dakota-attorney-general-jason-ravnsborg-fatal-crash
 * I went ahead and changed it to "something" instead of "deer" in the lead. Thanks for pointing that out. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hit a man with his car
has been trying to edit-war out of the introduction that the article's subject hit a man with his car. He has given no reason for wanting that information deleted. He is making sure to include positive things that the subject did afterward -- calling to report an incident, finding the corpse the next day (although he seems not to like the word "corpse", which carries the information that the body was dead.) That he hit that pedestrian is not a matter of conflict; it is something that the subject has admitted, and it is a piece of information carried repeatedly in the sources used in the body of the article. It is a far more important information than a listing of what he did afterward. Is there anyone else who wants to make the case that we should not restore the status quo of mentioning this key deed? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not edit warring. I think a reasonable person would conclude that you are.


 * Billmckern (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You boldly deleted the statement that the subject hit a man with a car. You were reverted. Now, state you're a master editor, so you should have at some time run into the concept of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. But rather than discuss, you make that same deletion again repeatedly. So yes, you are edit warring. Now I've brought the matter to discussion, and rather than take that as an opportunity to explain why we should remove the statement that he hit a person with his car, you instead try to make a denial of what you've done. So here you are again with the opportunity to actual try to put forth a reason why we should not state in the introduction that he a man with his car, a fact that has had a large impact on his life. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * My argument is short:


 * 1 - The version you keep reverting is accurate, both factually and chronologically.


 * 2 - The references verify it.


 * Billmckern (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so given a chance to give a reason why the statement that he hit a man with his car should be deleted from the intro, you choose not to. So, can I assume that no one else has a reason why we should hide that fact either? The fact the he did is already well sourced in the body of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Your assertion is flat wrong. The statement that Ravnsborg hit a man with his car IS NOT MISSING FROM THE INTRO.


 * You're acting like there aren't two sentences. It's very clear as it's written that: 1 - Ravnsborg had a car accident; 2 - told the police he thought he hit something; 3 - went home; 4 - came back the next day; 5 - found Boever's body; 6 - called the police to report it.


 * That's what happened. In order. With references. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me.


 * 21:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, because you keep deleting what you claim is "1". It's listed that he REPORTED that he hit something, not that that event actually happened. The actual collision has been repeatedly deleted from the chronology by you. Many false things are reported. You have repeatedly removed the most basic, important fact from the chronology, and have yet to give a reason for doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third-party, I believe that the version preferred by Billmckern is a better choice. The one favored by NatGertler can be confusing and is written in a way that suggests Ravnsborg was instantaneously aware that he had hit and killed someone. While that may be true, it's not supported by references and is borderline defamatory. Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you get that implication, but would it be helped by "On September 12, 2020, while driving home from a political fundraiser, Ravnsborg hit and killed pedestrian Joseph Boever, although he appears not to have been immediately aware of what he had collided with."? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You: "It's listed that he REPORTED that he hit something." Me: "... told the police he thought he hit something."


 * You're agreeing with me. So I don't see what you're arguing about.


 * Billmckern (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide the quote from the intro where it says he actually hit someone with his car. Not where it says that he told someone that he thought he hit something -- the place where it says the event actually happened. Your don't even list your #1, that an "accident" happened, much less that it killed a man; your version starts with the phone call, item #2 on your list. You have yet to give a reason for us not saying it, you just keep deleting that vital and fatal part of the chronology. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "In February 2021, he was charged with three misdemeanors related to Boever's death..." Doesn't this make it obvious that an accident happened, a death resulted, and Ravnsborg is alleged to be culpable?


 * And if a reader wants to know more details, isn't it reasonable for him or her to go to the body of the article rather than the lede, which is supposed to be only a summary?


 * Billmckern (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make obvious what you are saying it does, much less what actually happened. It looks like vague talk that is working to the periphery of the matter. The idea that the fact that the subject killed a man is a detail rather than the core fact of the incident comes across as hideous whitewashing. It's not a fact that's in any visible dispute. Why are you hiding it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's clear that you're not discussing in good faith and now you've resorted to baseless accusations.


 * I'm going to change the lede to say ONLY that Ravnsborg killed Boever and that he was charged with three misdemeanors. Maybe that will stop your bad faith arguing and personal attacks.


 * Billmckern (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just listing that he killed Boever with his car and is charged with misdemeanors regarding that is indeed a much better summary than what we have now. I fully support that change.
 * (As for the claim of bad-faith arguing on my part: nope.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And looking at what's there: good job. I think that's much better. (I did a little tweak on it, for tweaking is in my nature.) Thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You're unbelievable. Even when you get your way, you just can't help yourself. Don't ever contact me about anything again. Take your bad faith and baseless allegations someplace else.
 * Billmckern (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I insist that if this conversation continues, that it take place at Dispute resolution noticeboard, so we can get some mediation here, as the conversation is very anti-productive right now. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Curbon7, having followed this for the last few days - I'm seeing "if you say black I say white". However, agree also with the current formulation of the lead para; it was just so tortuous to get to it :( Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You're preaching to the choir. Well, at least one member of it. ::Billmckern (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Its hard but as we now have a consensus version, keep your cool and move on. FWIW, I think it all was a simple misunderstanding, and ye both wanted the same timeline all along. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Clearly a hot topic page--but a LOT of extraneous stuff in accident and other sections. Now I have read it is even disputed if the man that was killed committed suicide so did Ravnsborg then strike him?PicasowasGreat (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I have read it is even disputed if the man that was killed committed suicide - where is the WP:RS for this? Or is this from an unreliable source?  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what WP:RS report.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 07:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 starship .paint  (exalt) 07:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am new to this, but been following this story and a lot of what is written about the accident seems disputed, especially in light of the recent suicide statements made by the deceased to a cousin and none of that is in here, which would seemingly dispute many aspects of the case. I mean I think it is reckless to claim the events in the videos as true as the police are allowed to lie and miscontrue facts to get the reaction of the subject.  Second, how is his speeding history 2 years prior to the accident relevant?here is my 2 centsFLeditor101 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A defense filing claiming that one cousin said something is not a reliable source that that statement was made. I have added material that the defense is seeking information of "suicidal ideation" in regard to the incident. (I've also -- again -- removed reference to the incident as an "accident" in Wikipedia's voice, as that is a point-of-view analysis. "Collision" is a term that does not speak to intent.)
 * Reliable news sources have covered his history of traffic infractions in the context of this incident, which is our clue that it is relevant (and a top law official violating the law may have been relevant to the article anyway even without this incident.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - bring reliable sources to the table. There's a list at WP:RSP. The sources have linked the speeding as relevant to the accident.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 07:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read the sources abotu the speeding tickets and do not think they are relevant. All of the talk of speeding was at the beginning when no one knew what was going on.  The press seems to have just thrown it out there.  Then Ravnsborg was not charged with speeding.  Then the prosecutors said it was not relevant and they did not charge a speeding offense.I have not seen any talk of speeding since.  I would also say when this case is completed this whole section seems overblown and too detailed instead of telling the overall storyJMeditor101 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. If Ravnsborg had one speeding ticket, or two, that might not be relevant. But he's charged with careless driving and I think can reasonably be described as a habitual offender with regard to driving too fast. I believe that number of speeding tickets could show at his trial whether he has the propensity to commit the offense with which he is charged. (And we have no idea how many tickets he didn't get because of courtesy to an elected official or military member.)


 * Billmckern (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Iowa tickets are irrelevant, they are 17 and 23 years prior to the incident in question.Massiveeffects101 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of pertinent deleted text
When I noticed that mention of the two Iowa speeding tickets had been removed, I reversed the deletion since they were a part of the same cited story that mentioned all the other tickets. The reporter who wrote that story thought it was relevant and because of the high profile of the case (the top LEO in the state, a chronic speeder, killed a pedestrian) the paper's editor almost certainly took a look at the story before it went to print and was also okay with it as being important enough to be included. Lastly, at the time when the A.G. was due to get sentenced for the fatal accident in just four days, he got still another speeding ticket. Activist (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention the impeachment in the lead?
Right now the lead does not mention his impeachment by the state house of representatives. Impeachment strikes me as a pretty big deal worthy of mention there. We have a full section in the article about the incident which led to the death, his misdemeanor convictions, and his impeachment. We have a full paragraph about it in the lead. The impeachment strikes me as a logical addition to that paragraph. I would have added it myself but I wanted to see if it is being omitted for some reason. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Impeachment hearings themselves could have belonged in the lead, but may have been UNDUE there. Successful impeachment (with or without removal from office) is definitely DUE. Should we have the name of the victim in the lead though? Feels icky to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a line about impeachment at the end of the lede. If the consensus is that it's unwarranted or in the wrong place, I don't have any objection to removing it or moving it.


 * Billmckern (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Billmckern. That's a good summary. And Muboshgu, I agree and I will remove the victim's name from the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, until the trial in the Senate concludes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)