Talk:John Swallow

Recent edits
A new editor has been adding significant amounts of material to the article about Swallow's alleged "controversies". There was some material in the article about it before the new editor came along, but the editor has seen fit to create an entire new section called "Controversies" (generally not a good idea) and added more material. The incredibly long string cite alone is enough to raise a red flag. The only article the new editor appears to be interested in is this one, although they made one edit to another article, adding a reference about Swallow. I've reverted the material, warned the editor about edit-warring and hope they will come here to explain their edits and obtain a WP:CONSENSUS before re-adding any material to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Start: Buck Russell 72 The additions I made were not "significant amounts of material." I was simply adding additional citations, plus some minimal language in the text of the page, to add additional source material.

This does not in any way violate the BLP policy. There is also no Wikipedia policy restricting the number of citations that can be used to back up the statements in a story.

The current controversy has been the number one political story in the state of Utah for the past month. I felt this Wikipedia page could benefit from the additional citations. The purpose they serve is to allow, without interrupting or adding anything significant to the narrative, a reader to read all of the media stories that have covered this recent significant issue.

None of the citations have been to tabloid publications. They all were to legitimate media outlets.

I'm not interested in a debate over whether there should be a separate "Controversies" section. Bbb23 says it is "generally not a good idea" without any reference to Wikipedia policy. I have seen similarly titled sections in many other BLP articles. But whatever, I'm not going to argue that point, I won't try again to create a separate section.

I am, though, still interested in adding back the citations I previously entered. I'd be happy to do so in a different manner, inserting them among the existing narrative in a more methodical way than I previously did. I suppose my ultimate question to Bbb23 is: How do the additional citations harm the article? They are footnotes, so they don't interrupt the article to casual readers. They provide a useful research tool to "less-casual" readers.

3/5/2013 - Bbb23 appears to be trying to protect this page from true events that have been well reported in the legitimate Utah media. That user continually attempts to delete material that is true, supported by citations, and that does not violate any provision of the Wikipedia BLP policy. Bbb23 attempts to make vague references to that policy without addressing what aspects of the policy Bbb23 claims these edits violate.

This has crossed the line from a Wikipedia "form" battle to simple political protectionism. The most recent broad deletion on March 5, 2013, deleted a great deal of true, well-cited material without any justification based on the BLP policy. Bbb23 obviously has a political agenda, not an agenda based on Wikipedia policy. Buck Russell 72 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buck Russell 72 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC) End: Buck Russell 72
 * Please comment at WP:BLPN. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I today visited this page in hopes of finding more information on the various things that that have happened in the various investigations into John Swallow.  Valuable information looks to be removed in looking through the history.  I believe a controversies investigation section is appropriate.    The fact that John Swallow Welcomed the Utah House to investigate him  and the fact they started that process is completely missing from this article, which was major event as that has never happened before in the history of Utah.    I will be adding back references to articles.    As with all political articles we must strive to state the events and facts, while remaining neutral.CentervilleDad (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Unsourced material.
I am trying to clean up this article in a way that will justify removing the "Advert" at the top. I first went through and tried to find sources for what was written. Everything now appears to have a source except for one statement.


 * He is regarded as a conservative lawyer and a politician.

Anyone have source for this statement? It appears to be an opinion of an editor. CentervilleDad (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am removing this statement since it appears to be unsourced, feel free to add it back if you have a source CentervilleDad (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Swallow. 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/20080909235944/http://csed.byu.edu/Assets/Pew/2002%20Monograph.pdf to http://csed.byu.edu/Assets/Pew/2002%20Monograph.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) 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)