Talk:John Walsh (Montana politician)

Start of Senate term
Someone needs to lock this page if all we're going to see is changes back and forth from February 9 to February 11.

Billmckern (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How about if someone does the research into the relevant state and federal law per WP:RS and work out a definitive answer, eh? ;)   Montanabw (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the edit history? My point is that some contributors haven't agreed on a definitive answer.  One person includes numerous references to indicate that Walsh's Senate term starts on the day of the appointment.  Then the next person deletes all of those and includes several references that give the date of his swearing in ceremony.


 * I think this report answers the question. Walsh was appointed when the Senate was in session, so his term starts on the day he qualifies (page 1).  What does "qualify" mean?  In this sense, it means that the Senate acknowledges having received a certificate of appointment, and that it accepts the appointment as valid -- the appointee meets that minimum qualifications to hold the office, the individual making the appointment has the power to do so, relevant provisions of state law have been complied with, etc.  For Walsh, that would mean February 11th is the day he started his term.


 * This record shows some of those details being covered when Gillibrand was appointed to replace Clinton.


 * But the issue of when the term started is only part of the point I was making. My larger point is the some contributors just won't leave it alone.  One guy writes February 11th and includes references.  The next one writes February 9th and included references.  Someone changes it back to the 11th.  Someone else changes it back to the 9th.


 * I think the group needs to come to a consensus, whether it's the 9th or the 11th, and quit making changes to it.


 * Billmckern (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Standard for including legislative work
I recently removed a quote from Walsh re. a vote he made ("He said of his decision, 'Preserving Native languages is essential to improving education for tribal nations. Support of comprehensive and culturally-relevant languages sets our Native children on a path for success in school and life and allows them to reach their full potential. With this investment in their future, we will help preserve the native languages and traditions for generations to come.'") The quote was sourced to a press release from his office. My edit has been reverted. I removed the quote because I don't believe the source is sufficient to show notability of the event at hand. Almost every time a legislator makes a vote, a press release is issued by their office, or something is added to the legislator's website. We can't include that all here. I'm suggesting that a good standard for inclusion would be "was this particular vote notable enough to garner independent coverage apart from the legislator's office?" If we don't have that standard, an article runs the risk of becoming a laundry list of official press releases. What standard of notability should we be using here to include legislation voted upon? I think we run the risk of the articles being too promotional if we include quotes from the legislators about why they voted on such and such a bill. Such quotes are usually flowery and self-congratulatory, and I don't believe they add value to an encyclopedia. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability wasn't my concern, I got the impression you considered the quote inaccurate. In Montana, issues surrounding Native people are quite notable, but if you want to find a third party source, such as a state paper, they probably parrot the press release anyway, so what's the difference? I can see the potential for bloat, but this guy is an appointee who hasn't even been in office a year yet.    Montanabw (talk)  00:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegation
Once is enough. The plagiarism allegation is mentioned. It has citations. It includes Walsh's response, and the war College's response. The same exact allegation does not need to be mentioned in multiple places within the article. Once is enough. Billmckern (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM apply.  Montanabw (talk)  02:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree. The Times article was pretty clear in laying out their evidence, complete with examples, that 1/3 of Walsh's master's thesis was plagiarized without attribution and that another 1/3 was plagiarized with improper citations (i.e., the material was copied pretty much word-for-word but without quotes).  That's 2/3 of a 14-page thesis, which is anything but minor.  Reducing this to one bland sentence, coupled with threats to seek bans against any editors who dare to cite this strikes me as quite appalling and suggestive of some major WP:COI among his supporters.  Also, I suggest this material belongs in the section early life and education, not 2014 election.  Msnicki (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not a John Walsh "supporter" and I have no conflict. My argument was not with what was written, or even where it was placed within the article. It was with the number of places on the page that one contributor wanted the same information to appear.  Whatever the discussion is on the text and references concerning the plagiarism allegation, and whatever the discussion is on where it's placed within the article, we ought to be able to agree that it needs to appear only once.  One topic doesn't need to be covered in three different places within the same page.


 * Billmckern (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly agree it only needs to be discussed once and though I think it belongs better in a section discussing his education than the 2014 election, I could live with either. (Perhaps best would be a separate section titled, "Charges of plagiarism".)  My concern is over what appear to be attempts to whitewash the story.  If you read the NYTimes story and look at their evidence, it should be pretty obvious it's a substantive story from one of the most reliable sources on the planet.  This isn't a "minority" or "fringe" viewpoint (per WP:UNDUE) nor is this a story of "flimsy, transient merits" (per WP:RECENTISM).  This is a genuine problem for Senator Walsh and it isn't going to just go away, certainly not by trying to contain it on WP to three bland sentences that make it sound like a minor, "unintentional" oversight of no import.  That's simply not what reliable sources are reporting.  Msnicki (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking with my admin hat on, I feel it wise to urge caution. WP:BLP and all that.  Once we have more substance, i.e. the likely report from the War College, I think there will be more to add and the expansion spoken of above may be good to have.  At present, I think the coverage in this article is appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:BLP supports you. Senator Walsh is not merely someone who has cleared the hurdle as notable, he is a public figure by virtue of being a United States Senator, which he undertook by his own volition.  Per the section on WP:PUBLICFIGURE in WP:BLP, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."  It goes on to give this example, "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources."
 * It seems to me that charges that a politician has had an affair are usually a lot less relevant than charges the politician has plagiarized 2/3 of his master's thesis. If we're reporting politicians' affairs, there's no excuse for whitewashing something as substantive as this.  More to the point, we do not decide controversies, we simply report them.  Waiting to report until the War College report appears sounds a lot like deciding the controversy, that we should report it only if our favored source agrees.  That's simply wrong.  Msnicki (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What we have here is a BLP combined with WP:UNDUE and [{WP:RECENTISM]]. No need for a whole new section or subsection on something that may or may not become significant in the election.  To speculate on its impact is WP:SYNTH.  Right now, there is a sentence or two about the issue, with a source, and it is listed under the campaign section because at present it is a campaign issue.  When the War College weighs in further, then we have more.  Until then, we await developments.   Montanabw (talk)  01:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested additional opinions at WP:BLPN. Msnicki (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

From BLP/N:
 * At this point, it is well past "allegation" as the use of unattributed material is freely admitted by that Senator. It belongs in two places - under his education and under his career, as it is intrinsically directly applicable to each for different reasons. (The first reason being directly related to his academic history, the second for the possible loss of rank in the Army, being separate issues)   The kidnapping of verbiage for at least 1/4 of his entire thesis is well documented at this point - vide  and    which has The Army War College, in Pennsylvania, said it has found preliminary evidence of plagiarism and asked a review board to investigate. The school may revoke Walsh's degree if it finds he intentionally presented the work of others as his own.   which clearly states it is past the "allegation" stage.  None of these sources appears t have any partisan bias against Walsh.  A single mention that the problem exists should be as brief as possible in the lead primarily because readers will expect to find it noted in at least five words there. '' Collect (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From BLPN: The lead?? Don't be ridiculous.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)  Oh, I get it -- he's a Democrat…  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a personal attack to me. Please either support it with some evidence or withdraw it. (Collect is a well-know editor in the BLP field, you are suggesting that Collect's opinion on this issue is driven by the political party of the subject. That's a strong charge.) (FTR, I had not yet reviewed the BLPN page, where Collect had already asked for a retraction. My post here was done independently of that discussion.) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please respond.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong end of the stick. The preceding two posts were made at BLPN and then copied here (first Collect's, then mine).  If there is to be further exploration of this issue (something of extremely doubtful value), it should happen at BLPN where the discussion (such as it was) carried on.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW -- Nomoskedacity posted his attack here when it was not at all reasonably pertinent to do so. I considered it an attack at BLP/N and I still consider it a personal attack here as well.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it outside, people, Walsh withdrew his candidacy, let's not be gravedancing here. Montanabw (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

legislation?
Hi! I noticed in one of the revisions that User:Montanabw made removed this paragraph:


 * On July 8, 2014, Walsh introduced the Bring Jobs Home Act (S. 2569; 113th Congress), a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States.

Does anyone have a problem with me including it again? The removal was unexplained and part of a much larger revision. This particular bill has been receiving a lot of media attention lately and is still being worked on in the Senate. The Politico article sourced is all about Walsh, the bill, and the politics of it. That seems relevant to me. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't do that on purpose, must have done a reversion of someone else's stuff and that got caught up in it... sorry. No objection here.  That said, I'd shorten it up a bit.  His article is starting to get longer than Max Baucus's was - and Walsh has not even been in office a year.  (What I've said about WP:UNDUE goes both ways.  This shouldn't look like the campaign web site, OK?)   Montanabw (talk)  19:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Children
Per BRD, why is one user seemingly obsessed with removing one sentence from this article about the occupations of Walsh's adult children? Must we waste endless bandwidth on this issue? Montanabw (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the content, not the editor. I don't see a good reason to include the names of family members who are not notable in their own right. Do you have sources that establish thier notability? Jonathunder (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, I think you're pushing hard. You've reverted three times and getting away with this because no one else wants to edit war with you.  This is exactly what I was complaining about when it seemed clear the plagiarism charges were a truly big deal, properly reported in WP:RS and something that needed to be reported in the article and you were fighting tooth and nail to keep it down to three sentences.  You fought to keep relevant, encyclopedic information out because you thought it was negative, now you're fighting to keep cruft in because it's positive (the kids are "successful").  And both times, it's same behavior:  You take for granted you're right and think nothing of reverting anyone who disagrees and questioning their good faith, e.g., here.
 * The problem in the case at hand is that there's absolutely nothing encyclopedic about the fact that this man's two adult children have or are seeking employment. One is in the National Guard, the other apparently some sort of aspiring actor.  Most adult children find some sort of employment.  To be less remarkable, one would have to be selling shoes.  We are not a newspaper.  Not everything that gets reported in the news, especially on a slow day, needs to be in Wikipedia.  I didn't notice the editorial problem 'till User:Rms125a called attention to it here, but he's right.  This is cruft. Msnicki (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, saying one of the sons "is an aspiring actor" is exceedingly weak. I happen to be an aspiring opera diva, for example, but since I can't sing or read music, I only edit Wikipedia. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the on in th guard is following in his father's footsteps, which seems relevant. I'd settle for keeping that bit. Fair compromise?  Montanabw (talk)  05:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's still cruft. It might be remarkable and might generate the necessary WP:RS if his son was a conscientious objector who'd been arrested for throwing blood at a military recruiter.  But there's nothing remarkable about a son going into the same profession as his father.  All we know is he's a pilot in the National Guard.  We don't even know his rank or what he pilots because he's not notable.  Msnicki (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh nonsense. Having kids that are successful, as opposed to kids who are a disgrace to the family is  tabloid style "notability."  is the information relevant or not?    I don't see basic biographical information about adult kids being a problem.  Where, specifically, do you find a guideline that justifies your position?   Montanabw (talk)


 * How about WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Or how about WP:BLPNAME, "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."  The news coverage sourcing you have is the thinnest possible.  07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I view NOTNEWS as inapplicable here, we are discussing basic biographical information. I read BLPNAME to mean that including family members needs to be sourced, which it is. I think you are conflating two unrelated concepts.  It is not news that Walsh has kids, it's simply relevant biographical information.  It is sourced that they are adults and have careers.  It is of mild passing interest that they chose two very different careers,  Montanabw (talk)  19:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also from WP:BLPNAME, "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." You're trying to base this inclusion on one brief mention in the news and several times you indicated that that reason you think it should be included is because it's positive.  But we don't choose to report based on whether it makes the subject look good or bad.  We just report whatever the sources report and we do it proportionately.  The proportion of reporting about this man's children is, well, there really isn't any.  Msnicki (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations redux
I made a series of 5 edits which User:Montanabw has reverted and I have re-instated. The major effects of my edits were to create a separate heading for the plagiarism allegations separate from early life and education and to revise this sentence:


 * From: While lesser penalties are possible, they could include the War College rescinding his degree.


 * To:  If plagiarism is found, the usual sanction is to rescind the student’s degree and remove his name from the plaque of his graduating class.  The War College has done this six times since 1990.

The source for this is Flathead Beacon article in which Provost Lance Betros of the US Army War College says this is the normal sanction and that this is what they've done in the past. "Normal" or "usual" ≠ "always" so we can take for granted there is some possibility of a different outcome. But the original phrasing gives WP:UNDUE weight to the possibility of something other than the normal sanctions. Further, I believe this is part of the continuing problem with Montanabw's edits, which appear to be selective, based on whether it presents the subject in a positive or a negative light. We do not decide what to report based on whether it's good or bad for the subject. We report based on what WP:RS tell us and we do it in proportion to what those sources say.

Finally, I note that in his edit remark], Montanabw cites, "This was edit-warred about earlier and it was determined not to handle it this way." Well, not quite. I refused to edit war and made only one major edit. When Montanabw instantly began reverting it, I made no more edits for the next 3 weeks. My next edit merely added that the review board had begun its investigation, citing an AP news source in the Missoulian. It's simply not me with an itchy trigger finger ready to revert.

But also, Montanabw argued (above at 1:50, 28 July 2014), "No need for a whole new section or subsection on something that may or may not become significant in the election. To speculate on its impact is WP:SYNTH." We now know that it darn sure was significant in the election. He quit because of it. It doesn't get more significant than that. Consensus can change when circumstances change. Montanabw should not expect to rely on a "consensus" gotten by bullying or which predates important new information. Msnicki (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, I support Cwobeel's edits ordering the material chronologically, leaving a mention in the lede. Msnicki (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that User:Montanabw has been WP:CANVASSING here. 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Montanabw should stop now, this is not helpful. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And Wehwalt and a couple other people previously involved. So trout me.  There is nothing new here since this was argued about in July, other than Walsh dropping out of the race, so he is no longer campaigning and will be gone in January anyway.  Going on and on about this issue is now a WP:GRAVEDANCE and there is even less reason to speculate on the outcome than before.  When there is an actual result, then the article can be edited accordingly.  There is no need to speculate on what is going to happen based on what has happened in slightly different circumstances, WP:CRYSTAL demands that we do not skew this beyond what can be reliably sourced, a one-off comment by a spokesman about general cases is not applicable here where there is an independent review of the investigation going on (which is unique) and Walsh is a sitting Senator; it's not appropriate to generalize.  There most certainly is no need for a full section on the issue, at least not yet. When an announcement is made one way or the other, THAN we can discuss changes.  Not until.  And you went through this once previously, here and you need to just drop this stick. Steve Daines is most likely going to win the election, so it's not like skewing this essentially-neutral article to favor a fright-wing viewpoint is going to change the outcome.   Montanabw (talk)  03:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's another fine mess (yes, I was "canvassed" too, though I like to think I was asked because of my common sense and fine editorial skills). Over a 14-page paper--that's pretty sad. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what the dispute is. If I had my way, I'd prefer it removed from the lead, but then, it is mentioned as a reason in that Missoulian article and the press release. I think it needs a half a sentence, or maybe a whole one, in the "Education" section (pointing down as well) but I don't see the need for a separate "Plagiarism" section--putting that in the "2014" section is good enough for me. Having a separate "Plagiarism" section is really no different from having a "Controversies" section, and we are encouraged not to do that. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your point, Drmies. Are you saying you don't think the plagiarism allegations, regardless of the truth, strike you as significant because it was only a 14-page paper?  That might be your personal view, but I don't think it's shared widely in higher education and it's clearly not shared by the US War College.  Msnicki (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , indeed, you missed my point. I think it's sad if someone needs to plagiarize a 14-page paper. I write those before breakfast, but my students have a hard time writing two full pages. Sign of the times, widely shared in higher education. (So that which you thought I was saying, no, I wasn't saying that. My apologies if that wasn't clear.) Drmies (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your clarification. I teach at the university level also and like you, I also have to deal with performance issues and academic misconduct.  I had to report a case of plagiarism in my transistor lab just last quarter.  So his is why I knew so instantly when the NYT report appeared that they truly had the goods on him and that this was going to be serious, especially at the War College.  They aren't going to fool around and of course it came right out what they normally do.  Separately, it's certainly possible Montanabw canvassed you for your editing skills, but personally, I'd put my money on his hoping there might be some lingering friction between us over the outcome of DangerousPanda's block of Barney the Barney Barney.  I think that ended fine, but I suspect Montanabw's hoping it didn't.  The point is, you were canvassed and you know what that usually means.  Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Talkpage stalker of Drmies talkpage here. I agree that the plagiarism issue does not deserve its own section. Walsh is a politician (and an officer), not a scholar. As such, the plagiarism affair is directly related to his political career and the 2014 election. It really doesn't matter how long the paper is. The point is is that it amounts to a bachelor's thesis. As an acadmic text, it's pretty inconsequential, and I believe this is what Drmies was trying to point out.
 * I'm not sure how much coverage is appropriate, but a level 2-section issue it is certainly not. Overall, try to keep recentism and WP:CRYSTAL in mind. For example, possible future academic sanctions seem rather irrelevant to a Wikipedia article.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with the changes you made. But to clarify:  This was a master's thesis, not a bachelor's.  No one is claiming he's a scholar.  But this was not any ordinary college where they teach poetry, this was the US War College and he was there because he's was a National Guard officer.  This is entirely relevant to his military career.  Various sources reported that this master's program is often a stepping stone to high rank in the military.  Finally, one reason to list the usual sanctions is because otherwise, some people might think that since it's "only" a 14-page paper, it's not really considered serious.   Msnicki (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is that really all they require? That's sad too. The Air War College requires their international students to write a hell of a lot more than that just to make it through the first modules. (Again, do not think I don't consider the matter serious.) Drmies (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources haven't said much about the overall degree requirements and they're a little ambiguous about whether we should look at this as THE master's thesis or as one of several important papers required for the degree. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, it's my understanding of our guidelines that I can ask if you have a WP:COI, I just can't demand an answer. We're anonymous here and I can't demand you reveal personal information.  Sill, I'm allowed to ask:  Do you know of any reason which, if disclosed, might cause others to expect you could be favorably biased toward the subject?  For example, do you know or have you met Walsh or anyone in his family?  Have you canvassed or done phone-banking for the Democrats in Montana or asked anyone to vote for Walsh?  Are you a member of the National Guard or any other organization of which he also is a member?
 * I ask because it seems very clear that your editorial positions with regard to what should be included seem to boil down exactly one objective, putting the most positive spin on this story. You want to add his kids (maybe we can get a picture with a dog also) because it's positive.  You made clear if his kids were an embarrassment (tabloid style) you wouldn't want them in.  And it's the same thing here.  You're trying to bury this because it's negative.  You said -- your words -- it'd be different once we knew how it affected the election.  Well, now we know.  He quit.  But suddenly, you have new conditions.  Do you see why I would wonder if you have an undisclosed reason you might be biased?  Msnicki (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a broad definition of COI. If applied to me, I could not write on anyone with a car (loyal AAA member since 1985) or who was over 50 (AARP member too).  I was asked to weigh in by Montanabw but actually had kept this on my watchlist. I tend to agree with Drmies.  A "plagiarism" section is no different from a "controversies" section, with that being disfavored.  I would suggest people cool their jets.  We will have an answer to this one way or another soon enough, and in the meantime, BLP should dictate we stick to generalities.   I doubt it, but the stories could be wrong, and I'm minded of Ray Donovan's "What office do I go to, to get my reputation back"  Cool it until stuff is official, argue about how broad to go then.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehwalt's assessment and if you make such demands, you really should discuss your own affiliations (as you may very well be a member of the republican party from your attitude and actions, though I really don't care what you are), but if it will reassure you, I can affirmatively say the following. I have no COI as to Walsh. No one asked me to do anything with this article, it was just on my watchlist as are those of most other current (and some past) Montnana politicians.  The plagiarism stuff was initially inserted with too much bias and I worked then and now to keep the article neutral. (FWIW, I also have the Steve Daines article on my watchlist, go assess my edits there, you'll find they are neutral) It is absolutely none of your business what I do for a living or anything else.   Montanabw (talk)  16:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, since you asked, I think I voted for Reagan. But that was 30 years ago and since then, I think I've voted straight Democratic in every election.  I canvassed door-to-door and did phone-banking for Obama and Washington Democrats in 2012 and for marriage equality and gave them both what for me was quite a lot of money.  I haven't had any time to give in the upcoming midterms, but I have given the Democrats a small amount of money.  I am very liberal and favor the Democrats over the Republicans on every issue I can think of except gun control.  That includes that healthcare, civil rights for minorities, women and LGBT, consumer rights, social spending, taxes, Citizens United, you name it.  I do commonly differ with the Democrats on gun control but I'm not politically active on the issue.  I'm an amateur competitor in various pistol and rifle shooting events, an NRA-certified firearms instructor and training counselor and I also collect firearms.  So I oppose Washington initiative 594, banning private transfers.  (It's already a federal felony to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.)  I'm also a patron level member of the NRA but I mostly did that just to get the free magazines for life.  But aside from voting I have not been politically active on gun control issues in at least a decade.
 * If you're searching anything that might be explain my positions, it's not political bias, it's that I teach at a university and I know something about academic misconduct. I've had to report it, I know what it takes to sustain a report and I know what happens next.  I've had some long, fascinating conversations with our conduct officer and I've done a fair amount of reading on the policy issues of how to deal with it (e.g., with honor codes.)  That inside knowledge allowed me to read the NYT allegations and their evidence and know instantly that they had the goods on Walsh and that, especially at the War College, this was very serious and would have to be reported in our article.  Before reading the Times articles, I don't think I'd ever heard of Walsh.  Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also teach at a college and I too understand plagiarism, so cool the condescending attitude. I grade term papers every semester and am routinely slowed by the need to review for such things.  However, not all allegations of plagiarism result in an "off with their heads" answer. I have as much "inside knowledge" as you do, most likely, but what I also know is that the military is a whole different world from civilian academe, so who knows what will happen.  The POINT is that a subheading is undue weight, at least until we have a result of the investigation (remember WP:CRYSTAL, and all the stuff about six other cases and having one's name removed from the placque just sounds like something out of a Month Python skit.   Montanabw (talk)  21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I answered your question. Say what you like, but none of it appears to contain an answer to mine.  Msnicki (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have altered the content about rescinding the degree, as it was copied almost word-for-word from the source material here (presenting the same facts in the same order, using almost identical wording) and is hence a copyright violation. Please do not restore. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am taking out the section heading, and will be restoring all intervening edits by Diannaa and others in a moment.  Montanabw (talk)  16:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing the heading necessitates restoring the chronological order of the 2014 campaign section. I also moved a one-sentence section about Walsh's family up to the early life section as that was better formatting.  A mass reversion by Msnicki is not appropriate as there are several wikignoming edits in with the article content.  The only real issues here are a)  if the allegations stuff requires its own heading or subheading, b) how to word the bit about penalties.  The rest is just minor phrasing stuff.   Montanabw (talk)  16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Montana, Drmies, Wehwalt, Dianna and myself, Little oliveoil, there is agreement that a section on the alleged plagiarism is overkill, and I would suggest violates Undue Weight. Further, this is an allegation and as such I would argue has no place in a BLP at all. If there was a single incident of plagiarism during a school career, this, in the context of a man's entire life, is nothing. Students make mistakes all the time, they learn  and move on. That we on Wikipedia are trying to make a huge issue out of this incident does not jive with our BLP policy. I am at the extreme end of this and would not include anything about an allegation, but definitely an entire section  on this incident is wrong. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC))


 * I am just seeing that the article is protected. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Thank you Littleolive oil. Let me note that I strongly disagree with Msnicki's edit summary (and the edit too): Montanabw is not "burying" these allegations, and that "this is the most widely reported event in this man's life" is, if it is true at all, a clear example of recentism. And I note that of the first four reliable hits for "'John Walsh' + Montana", only one a NYT article mentions plagiarism in its headline; the other three (Politico, USA Today, Washington Post) do not. That doesn't mean everything, and it's not to say that the plagiarism and the dropping out are unconnected (that would be a silly claim), but the news is "he dropped out", not "he plagiarized". Also, we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And WELLKNOWN goes to inclusion of the information, and no one here is arguing for exclusion. WELLKNOWN also notes the example that it is not advisable to say for example "parties X & Y had a nasty divorce" when one can say "Parties X & Y got divorced."  That's basically the point I have been trying to make.  We are arguing about WP:UNDUE weight and POV phrasing.  (And WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS Do we need any more capital letters?) The two actual issues are outlined in my protected edit request below.  Once those are determined, then there are also wikignoming issues and cleanup that is needed in either case. So address the issues now, please, and cease your ill-spirited attacks.   Montanabw (talk)  21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , you are uninvolved here I think. It may well be that you're not from Montana, not a Democrat (or Republican), not charged with plagiarism, not a War College graduate, etc. Do you think that a. we've had enough discussion here and b. you can establish what the consensus is here on the narrow question of "separate section yes or no"? Drmies (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected
Article is protected, work it out here on the talk page or at appropriate noticeboards. Dreadstar ☥   16:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 September 2014
Please remove the ===Allegations of plagiarism=== heading/subheading per prior consensus on the article (i.e. status quo prior to Sepbember 28) and the continuing consensus that it is not appropriate. Montanabw (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remove references to erasing name from the plaque and how many prior times this has occurred to align with this edit by administrator Diannaa:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Walsh_(U.S._politician)&diff=next&oldid=627545709

This is potential WP:UNDUE weight to theoretical penalties. The Walsh case is unique as it involves a sitting US Senator and it is being independently reviewed. There are no reliable sources to say that this is a proposed or theoretical penalty against Walsh, it is enough to state that recending the degree is a potential penalty. The rest is gravedancing. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)

Diannaa's objection was that the phrasing was too close. The passage has been since been rewritten in response to her concern. Absent a restatement of her complaint, I'm hopeful that Diannaa will be satisfied with the new wording. Msnicki (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is also irrelevant, her wording was linked for being appropriate and neutral. The content does not need to be there because of all the reasons I've frepeatedly said above.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone answering this request should have a look at the recent history of edit warring and the report filed at 3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me at WP:BLP guides us to minimize conjecture about the repercussions of any plagiarism, and that at a minimum this content should not be kept in the article while discussion is ongoing. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done I've just spent a good half an hour reading through the July discussion here, the BLPN discussion, the more recent discussion here, and the 3RRN thread. After taking all of that in, the consensus seems to be to not have a separate section on the plagiarism allegations, and to not make controversial claims before the fate of Walsh's degree is made clear. This is due to the number of editors advocating against having a separate section, and also to the BLP policy which urges us to write conservatively about such matters. Hence, I am restoring Montanabw's version. (And though the section wasn't an RfC, you may regard this as an official close of that section.) — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Drmies, Dreadstar, and Mr. Stradivarius. I appreciate your careful and thoughtful work.  Most sincere thanks.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit: Move plagiarism discussion to section on education
Now that the War College has announced their decision to rescind Walsh's degree, I propose moving this discussion to the end of the section on early life and education, moving the sentences about his wife and kids onto the end of the first paragraph talking about where he was born. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly I support that. But we might need a couple of sentences in the 2014 campaign section, indicating that this was the main reason he pulled out.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Without apparent objection, I have have moved the plagiarism discussion to the section on education. Nomoskedasticity, I did a little fixup in the campaign section as you suggested but if you see a way to make it better, please go for it.  Msnicki (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I"ve been offline a couple days. I'll review the work and see what I think.  Putting in the early life stuff early was, I believe, the way I wanted it in the first place and that got caught up in the edit war.  In theory, I'm OK with the idea of having a bit in both education and the 2014 campaign.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , the edits looked reasonable and overall neutral in tone. I have no real issues with the additional material.  I did tighten up the language a bit, removed one bit of gravedancing, and tossed one bit that could not be verified by the source cited. (Various press accounts say from one-third to two-thirds of the paper being copied.  Until there is something quoted straight from the investigation, I'd say just drop the percentages as irrelevant.) Everything else I changed was with the intent of making the article clearer, neutral and general wikignoming. Feel free to review sources and make sure what I changed still is within the scope of what was cited.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gravedancing isn't even a word. I suspect the word you're thinking of is "schadenfreude", pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.  But even if that were the case, it's irrelevant.  We report what our sources tell us.  In the case at hand, we're talking about a US Senator and he is simply not protected by WP:BLP the same way as those who are not WP:PUBLICFIGUREs.  And that's as it should be.  I'm an American and so is Walsh and probably so are you.  And here in America, our forefathers wrote the first amendment protecting free speech precisely so that the unvarnished truth about our government and our leaders could be printed.
 * But once again, you're busy burying the truth. You've deleted anything that might convey the extent of his plagiarism.  This leaves the reader wondering (as I expect you intend) whether this was a purely technical violation or something substantial.  But it was substantial and both the NYT and the review board said so and that should be reported.  The fact that NYT found 2/3 plagiarized and the fact that review board found almost none of the work was his should be reported.  The NYT reported "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. ..." I added "about a third" + "another third" to get "roughly two-thirds".  User:Diannaa did some additional editing to avoid close-phrasing.  Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Subheading for plagiarism
I think we should have a subheading for the plagiarism and degree revocation discussion within the Early life and education section, now that none of this is speculative anymore. The War College has spoken. They have revoked Walsh's degree and ground his name off the graduation plaque. They found, as the NYT initially reported, that almost none of the work was his. If you looked at the NYT evidence and you knew how universities are treating this, you had to know this was was going to happen. No one who looked at the evidence should have been surprised.

This ended the senator's career and it needs to be reported. WP:PUBLICFIGURES are not protected in the same way under WP:BLP as other individuals. That is as it should be. A senator is leader in our government and our reporting about our government and our government leaders needs to be complete, warts and all. This is the meaning of a responsible free press and the reasoning behind our treatment of public figures here on WP. It's not about reporting on what celebrity is now pregnant, even if that also is allowed. It's about being able to report on the government and our leaders as our sources tell us. We don't publish hagiographic articles about anyone but least of all, about government leaders with the power to make laws. We also do not decide controversies, we simply report them proportionately. But at this point, there is no longer even any controversy. He did it. Not having a subheading for this would be like having an article on Richard Nixon without a section on Richard Nixon. Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, we don't engage in gravedancing, see e.g. WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING. It already takes up about 25% of the article. This is an individual who served with honor in combat and yes, copied part of a term paper.  He will serve less than a year as a Senator.  Not at all analogous to Watergate.  It's sad that such a relatively minor mistake ruined his political career (when people like Mark Sanford get re-elected, which disgusts me).  We've reported what is there.  Doesn't need a subheader, unless you also want to add a subheader for "Served with distinction in the United States Armed Forces in a combat zone."  Due weight, due weight.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  13:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to this having its own section as well, but WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING is a wholly irrelevant essay. Its nutshell reads, This page in a nutshell: Blanking the userpage of someone blocked indefinitely, except for the block template, is not necessarily gravedancing. What is its relevance to this discussion about content inclusion in article space? VQuakr (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This ended the senator's career and it needs to be reported. AFAIK, no one is proposing that all mention of plagiarism be removed from the article. References to Watergate are melodramatic as that was a far more historically significant event. The exclusions of WP:PUBLICFIGURE are very limited and the subject certainly is a BLP; the policy does not mention sectioning. The existing coverage seems to cover the subject adequately. VQuakr (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Precisely. And the essay does apply to WP users, but the concept, noted above, is akin to  schadenfreude and yes, not the right thing to do here.  Walsh is, by all accounts (I do not know him personally), a decent man who made a mistake and has paid in spades for it.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether he is a decent man is not germane to a discussion about article content. Our challenge instead is to match the balance of sources available on the overall subject, and avoid giving undue weight to recent events. VQuakr (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Education section plagiarism length
In my opinion, the way the Early life and education segment handles the plagiarism issue is too verbose and gives an overly extended play-by-play of what happened, which in turn creates an oversize sense of weight. I'd recommend simplifying it down to the key salient aspects, probably four sentences at most so that it is not more than 50% of the section. Perhaps something closer to this:

This would address all the key points while keeping the size down to something more proportionate. What do other editors think? Please support or oppose as you see fit. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No way.  There's been so much coverage of this story that the Walsh plagiarism scandal would satisfy the WP:NOTABILITY requirements of WP:GNG required for a separate article, never mind an in-depth discussion here.  Further, the subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and a government leader.  If the bad news is reliably reported, it goes in.  We do not sugar coat the story about a government official because we like him.  The facts as reported by reliable sources are what they are.  We do not leave out or censor material simply because it's inconvenient or because we'd like to introduce some sort of "balance" between good stuff and bad stuff with equal amounts of each.  If the reporting in reliable sources is overwhelmingly focused on the bad stuff, that's just the way it goes.  We report what WP:RS tell us.  Msnicki (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Four sentences" and "not more than 50% of the section" both seem pretty arbitrary to me. I am more concerned that we observe WP:NOT and the concepts outlined in the essay WP:RECENTISM. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is three sentences long: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The plagiarism incident is negative, noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, but no one is arguing that it be excluded. So why do you keep linking that policy? Why are you making bad-faith accusations of censorship and that content inclusion would be "inconvenient" for any editor here? Your continued tendentious editing in article space and your repeated use of hyperbole on the talk page reinforce my opinion that you feel this article should be used to "punish" the subject rather than dispassionately describe him. VQuakr (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In point of fact, you have been trying to exclude negative information. You've twice (1, 2) deleted that the NYT reported that Walsh plagiarized two-thirds of his paper, claiming you couldn't find that in the article.  I even gave you the fragments to search for (NYT says "About third of his paper ... another third") in my edit remark reverting you the first time you did this.  Try Ctrl-F.  But here's the thing:  The real reason you don't know where I got the two-thirds is because Montanabw immediately deleted the supporting quote from the citation in my original edit.  Here's the complete citation as it originally appeared:


 * Martin, Jonathan (July 23, 2014), Senator’s Thesis Turns Out to Be Remix of Others’ Works, Uncited, The New York Times, retrieved July 29, 2014, "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. ..."


 * You've also twice (1, 2) deleted mention that part of the sanction is that Walsh's name will be removed from the bronze plaque, claiming this was "tabloidey". You do realize, I hope, that we're talking the US Army War College Academic Review Board's normal sanction.  Frankly, I don't really see the US Army War College doing anything "tabloidey" but in this case, they're doing just exactly what they've said they do from the beginning.  And apparently, the plaque really is a big deal at the War College.  You'll find a picture of the one for Walsh's class in this NYT article.  And here's where alums buy posters of their class plaque at the US Army War College Store.
 * Fundamentally, I disagree with the view that what we will report on a government official should in any way be based on whether it makes him look good or bad. We should not be imposing an artificial "balance" that does not exist in WP:RS.  What we should do is the report the story faithfully.  If there were still any controversy, we would have to report it proportionally.  But at this point, there is no controversy.  He did it and here are the facts as they have been reported in reliable sources.  Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, you can't remove reliably sourced material simply because it's negative.
 * Finally, you continue to insist you know better than I do what I meant by my edit remark on my own talk page responding to Montanabw and it's tiresome. I teach at a university.  I've said this a couple times already on this page.  When I write a syllabus or when I explain my grading to a class, I commonly announce, just like most college and university instructors do these days -- that I have a "zero tolerance" policy regarding academic misconduct.  All that means is that I report everything.  I do not give second chances on plagiarism where I let first occurrence slide.   Further, this is what the university asks us to do as faculty.  Contrary to your insistence (1, 2) or your attempt to pick a fight here, it is not "ideological" to be opposed to plagiarism or report it when you spot it any more than it would be ideological to opposed to other forms of unethical or dishonest behavior.   Msnicki (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your synopsis of my viewpoint is not accurate. I was not attempting to "pick a fight" on your talk page, I was attempting to provide constructive feedback regarding your behavior. John Walsh is not your student, and following our content policies here is not letting academic misconduct "slide." Tendentiously adding content to a BLP because the subject's behavior offends you is indeed inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the "two-thirds" bit - can you provide a source that actually states "two-thirds"? At least one NYT article said about a fourth, so at the least it seems you are selecting the highest assessment available. I disagree with your assessment that this is simple arithmetic - you risk combining rounding errors when doing this addition yourself. Again, this is a BLP - the default is to exclude negative content until there is consensus to include.
 * The "balance" to which I refer and to which we are required by policy to adhere to is defined at WP:BALASPS. As I noted in the section above, this has nothing to do with whether the subject of the article is "good" or "bad", but with balancing the content of the article with the weight each aspect of the subject has been afforded in reliable sources (without regard for recency). VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I gave you the source, above. The same article does also say "the senator appropriated at least a quarter of his thesis on American Middle East policy from other authors’ works, with no attribution" but that's not inconsistent.  The one-quarter appears to refer to that part that was copied verbatim without attribution, a subset of the one-third without attribution that was either "identical to or extremely similar", and distinct from another one-third that was attributed with footnotes but "uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks".  As for "rounding errors", I remind you as I explained on your talk page that my original edit said "roughly two-thirds".  User:Diannaa trimmed out the "roughly" here, explaining here that when you say two-thirds, everyone knows that's an approximation.  I think she's right about that.  I also think adding 1/3 + 1/3 to get 2/3 is allowed per WP:SYNTHNOT.
 * Re: WP:BALASPS, this only speaks to the question of balance within an article. This article is about Walsh, therefore, there is a valid question about how much of this article should be about the plagiarism incident.  An article specifically about the plagiarism incident would not raise that question, which is why I've proposed a breakout.
 * Finally, you did try to pick a fight. You tried to pick a fight on my talk page, even after the debate was closed here, and when I told you to go away, you pinged me on your talk page to let me know you still weren't done trying to poke at me.  Obviously, I saw it, but I ignored you.   Msnicki (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exhibiting one source establishes verifiability (which has not been contested) but does not address proportionality (aka balance), which is the core of our discussion. WP:BALASPS is a section of WP:NPOV, which explicitly applies to total coverage of a topic not only individual articles. WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is an essay, and adding additional synth as you do above does not fix the problem with sourcing. If you want to provide a quantitative number, provide a source that both states that number explicitly and is representative of the consensus of available sources as there is significant spread. Your talk page exists for the purpose of communicating with you - characterizing doing so as "picking a fight" violates WP:AGF. The ping was a courtesy that I would expect from others as well. VQuakr (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, it looks OK. I think it could be sharpened, the date on which the War College began its investigation, for example, doesn't really need to be there, and the plaque thing reduced to part of a sentence, rather than two.  It may be a big deal to the grads, but it probably isn't to the reader.  I'd simply mention it in a sentence of the sanctions Walsh got as a result, and lose the 7th time bit, that really doesn't relate to Walsh directly. The bit about his getting the degree in the first place and it being revoked at the end of the education paragraph could be moved to the next paragraph to keep the material together in my view. The reader's not going anywhere. As you guys prefer, though, just my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Collect (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I circled back this morning and read the comments above (my thanks to everyone who contributed). I may make some individual edits shortly that I think will be improvements; please feel free to revert them on a case-by-case basis and bring them here to the Talk Page if you think they should be discussed instead.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The plaque
I'm now at 3RR on the sentence reporting that this is the seventh time the War College has revoked a degree and removed a student's name from the plaque commemorating their class. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP, I do not believe the inclusion is contrary to BLP. I think it's relevant and helpful to know if these sanctions are unusual and how often they're applied. It is certainly reliably-source. If the sentence is removed again, I can't and won't revert, but I will take it to WP:BLPN. Msnicki (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the dispute is over whether it's important enough to include, not over whether it is favorable or unfavorable to Walsh. At least that is what I intended to say. I don't see how it says anything one way or the other about Walsh.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I concede there is always a valid content question in any article over whether any given material is actually helpful in developing the story. I think this information is relevant and helpful because it provides historical context.  It answers the question, was this a bolt of lightening out of the blue that no one could have predicted or is this the way they normally treat plagiarism.  It helps explain the negative outcome for Walsh.  This is what they do.  It doesn't happen often but this is what they do every time.  Even if you disagree on this content question, it sounds like you do agree that it is only a content question, that BLP does not offer a reason to delete it.  Thank you.  Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see a BLP issue. There's no precise level dictated by BLP and I don't think the article as it is, is piling on.  My comments were purely content-related.  If I were reviewing the article for GA, I'd include those comments. I think it's BLP-compliant either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the plaque issue is not a matter of "BLP violation". Part of it (the removal of his name from the plaque) is pertinent to him; the "7th time" element rather less so.  I've edited the article accordingly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All - I see the plaque bit as more tabloid-journalism drama than content that fosters an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Undue, negative coverage defaults to exclude until the due coverage part is resolved on the talk page (this is true for all BLPs, regardless of whether the subject is a public figure). We could run it by BLPN for additional opinions if anyone thought it was worthwhile. The "7th time" part seems more relevant to me because it gives perspective on the incident - degree revocations at the institution are far from common, but the case is not unique. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your perspective on whether this is a BLP violation is obviously rejected by other editors. So it would be a bad idea to edit-war on this issue on the expectation that you are addressing a BLP violation.  We can sort this out as a matter of consensus.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We are required to include negative content only "with the greatest care." While we can indeed sort out whether to include the content - which is after all verifiable and subject to consensus - here on the talk page, it needs to stay out of the article until that consensus has been unambiguously determined. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, overemphasis on erasing the plaque is bouncing the rubble. A man's career has been destroyed for a relatively minor offense (he didn't cheat on his wife, commit a crime or kill someone, after all). Let's drop the stick.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time for a breakout article?
As I understand it, a lot of the objection to more in-depth reporting of the plagiarism story is that this article is supposed to be about the subject, not overly-weighted to focus on just this one incident in his life. It strikes me that this is exactly the problem identified at WP:Recentism, where they also describe the solution, a breakout article. They give the example of Jimmy Saville, which became contentious after sex abuse story broke. The solution was a separate article, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal where editors could write the whole story in whatever depth was supported by the sources without concern for balance within the larger article.

I've been through enough AfDs over the years -- as probably most of you have, as well -- to know a separate article would sail through as Keep. You don't get better sources than the NYT, never mind the hundreds of others reporting this story. It clearly passes the bar for WP:Notability, which is the only thing we consider at AfD.

I propose moving pretty much the entire discussion out to a separate article, John Walsh plagiarism scandal, reducing what's left here to a genuinely minimal recital. Msnicki (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Our policy requiring neutrality refers to our coverage of a subject overall, not coverage in a single article. If content would be overcoverage here, it would be overcoverage in a split article. See also WP:POVFORK. The raw article size is 37kB with significantly less of that being rendered text, so it is not approaching the length at which a daughter article would be desirable. There are actually 14 reasons for deletion listed in the deletion policy at WP:DEL-REASON (not 1), though admittedly several of them could be grouped under the "notability" umbrella. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose split at this stage, and don't see any probability that it will be needed in the future either. A short summary of the incident is more than sufficient. I would also argue that the current location of that material is inappropriate. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  02:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the overall structure was discussed some in the section Proposed edit: Move plagiarism discussion to section on education above. I think it makes sense to discuss the academic integrity and school section in the education section, and the political fallout in the election section, as it was structured prior to this edit, but if you disagree I suggest we continue the discussion in that section above. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not a valid claim of WP:POVFORK nor of non-neutrality. A POVFORK is where we end up with two articles on basically the same subject but which present different points of view.  The essence of a POVFORK is that there is a difference of opinion over what to report, not merely how much.  For example, having separate articles on Right to life debate and Pro-choice debate would clearly be POV forks, which is why both redirect to Abortion debate.  But so far as I can tell, there is no valid claim of multiple "points of view" in anything that's been reported by WP:RS nor am I proposing two articles on John Walsh that offer different views.  I am not, e.g., aware of any controversy over whether the War College really did grind Walsh's name off the plaque with some sources claiming they did it and others claiming they didn't and a disagreement here over how much space to give these competing theories of whether it did or did not happened.
 * The sources (and all of us) appear to agree on the facts. The only disagreement I'm aware of is how much detail to report here and that question appears to arise solely because this is a BLP about Walsh, not the plagiarism scandal.  My proposal is to move the whole plagiarism discussion to a separate article.  There would be no disagreement or difference in points of view between the articles whatsoever.  Rather, one would focus on John Walsh and his life and career as a whole, the other on the plagiarism incident.  This is exactly like the Jimmy Savile / Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal case cited in WP:Recentism and not credibly a POVFORK issue.
 * Finally, I completely disagree with your edit moving the plagiarism discussion back into the campaign section. For starters, Walsh's campaign ended before the War College review board had decided the matter.  The sanctions imposed by the War College were academic sanctions.  They didn't weigh in on his campaign, they revoked his degree.  If the discussion stays in this article -- and your edit strikes me as yet another reason for a breakout -- it belongs in the education section where we talk about his degrees, not in a section about a campaign that basically never happened.
 * Frankly, if I don't get better arguments opposed to a breakout in the next day or so, I'm just going to do it and let anyone who disagrees take it to AfD where you can argue the case to merge it back; I'm confident the outcome will be keep. Someone might take me to WP:ANI but I don't think that'll get them anywhere.  I'll take the chance.  Msnicki (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BATTLE much? Your honesty is refreshing, though. Maybe instead of doing whatever you believe you can get away with, you could instead attempt to work collaboratively with other editors. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm trying right now with my proposal. And if your objection is what you say it is, balance within the article, you should support my proposal.  The biggest reason I can see why you might not support my proposal is because your actual objection has nothing to do with balance within the article, it's that you simply don't want this reported in any more detail anywhere, no matter what the article.  Msnicki (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm trying right now with my proposal. No, you are not. The other three editors who have replied thus far have expressed opposition to the idea of creating a new article, and your response is essentially, "I will create it anyways because it is not an egregious enough violation to merit sanction." You have invented the argument that that the issue is "balance within the article," because you think that is an argument you can game. I have not made that argument, and it is the height of hypocrisy for someone who claims to have strong feelings regarding intellectual integrity to prop up such an obvious straw man for themselves. Again, WP:Recentism is an essay. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with VQuakr. A spinoff is a POVFORK.  This is a career-ending incident, but this man has served less than one year in the U.S. Senate. Perspective and WP:UNDUE applies.  One editor here has an obsession with destroying this individual, I don't know why there is a need to bounce the rubble.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Is a personal attack really helpful? I do not have an obsession with "destroying" him.  His career is already destroyed and he did it all by himself in 2007.  Msnicki (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, your apparent but undisclosed personal agenda is clearly getting in the way here. You're bouncing the rubble.  Create a POV fork and hope you don't get dragged to ANI for being POINT-y. As for WHERE it is placed (education versus campaign) I frankly don't give a flying F--k about that so long as neither section has an unneeded breakout subsection.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing I haven't disclosed. You, another story, I suspect.  I'm a Democrat, have been for decades, I've canvassed door-to-door for them, I give them money and I agree with the Democrats on everything but gun control.  I didn't even know who Walsh was before the NYT article appeared.  My interest in the issue is exactly as I've described:  I teach at a university (I don't just grade papers like you do), I've had to report plagiarism and the experience has sensitized me to the issue and the seriousness with which it's treated.  That made it easy for me to read the NYT's evidence and realize this was an incredibly blatant case.  On a 1 to 10 scale, it was a 12.  Msnicki (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The experience has sensitized me to the issue... Which is a problem, because your strong feelings on the topic are bleeding into your edits and your behavior as an editor. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but AGF and stop the personal attacks. I am an instructor as well, not "just a grader" or whatever insult you want to dish out. I have an advanced degree and am an adjunct college instructor in addition to my day job (I was also a high school teacher in the past) I know plagiarism issues and have even confronted students on these issues. So get a grip, get out of your ivory tower and into the real world; if we want to destroy the careers of every individual who made these sorts of mistakes, we'd be firing people from jobs by the thousands. Yes, plagiarism is bad. No, it is not the same as murder or something; get a grip. You do seem obsessed: trust me, one 14 page term paper from years ago should not define a person's entire life. He should have flunked the class, sure, and maybe the degree revocation was appropriate (though I question the academic rigor of the Army War College if a14-page term paper was a "master's thesis") but let's have a little perspective here. Sheesh. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/N Notification
This article is the subject of a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Walsh (U.S. politician). 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/20130518202505/http://montana.kiwanisone.org/Files/Districts/3756/Documents/2013%20Speakers.pdf to http://montana.kiwanisone.org/Files/Districts/3756/Documents/2013%20Speakers.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) 04:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)