Talk:Kathy McGuiness

NPOV
This article does not seem neutral, in fact it reads like a campaign page. For example, "McGuiness is known as a political outsider who fights for those who do not have a voice" and "Since January 2019, the State Auditor's Office has accomplished much and made huge strides in spite of having fewer resources than it had in Fiscal Year 2008." Most of the article needs to be either rephrased or deleted. DifferenceTone (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)DifferenceTone
 * Since none of this text is still in the article, I will take down the POV template now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Indictment details in lead
, you are adding content to the lead that is not mentioned in the main article body, as well as adding a redundant citation to a source that is already in the article (diff). The lead is supposed to be "a summary of the article's most important contents" and should "summarize any prominent controversies". Importantly, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" (see MOS:LEAD). Redundant citations are also not needed (see MOS:LEADCITE), and the citation format you keep adding to the lead is also inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the citations in the article (see WP:CITEVAR). If you think additional information should be in the article, then you should add that into the main body first. Then we could try to figure out how to summarize that, but all the details of the indictment (such as the specific number of charges and what they were for) are not needed in the lead. I am not sure why you are removing her not guilty plea. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First you claim that I added material not in the main body, but then you claim I added a redundant citation. So which is it? If the information is in a reliable source that's already in the article, how is that a problem? I suggested you review LEAD, which says: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also says: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows." Both of which argue for an enlarged lead section, not a shrunken one. I also pointed you to MOS:NOTLEDE, which is pretty self-explanatory for why we provide more information, not less. As well as MOS:DONTTEASE, which says: "Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia." You pointed me to MOS:LEADCITE. But it is unclear if you thoroughly reviewed it yourself, because it clearly says: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
 * Also, you claimed that I removed her guilty plea. But the fact is, I didn't. You did here. My view is that her defense should definitely be restored and included. Just as I also think the charges should be more fleshed out. There are two felony and 3 misdemeanor charges. They should each be explained in the article, not just listed. The indictment is online, so we can excerpt directly from it. We should also link to it. As well as her vigorous claims of innocence. Both sides should be thoroughly referenced and included. More in the lead, but much more completely in the article itself. So perhaps on that we agree? If so - and even if not - let's discuss here; and work on something we can both be satisfied with. Before either of us antagonizes the other by editing there before we're done. So I'll reset it to before your last edit, because that came after my suggestion that we discuss any concerns here. I do think we can also agree that it's a very sparse article right now. So there is more than ample room for expansion and improvement. X4n6 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears you have a decision to make. You can either edit war or you can edit collaboratively. You can't do both. Because at the moment, it appears you'd prefer to edit war. X4n6 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The diff you provided says "In October 2021, she was indicted on felony and misdemeanor charges for misconduct in office, to which she has pleaded not guilty." I never removed any content about her pleading not guilty, but I did move a quote by her lawyer into the main body after you had added it to the lead when was never discussed elsewhere. I do not share your view that length is the most important aspect of a lead as the lead is supposed to summarize the article contents, and not be focused on one particular controversy. Additional details about other aspects of her life would be helpful in the lead, and it would also be helpful to find additional content for the main article body. As I said, you should add the material you were putting into the lead into the main body in some way first, and then we could discuss how to summarize that information. If we do decide that a citation is needed in the lead, then it should be the same footnote as the rest of them, rather than a new one in a different citation format. Please also stop restoring the contested material until we can reach some kind of consensus. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, you've escalated this. Despite repeated requests that you not do so here and here, the request above and a formal 3RR warning on your talk page that you dismissed and removed here, you've still chosen to deliberately edit war. So at the moment, there's no point in continuing with you. Your choice now is to either self-revert your last article edit, then begin to edit collaboratively - or be reported and risk another block for edit warring like the one you received last year. X4n6 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Would be best, if you both reached a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , it takes more than one person participating in a discussion to reach a compromise. Feel free to express your opinion since it appears that X4n6 is refusing to participate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bring the disputed text before me & I'll try to trim it down. TBH though, it's not required in the lead, as it's already in the article body. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really sure that a mediator is what's needed right now, but I do genuinely appreciate your willingness to help. I do think what's needed first is for the user to acknowledge, then abide by, the rules of collaborative editing. Because it's useless to proceed without that understanding. Which is why the user is currently at ANI. After the disposition there, I'd definitely welcome your input in building consensus. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant the WP:EW page. But yeah, I'll wait until the situation has cleared up. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant WP:AN/3. But thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The page has been protected for 2-weeks. Best ya'll iron things out, during that time period. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So I see. As I said there, no clue what it's supposed to accomplish. The issue was never one of controversial or factually contested content on a BLP. Just what should go in the lead vs the rest of the article. And it leaves warring behavior and reverting during discussion unaddressed. Which with this user, will undoubtedly greenlight the continuation of that behavior. X4n6 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the other individual chooses 'not' to participate in this content discussion? Then I'll view it as silent consensus on his part, for your proposal, when the page protection expires. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. The dispute boils down to a simple issue. The subject was recently indicted on 5 criminal counts: 2 felonies and 3 misdemeanors. Both she and her attorney have said she's innocent. I believe that information should be mentioned, just that succinctly, in the lead and fleshed out more thoroughly within the article itself. That's it. The other user, primarily, seems to object to any mention of any of it in the lead. Beyond what is just basic good editing IMO, I also point to MOS:LEAD and others to support my view. What are your thoughts? X4n6 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't see the need for it in the lead, when it's already in the article body. If she resigns or is impeached/convicted? Then I definitely would add it in. But, that's only my view. It's quite possible, an RFC may be required for 'more' input. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. But LEAD does say: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." So what's the justification for omitting it? It can't just be because it's in the article. The content in most leads is also covered in the articles. But sure, I have no problem with an RFC. X4n6 (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to prevent its inclusion. My main goal here, is to prevent either of you from ending up blocked PS:, please chime in. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you, but I'm not in any danger. Been around too long and have the battle scars to prove it. That's why I just report edit-warring now, instead of allowing myself to get sucked into it. I even gave the other user the chance to self-revert to prevent getting reported. But he wasn't interested. So here we are. As to the proposed edit, since you won't object to it, are you agreeing now, still disagreeing or abstaining? If you think I'm not following LEAD, I'm certainly willing to hear why. X4n6 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I don't see the need to add it. I won't revert you, if you do add it. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In a past life, were you ever Switzerland? :) Got it. X4n6 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , please stop falsely claiming that I have attempted to take the material entirely out of the lead, especially considering that you previously did remove it entirely from the lead: . I later removed the material pending the outcome of our discussion here, while you continued to revert your preferred version into the article. The issue is whether to include the excessive amount of detail you are putting into the lead, including details that you have refused to put into the main body, which you have not edited once. I am not sure if this is a continuation of some vendetta since your ANI complaint against me was dismissed, but it needs to stop. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , here are the two ways I tried to include the content about the recent indictment in the lead:
 * "McGuiness was indicted in 2021 for fraud and other misconduct in office and has denied the charges."
 * "In October 2021, she was indicted on felony and misdemeanor charges for misconduct in office, to which she has pleaded not guilty."
 * Here is the version that X4n6 has repeatedly put into the article:
 * "On October 11, 2021, she was charged in a two felony, three misdemeanor indictment, with official misconduct, intimidation and theft, among other charges."
 * I do not feel very strongly about including the indictment in the lead, and I am fine with the suggestion that we simply leave it out, as the article is a short read already. However, if the content is added to the lead, it should not be done in a way that gives this one part of the article subject's life more prominence than the rest of her biography. I also do not think that the number of charges and specific legal titles of the charges are needed in the lead, and I do not think that a specific day of the month is needed in the lead either. Inconsistent citation formats and multiple footnote numbers for citations already in the article should definitely not be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Will you agree to an RFC on this topic, as well? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think regular talk page discussion is more appropriate for now, as editors are supposed to make a reasonable effort to resolve issues before starting an WP:RFC. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I said this very early on:
 * First you claim that I added material not in the main body, but then you claim I added a redundant citation. So which is it? If the information is in a reliable source that's already in the article, how is that a problem? I suggested you review LEAD, which says: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." It also says: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows." Both of which argue for an enlarged lead section, not a shrunken one. I also pointed you to MOS:NOTLEDE, which is pretty self-explanatory for why we provide more information, not less. As well as MOS:DONTTEASE, which says: "Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia." You pointed me to MOS:LEADCITE. But it is unclear if you thoroughly reviewed it yourself, because it clearly says: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
 * Also, you claimed that I removed her guilty plea. But the fact is, I didn't. You did here. My view is that her defense should definitely be restored and included. Just as I also think the charges should be more fleshed out. There are two felony and 3 misdemeanor charges. They should each be explained in the article, not just listed. The indictment is online, so we can excerpt directly from it. We should also link to it. As well as her vigorous claims of innocence. Both sides should be thoroughly referenced and included. More in the lead, but much more completely in the article itself. So perhaps on that we agree? If so - and even if not - let's discuss here; and work on something we can both be satisfied with. Before either of us antagonizes the other by editing there before we're done. So I'll reset it to before your last edit, because that came after my suggestion that we discuss any concerns here. I do think we can also agree that it's a very sparse article right now. So there is more than ample room for expansion and improvement. X4n6 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the indictment is online. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY it should not be used for direct excerpts. At best it can be used as an additional source for any excerpts already mentioned in secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite all the noise, gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes that has occurred since, my view was pretty clear then and it hasn't changed. X4n6 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * X4n6, reposting a comment that you already made and to which I already responded is not helpful towards reaching a consensus, especially when it repeats obvious falsehoods (disproven even by your own diffs). It would be nice if you would actually engage in a discussion about the content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What would be nice is if you read it, abided by it and responded to it appropriately. Keep the rest of your ridiculous claims to yourself and confine your remarks exclusively to the content. X4n6 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)