Talk:Lee J. Carter

Still being red-baited?
One simply can't prove that Carter 'is still subject to red baiting by the GOP' by referring to that tweet. Although the tweet is dated 4 August 2018, the mailer is from October 2017 (see comments), before the hammer and sickle incident; it's the one already mentioned in the section on his campaign. Carter complains about 'rhetoric similar to that mailer' but doesn't give specific examples. FNAS (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2019

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

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   20:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lee Carter (politician) → Lee J. Carter – Usually called with J. for instance on Twitter page and Facebook page. So you can take the job from his name for this one, I think. --Quiz shows 06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   19:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per WP:NATURALDAB. This is the name used on his social media profiles and is what he's listed at on the Assembly website, so it seems common enough to me. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:NATURAL.  Calidum   00:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


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

Unsupported by source
The line about "centrist Democrats" is entirely unsupported by the source. The source only says Democrats, nothing about "centrist" or "New". This bit of WP:OR is a gross violation of WP:BLP and must be removed immediately. In fact, I'm going to do it right now, and I'll keep doing it, once every few days, unless and until it is actually sourced.

Ok, now someone edit-warred to revert this change. They added citations, but none of them support the slur about "centrist Democrats" attacking Lee with "redbaiting". This is original research. Please do not revert this change until you discuss it here and get some consensus about the sources actually supporting it.


 * You must find consensus to remove the sourced material, not your personal whims. You indicated that you find "centrist" a slur, which is tellingly an indication of being non-neutral (biased). I also previously asked what Black Lives Matter has to do with anything here, but you did not respond to that either. Do not edit war, nor make things up like asserting things are "less seriously" and say them in Wikipedia's voice. We can only report what reliable third party sources say, not what you personally think is a joke. My best guess is IP seems to be acting to edit on behalf Mark Keam, given their insistence on the phrasing used to describe him/his actions, both in the text changes to the article, the edit summaries, and this talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you restored a duplicate article, an unreliable source, and two bits of WP:OR entirely unsupported by the remaining sources. You're way out of line. If you think these terms belong, go find a source to support them. If you can't, live with it. If you edit war, I will have you blocked.
 * Don't make threats, per WP:BRD you must find consensus to make this change to a BLP. You have not, but chosen to edit-war to get your personal view (or Mark Keam's preference) published. You seem to have a COI on this matter, which is a serious issue if you do not disclose that you are editing on his behalf. JesseRafe (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop edit-warring and threatening me or I'll report you.

Hey, Jesse, how come you won't discuss this issue instead of edit-warring and threatening me? 24.47.152.65 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you refuse to engage in conversation about the actual policies and instead edit-war. I told you to leave the page as it was until there was consensus per BRD, yet you acted unilaterally to restore your preferred version (without any consensus). You are an SPA (single purpose account) pushing a POV, you're not editing neutrally, you're not assuming good faith, you're not respecting the sources, and, I suspect, you have a COI with regards to Mark Keam. You're also engaging in the classic troll behavior of gaslighting, because as can easily be seen above you clearly threaten me with a block, and then you're next comment is to accuse me of threatening you when I've done nothing of the sort. Come on, how lazy an attempt is that? Engage with the sources and respect the conventions we have here at Wikipedia, and don't expect your pet projects and personal views to trump actual sourced material. JesseRafe (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an account, I'm a person. You're an account. And I don't need your agreement to remove unsourced material. Not a single citation supports "red-baiting" or "centrist", so there's no excuse for you edit-warring to keep those in.

And now that I've reported you, you're following up on your bullying by demanding that I be "looked into". No wonder nobody edits Wikipedia anymore: you people are toxic to noobs. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources do say "red-baiting", and even if they didn't it's plain English. You're getting tiresome, and need I remind you, I've never once been bullying -- you've threatened me numerous times all while flouting the rules and you have been expressly warned against using this exact type of aggressive antagonistic language (such as calling someone a bully or a vandal) on your own ANI -- that's why you're behavior should be looked into, for your own toxicity (it's so charming how you wantonly and predictably keep accusing me of what you're doing). You still have not made one single actionable appeal to policy, other than a weird attempt to get "BLM" invoked. You also have failed to look up what is meant by WP:BRD or WP:Consensus and keep on abusing your editing privileges. You might even be a sock-puppet of the logged-in user, who until recently, always made edits in concert with you. Until you have anything meaningful to add, please let the issue slide until you've done some reading on the policies we have here, there are helpful links on your talk page. Because I'm so "toxic to noobs" I had even left you those handy reference links on your "welcome" when you made your first (or "first"?) edit three weeks ago. JesseRafe (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The IP is right, none of the sources support the claim that centrist democrats red-baited Carter, so I've removed that. They describe specifically what Ream did, but do not define that as red-baiting, so if we were to use that label it would constitute original research. Additionally, one of the sources was a tweet. Tweets are considered WP:SPS and cannot be used to support claims of fact, only to show the account operator's opinion about something that directly impacts themselves. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate to use the term "red-baiting" at all. In the sources provided, that term is only used by The Jacobin, a source with an extreme leftist point of view. In the Slate article it's mentioned in a quote. Thus the Slate article would be a reliable source for the claim "Annie Shields called this red-baiting" but not for the claim "this is red-baiting". I think we should remove the label "red-baiting" and just describe exactly what happened. That would be more neutral and would better inform our readers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created a section on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get additional opinions on the issue . Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Poking fun at someone for allegedly being sympathetic to communism falls far short of red-baiting. Red-baiting was a serious attack used by people like McCarthy. It wasn't about poking fun, it was about destroying their targets. Nobody's trying to destroy Lee Carter with this, especially not any Democrats. This is hyperbole from an unreliable, extremist source. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion, which is counter to the standard definition of the term, which is also how it happens to be defined on this very encyclopedia. The mailer and Keams's "joke" were both textbook incidents fitting the term, this is the plain objective reading. Your scare-mongering and aspersions cast about "extermist" sources is also on-its-face your own non-neutral POV showing, and thus you are not editing from an NPOV as required. Moreover, Red Rock Canyon, please note that the IP has not responded to concerns about their potential COI with regard to Keam or the strong likelihood they are affiliated with user FNAS as their earlier edits were all in conjunction with that user. For this reason, I find it hard to reconcile "Everyone on the talk page" as being valid, we should hear from additional parties, not just you and "IP/FNAS/Mark Keam". JesseRafe (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you, but for some reason, nobody else seems to be persuaded by your original research, and your ongoing edit-warring is really not making you any friends. Maybe you should drop the stick and back away from the horse.

Oh, and the reason I didn't respond about Keam or FNAS is that I don't know who they are. I do know you're making wild accusations and violating WP:AGF, though. Are there any other policies you're violating? 24.47.152.65 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's good you've brought up SYNTH, because that's what that your version of that sentence is. Jacobin says "His Republican opponents distributed red-baiting mailers comparing him to Stalin". That is is the only time "red-baiting" is mentioned in the sources. You use that source to describe a completely separate incident, (Keam's idiotic "joke") as red-baiting as well, even though no sources describe it as such. Additionally, even if that specific incident were "red-baiting", nowhere does any source state or imply that "fellow democrats" are doing it. A single fellow democrat did it. You cannot use a source saying "person X did Y" to make the claim "group Z did Y", even if person X is part of group Z. Also, it's not just the talk page now, the only other editor who commented on the issue at RSN also say you are wrong. Basically, I don't see a single other person supporting your version of the text, and yet you are claiming consensus. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to the synthesis, the sources only mention a single instance of red-baiting, which occurred during his campaign. Putting this sentence in the "In office" section is implying that this is an ongoing, continuing issue, which is not supported in the sources. More and more, I think this whole sentence should simply be removed. The mailers are already discussed in "First political campaign" section, and the incident with Keam stands on its own; it doesn't need this introduction. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The more I look at it, the less sense that sentence makes. It just doesn't belong. Speaking of which, did you notice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red-baiting&diff=898584940&oldid=898327519 ? 24.47.152.65 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here and at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I've removed the sentence that mentions red-baiting. Many of the sources there discussed Keam's putting up a hammer and sickle behind Carter while he was speaking, so I've moved those sources into the next section, which is about that incident. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Keam's behavior
In this edit, IP 24.47.152.65 removed quite a bit of text using the justification "can't jump from statement about R's into example involving D's, so shortening while keeping all citations." That is not a valid justification under any Wikipedia policy. Perhaps there are good reasons for removing this material, but as it stands, it's well-sourced and relevant to the article topic, so I've reinstated it for now. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this incident is minor compared to what was cut. Carter described Kean's behavior as a joke in poor taste: a joke. In contrast, there used to be reference to Republican opponent Jackson H. Miller sent out a mailer with a dead-serious attack on Carter as a Communist.
 * So while I'm not strongly against keeping the Kean incident, I think it's not all that important compared to the Miller one. Any objections to my writing up the events based largely on the above reference? 24.47.152.65 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Military service education
This was raised at BLPN Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard by some IP but I don't think they are going to come back. The IP claims that the subject could not have attended the USMC Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy because of their time in service and so likely rank. Mostly this seems to be a non-issue since the claim is sourced to the Virginia House of Delegates official website which seems to be good enough for this sort of thing and we cannot rely on OR. But it did strike me as I remarked at BLPN, that maybe this confusion arises due to different meanings of the term. The source simply says "Education: USMC, Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy". To me saying they attended the USMC Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy seems a reasonable interpretation of this. And as I remarked, even if all they did was a correspondence course through the academy in some contexts this is likely to be considered "attended". Still if "attended" is likely to be considered physically attended the academy but what the website doesn't really say that just that it was part of their education, maybe we could reworded our article to better reflect the source and avoid any possible confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Second child
I'm not quite sure how to word the bit about announcing Carter's child with Violet Rae. While the announcement was posted on Rae's Twitter, Carter immediately retweeted it, so should I reword it to something like "Carter and his partner, Violet Rae, announced that they were having a child"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshakhad (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LeeJCarter.jpg