Talk:Matt Shea

Untitled
I added some accurate references. There are others. I did not add the one that shows him in a negative light that Corvus removed, but it was a RS for a matter tthat did affect his professional role as a politician.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Matthew Shea
Same article subject, box needs to be moved here  Gold   Standard  20:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
A "manifesto" is a public statement of intentions, motives, or views. Shea has categorized the document as a summary of a sermon series (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/26/rep-matt-shea-takes-credit-criticism-for-document-/), so labeling it as a manifesto could be construed as biased. Similarly with "chilling prescription": it is not clear from the document alone that this is something he is recommending or prescribing based on the document alone—although from the same article above, the Spokane County Sheriff believes so. Stating that the sheriff thinks that it is a "how-to" manual (as a secondary source) could conceivably be a more encyclopedic approach to this. Also, there is no citation describing Shea's 10/24 acknowledgment. —Dajagr (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019
Hi can we actually explicitly link this dude to the far-right groups he is in contact with so that when you google him you can see that he's a literal nazi. Tedburb (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~   {talk}  04:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Matt Shea (politician) → Matt Shea – WP:TWODABS ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support and revert undiscussed move from 12 April 2019. The politician was the de facto primary topic until the filmmaker's article was created a few months ago, and the filmmaker does not appear to have sufficient significance nor |Matt_Shea_(journalist)|Matt_Shea_(politician)|Matt_Shea_(filmmaker)|Matt_Shea_(documentary_filmmaker) reader interest to justify a change. Remove the dab page and use a hatnote. PC78 (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, should not have been moved in the first place per above. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 15:34, 17 August 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.

Expulsion
Note, there are a number of sources out there indicating that if he is expelled he would be the second in the history of the Washington State Legislature, with the currently only expulsion being Nelson G. Robinson. See https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/with-shea-under-investigation-a-look-back-at-the-only-washington-house-member-ever-expelled/ for enough to create an article on the person.Naraht (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced URLs
, can you explain the relevance of the two URLs you just added back to the article? They are appended to Shea was initially charged with possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle without a concealed weapons permit; the charge was ultimately resolved under a "stipulated order of continuance," in which "Shea paid a $75 fee and agreed that the information in the police report is correct" and the charge was dismissed after the passage of one year with no criminal violations., yet neither URL mentions the charge at all. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox (successor, term end, etc)
, could you two have a conversation here rather than arguing in edit summaries? Thanks. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of Office and succeeded by Rob Chase
Matt Shea's term ended on January 11, 2021 and he was succeeded by Rob Chase. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then that's what you need to put in your annotation edits from the get go - whatever you put before made no lick of sense. It made no sense because Bob McAslin Jr was already in that field. Based on your edits, you should have annotated "wrong succession" or something to that effect. Also start annotating all of your wikipedia edits - it's wikipedia policy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede
I appreciate the reminder of what a lede section is and does, but was confused to find that you don't seem to have read the lede section of this article. If "ledes don't require context" and one ought to have to "read the body of the article" to find out about allegations of terrorism made against Shea, you'll presumably want to remove the plentiful context and explanation contained a few lines further down in the lede. The issue isn't what's in the lede section – the allegations are described there as they ought to be – but whether it's useful or appropriate to mention the allegations in the first sentence. In other words, there's no shortage of context in the lede section, which is why it does a disservice to readers to try and reduce complex issues into a soundbite in the first sentence. The reader learns from that sentence, frankly, nothing more than that Wikipedia editors don't much like the guy. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you are making a disingenuous argument at this point. First you state the lede needs context, only to start this thread and noting there is context. I don't see what your issue is at this point. The first line of the lede is a nutshell. The third paragraph is a summary of his domestic terrorist ties. If you want to expand on his political legacy that you feel needs mentioning, add it to the lede. But don't give it undue weight - holding an ineffectual position is nothing compared to passing actual legislation. I feel the lede is pretty good as it is. He's obviously a far-right extremist, and that needs to be summarized in the lede. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so much an argument as an expression of confusion, but the salient distinction is between context in the first sentence and context in the lede. I said the former was lacking, to which you responded that the latter was lacking, and rightly so – but it's not, and they're different matters. I hope that clears things up, and I think we're on broadly the same page here. The most obvious solution, to my mind, is a first paragraph like: "Matthew Thomas Shea (born April 18, 1974) is a far-right American politician, attorney and pastor. A Republican, he represented the 4th Legislative District in the Washington House of Representatives from 2009 to 2021. A 2019 report published by the Washington House of Representatives accused Shea of domestic terrorism in relation to his role in a series of standoffs with federal authorities." That way the context is there in the first paragraph and no one's left wondering who accused him of terrorism or why. What do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh I know what you're trying to say, but I'm in total disagreement with your claim that "context" is needed in an opening sentence of a lede. That's silly talk because you'd have a run-on opening sentence if you tried to include context. It's very appropriate for a lede to be as concise as possible. If you want to learn more of the summary, read more of the lede. If you want to learn more of the details, read the whole article and pertinent sections. The opening sentence doesn't need context. It's succinct and to the point.
 * On this matter, I think you're splitting hairs, and it happens to be about the very issue many naysayers delete all the time. If I didn't know any better, your edits would be almost indistinguishable from anonymous IP edits, partly because you didn't add the needed context you claim the lede needs, and partly because it was, strictly speaking, a wholesale deletion on a false premise - there is context in the lede, you just have to have read past the very first period. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ae you going to say what you think of the proposal above? (I'm keen to hear what others think too.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing to, I think the second version is a more informative first para for readers, and is more appropriate wording for an encyclopedia article. I think it also is more WP:NPOV, as I don't find any reliable sources labelling Shea as a domestic terrorist (accused or otherwise), but only stating that he was accused in the report.  Schazjmd   (talk)  17:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is fine. I wish that had been your very first edit. Wholesale deletion citing BLPCRIME made no sense. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

People accused of crime - WP:BLPCRIME
Per the latest removal of "accused domestic terrorist", WP:BLPCRIME was cited for needing context. BLPCRIME says nothing about context being required in the lede. What it does say is this: Correct, which is why the lede says "accused". Redundant. The lede already states he's accused, which assumes innocence until proven guilty. And the rule stops with this one, because Matt Shea was a public figure. Anything after this sentence doesn't apply. N/A.
 * A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.
 * Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
 * For individuals who are not public figures...
 * If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes...

BLPCRIME has nothing else to say on the matter. Why it was cited draws interrobangs from me. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable reading of the letter of the policy but a stretch as far as the spirit of the policy is concerned. It's obviously not a good thing for the encyclopaedia if we read WP:BLPCRIME as saying "don't suggest low-profile people have been convicted of crimes when they haven't, but making the same suggestions about high-profile people is a-okay". The intricacies of how to apply the policy have obviously widely discussed so there's little sense treating it as though it were unambiguous and straightforward to apply in every case. In this case I don't think "accused" is nearly as clear-cut as you think. I don't know if there's much need to discuss this particular issue further, at least not here – I'm offering this just as a clarification and in the expectation it might continue to be an issue for this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I will add one response to this, but it really didn't need any. Spirit of the policy doesn't apply. If it was intended a certain way, it should be written a certain way. If it's outdated, then perhaps wiki policy should rewritten? Either way, it's neither here nor there. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)