Talk:Roger Marshall/Archive 1

Senate primary IP edits
On August 7, 2020, an IP editor deleted properly sourced text to this article breaking a citation in the process. I restored and added to the removed text, from the NY Times and Kansas City Star articles that had been cited. Activist (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Roger Marshall (politician)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Roger Marshall (politician)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "charge": From Matt Gaetz: Reps. Mo Brooks, Bradley Byrne at forefront of GOP charge into impeachment room, AL.com, Paul Gattis, October 23, 2019. Retrieved October 27, 2019. From Jim Jordan (American politician):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My printer is down and I hope to get it sorted out in the next couple of days. I'll print out the two stories and make some determination about the differences between them, if any. There are a number of tweets from a reporter who covered the story and the story was updated once likely with small correction or addition. Activist (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Marshall flouting COVID guidelines and holding events with no mask
It obviously belongs in the article and it was covered by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed content which said "Even as coronavirus cases were surging, Marshall held events where people were not required to wear face masks." The source was this article. The only mention of masks in the whole article is "In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, Bollier stopped holding public events, shifting to virtual town halls. Marshall continued holding events and, as recently as August, wasn't wearing a mask." We don't know where these events were (inside? outside? speaking from a podium?), how many attendees there were, if social distancing was observed, or if attendees were wearing masks. The article simply says he held events while not personally wearing a mask. Which really isn't very notable absent any context. It's not like he got caught sexting his mistress 🤣 Marquardtika (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * He repeatedly appeared indoors without a mask and surrounded by maskless attendees, which multiple RS have made note of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that the coverage here is significant enough to mention an appropriate, brief mention. Neutralitytalk 04:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As I explained above, my edit removed unverified content from the article. No one seems to be disagreeing with that. If you want to find some new sources to say what you want to say, go for it. I'd leave opinion editorials out, though. Marquardtika (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

False claims
Roger Marshall claims "Fastest female sprinter in the 🌎 has a lifetime record of 49.26 seconds for the 400-meter." https://www.instagram.com/p/CL9eUtsHS64/

Wouldn't he benefit from reading the Wikipedia section 400_metres? --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion with Fauci
, your edit here [] is wrong on two grounds. First, it conflicts with the other source with specifically says, "Marshall said his office had been unable to find the information." The content you restored included speculation on the part of Factcheck.org that Marshall was unaware of the rules. This is problematic on several grounds. First, you added this speculation in Wiki voice rather than attributing to Factcheck.org. Second, it conflicts with the other source which specifically said Marshalls office was unable to find the information. Why would they search if they didn't think the material was available? If you want to keep Factcheck's opinion with attribution I guess that would be fine. However, it fails NPOV to remove the information that makes it clear Marshall's office was trying to find the records. Please justify your changes. Springee (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Marshall's office may have been unable to find the information but the information is readily available. By adding text saying they were unable to find the info, the article gives the impression that there's a conspiracy to hide the info from Marshall. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Factcheck.org only confirmed that the pre-2019 material was available. It doesn't say which year Marshall was trying to find.  Regardless, none of that supports the speculative claim you are trying to add.  Additionally, that doesn't justify removal of the statement that Marshall's office was unable to find the information.  Why include a speculative claim from one source but not a statement from Marshall that says they weren't able to find the information?  Perhaps this needs some additional eyes.  Springee (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean when you say it is speculative. By my reading it states as fact that his statement created the appearance that he was unaware of the relevant federal law. It's common wording in such sources to allow them to state something unequivocally without having to engage in speculation about his mindset - if they said "he may have been unaware" or the like, that would be speculative.  But saying that it appeared that he was unaware of it is a statement of fact, not speculation. --Aquillion (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a BLPN discussion here. Springee (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)