Talk:Scott Schwab

Disenfranchisement
Restoring inappropriate whitewashing of article by stalker. Schwab's job is to protect the franchise and facilitate the rights of legitimate voters. In his lack of follow-up to complaints by, i.e., Kansas residents attending out-of-state schools, the military, or whatever, his behavior is notable. Per this RSS report, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, Kris Kobach. The ACLU notes that they have received disenfranchisement complaints from seven Kansas voters with the same experience. These complaints were not solicited, but rather those deprived of absentee ballots contacted the ACLU for assistance. It's likely that a much greater number of voters were disenfranchised, whether through intent or simple incompetence, but Schwab doesn't need to have his actions hidden by a Wikipedia editor. He's claimed he's wanted to work out problems with disenfranchisement and to avoid litigation, yet has criticized the ACLU for continuing to represent the plaintiffs in the Fish v. Schwab case, formerly Fish v. Kobach. He's ignored the ACLU's request to resolve the current lack of assistance that should have been given to legitimate voters who requested absentee ballots. Activist (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per my comment below the link between this BLP and the content in question is weak. This is a coatrack and implies that Schwab may have be doing something dishonest vs say Covid-19 making it hard for officials to handle a huge surge in absentee voting this election.  This looks like great content for an article about Kansas voting in 2020 but not in this person's BLP article. Springee (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your new edits don’t address the coatrack nature of the material and are still undue. You have made approximately 1/3 of the article about a legal case that Schwann inherited vs caused. Springee (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed as UNDUE and a coatrack. The part about the Harvard student was simply UNDUE as it isn't even clear if it was the motivation for the lawsuit or some background on one of the plaintiffs. The part about an inherited lawsuit again is only tangentially related to Schwab as a person. That he was critical of the lawsuit or that the plaintiffs weren't happy with his actions is hardly due for inclusion in a BLP about Schwab. It may be useful information in an article about voting in Kansas but not in this article. WP:ONUS states that the burden of justifying inclusion is on the editor wishing to add new content. If we can't reach a consensus here perhaps a RfC or noticeboard discussion would be helpful. Springee (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ballot access
I removed this content as Undue []. The source only briefly mentioned Schwab late in the text. The material added to the wiki article doesn't mention Schwab at all. The included text seems to imply Schwab is somehow deliberately preventing absentee ballots from being distributed yet the parent article says no such thing. Additionally the name and other details of the student is excess puffery that attempts to appeal to emotions. That sort of puffery shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article. Springee (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

14 July edits
I reversed part of a recent series of edits on the grounds of IMPARTIAL and because one of the sources fails RS. The edits were restored without proper justification []. Truthout is not a RS. The following two sentences fail impartial,
 * "He added that was not interested in rolling back standards crafted by the former chair of the Kansas Republican Party and then-incumbent Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who had lost numerous court cases over his efforts to curtail the ability to vote among women, minorities, and students, and who challenged the citizenship of President Barak Obama."
 * "In July 2021, Schwab opposed the passage of the federal "For the People Act," which would have protected the rights of minority voters against Republican attempts at disenfranchisement."

In both cases the material is presented in a clear, one sided fashion. The first example seems to be a coatrack to say things about Kobach. The second sentence is clearly partisan in it's presentation of the For the People Act. Springee (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no defense of this recently added material I've again removed it. I left the part about registering for the 2022 election.  It's RECENT but IMPARTIAL and is about Schwab vs Kobach.  Springee (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)