Talk:Todd Rokita

Text fails to explain Rokita's role in throwing out 2020 results
The text just vaguely says that Rokita signed on to a lawsuit that contested the election results. It omits that Biden won the election, Trump refused to concede, the claims of fraud were false, and that the lawsuit sought to "scuttle all the votes cast for president in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, and to have the Republican-controlled legislatures in those states appoint Trump electors, instead of the Joe Biden electors chosen by the people." The text should clarify the context behind Rokita's action and explain what the action actually entailed, just as RS do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here. It seems there's been a recent, concerted effort here to modify the text in a way that fails to make clear what Rokita was supporting. That omission is inconsistent with the RS and also is not consonant with WP:EVALFRINGE. Neutralitytalk 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not for us to say what Rokita was 'supporting' as we dont really know. Im fine with sticking to what the RS's say, no need to editorialize or omit portions you dont like. For example, when we state that "Two days later, Rokita tweeted that he would always support Trump's presidency." we also need to include the fact that he later issued a statement clarifying his position and his opposition to the capitol hill violence as i did here. Likewise with the statement that his twitter account was suspended.  Seems like a pretty big omission to leave out the fact that twitter later backed off and said the statement was not a violation of there policy.  Bonewah (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And once again, it would seem you two are eager to have Wikipedia say what you *think* Rokita inferred, rather than what he actually said. diff Bonewah (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (1) A self-sourced statement that was doing an "experiment in free speech" or some other BS does not belong in the article. We stick to what RS say, not press releases that politicians themselves release. This edit should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (2) We should not obfuscate that he implied that the 2020 election was stolen by repeating verbatim what said without explaining the context (readers 30 years from now will have no clue what he's saying and why it's relevant). The IndyStar writes that it was "a Valentine's Day-themed tweet from Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita that implied the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump." Again, we should stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between explaining the context and suppressing facts. Likewise with preferring what a newspaper thinks a subject implied vs what they actually said. Readers 30 years from now will have no clue what he's (was) saying because you are actively suppressing what he was saying. Likewise with the context.  You are removing only context which you dont like, such as the fact that twitter said he tweet didnt violate policy or that he released a statement about his tweets.  Your claim that his own statements dont belong in an article about him is utter nonsense. WP:SELFSOURCE makes clear that this sort of sourcing is perfectly acceptable. By the way, RS's do talk about his statement, i just didnt site them as there is no reason not to simply cite his statement directly. here for one, which, by the way, does not say Rokita implied anything. So, I assume you are ok with me changing the the text in this regard as we must "stick to what RS say"? Or is that only when RS's say what you want to hear? Bonewah (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So now you've removed any mention at all of Rokita's stolen election claims, with the absurd edit summary, "Per talk, changing text to reflect what RS's say." This seems pretty WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources that say that Rokita either suggested or outright stated the election was stolen: Indiana Public Media, Indianapolis Star, The Times of Northwest Indiana Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Does this compromise edit work for everyone? Neutralitytalk 20:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that a compromise? You just reverted back to the same rejected phrasing?  Also, i cant help but notice that the Reliable source Snoog links to above does not say that "Rokita either suggested or outright stated the election was stolen". So, seeing as Snooganssnoogans has said several times that we "should stick to what RS say" and both the sources you chose to cite in the article describe it the way i phrased it and that several other reliable sources dont even so much as mention what supposedly Rokita 'implied' im changing the text to reflect exactly what the sources said. Bonewah (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying things that are false. This is what the cited source literally says: "Twitter temporarily censored Rokita after he made a post on Valentine’s Day claiming the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, your recent spate of edits is borderline WP:PROFRINGE here. Neutralitytalk 22:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then by all means you should report me. Go tell your fellow administrators that after loudly haranguing me to "stick to what RS say" you now think im promoting a fringe view because i quoted exactly what your preferred RS said verbatim. Go make the case that the most neutral way to convey information is to quote what a third party thinks was implied rather than to simply quote what was said. Bonewah (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

In this edit, Bonewah changed
 * "In 2020, after Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump refused to concede while making false claims of fraud"

to
 * "In 2020, after Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump refused to concede".

They also changed
 * "In February 2021, Rokita falsely implied on Twitter that the 2020 presidential election had been "stolen" from Trump."

with
 * "In February 2021, Rokita tweeted "You stole my heart like a 2020 election." along with a cartoon of Donald Trump."

Let's look at the source for trhe claim about the twitter post. It is here.

The very first line of the source (and the headline and the URL) says
 * "On Sunday, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita published a Valentine's Day-themed tweet on his personal Twitter account implying that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from ex-president Donald Trump."

The source goes on to say
 * "Trump has claimed he won the 2020 election despite offering no proof of widespread voter fraud. Courts in key swing states repeatedly rejected arguments made by Trump's legal team." 

Removing material that comes directly from a reliable secondary source and replacing it with material that is a quote without analysis from the primary source that the secondary source used is exactly the sort of behavior that No original research prohibits. I reverted the changes.

To avoid any misunderstanding or later backpedaling, let's lay our cards on the table.

Bonewah, yes or no, did Donald Trump refuse to concede the 2020 presidential election?

If the answer to the above is yes, did Donald Trump make claims of election fraud?

If the answer to the above is yes, were those claims false claims?

My answer is yes, yes, and yes. What say you? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, ok, ill answer that. As far as i know, yes, yes and yes. I say as far as i know because i dont really follow the all-consuming cancer that is modern US 'politcs'.  If i did, i would likely edit, say, Donald Trump's page. Or some page about the 2020 elections, ill bet there are like a thousand of those. Or Joe Biden.  Or Kamala Harris.  Or a thousand other actors in that endless play that I decline to edit.  I dont follow or edit those pages because i have no desire to relitigate the 2020 elections.  I have zero interest in anything Donald Trump says nor in the endless reactions to same.


 * What i do care about, and have great interest in, however is Neutrality. And by that i mean the pillar of Wikipedia, not the ironically named editor involved in this dispute. I believe that Wikipedia isnt so corrupted by the endless red vs. blue all vs all pointless squabbling that the core concepts that underpin the entire project no longer matter. And so lets talk about my edits then.


 * I did this edit,
 * "In 2020, after Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump refused to concede while making false claims of fraud"
 * to
 * "In 2020, after Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and Trump refused to concede".
 * Because the extra material adds no value. This isnt a page about the 2020 elections or Trumps reaction to it.  No one is coming to the Indiana AG's page to learn about Trumps claims of fraud and no one's mind is going to changed by this.  This isnt a valuable addition to Wikipedia, its simply the POV pushers Counting coup. Worse, its further leaning into the whole 'Wikipedia has a bias problem' perception just so the Snooganssnoogans of the world can enjoy a momentary, pointless victory.


 * lets take a moment to talk about some edits you didnt mention.
 * If an editor thinks that Rokita's Valentine's tweet being restricted by Twitter is important than it stands to reason that Twitter finding that the tweet in question did not violate policy is equally important. Important in the sense that selectively citing facts that support your view and suppressing ones that might contradict that view is just flat out lying. Like if you look up lying by ommission in Wikipedia, it says (lying by omission) "occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception." or, if you prefer "An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore, completely obscures the truth" Like here, for instance.


 * Or, if an editor thinks that Rokita tweeting ""I will always be for our President." is relevant, then omiting the part where he issued a statement both explaining that tweet and specifically condemning the violence in Capitol Hill is, again, lying. Which is what happened here
 * And im just now noticing the fact that the same edit removed the fact that Rokita issued his own statement condemning the capitol hill violence while leaving in the fact that he refused to sign some other letter. Yea, obscuring the truth by leaving out key facts.  Again, the definition of lying.


 * But, aside from that last one, those have all been corrected, so what? Well, two things. One, i want it recorded that this was going on and that im opposed to it. No back peddling later as you say. And two, i want it noted that you only seem interested in my behavior, and not the willful and systematic dishonesty that triggered it.


 * That leaves the Valentine's tweet. Lets just deal with the counter arguments head on.  You and Snooganssnoogans were banging on about the sourcing for this claim as if i somehow violated WP:V.  Sorry, no.  The text I offered comes from the exact same source you cite so if sourcing is really the issue, then my edits are just as good as the others.  Whats more, [this] source seems plenty reliable to me and both describes Rokita's tweet like i did and declines to describe it as you three prefer.  Unless you think NPR isnt a reliable source then perhaps you guys can explain why 'sticking to the RS's' seems to mean 'only cite the reliable sources i prefer and only the parts of that source that i prefer." If you think there is some other reason to prefer one description over the other then make your case and stop hiding behind your cherry picked citations. As for me, i stand by my arguments above, the clearest, most neutral way to describe the tweet in question is to simply quote the tweet in question.  Its what NPR did, its what your source did. The only reason to insist on removing what he actually said is so you can mischaracterize it.


 * So ive answered your questions and restated my positions now how about you? Are you claiming to be the uninvolved admin here per arbcom's Discretionary sanctions guidance or are you here as another (involved) editor? Bonewah (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts.
 * It turns out that, by an amazing coincidence, you have to be an administrator before you can be an uninvolved administrator. But if I was an admin I would not be able to use any admin tools on a page where I have expressed an opinion on content. I would have to request an uninvolved admin to sort it out, same as any ordinary editor would have to do. See WP:INVOLVED. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snooganssnoogans. The page has to have context on the point about contesting the election. This is a significant issue and will be a historically important distinction. Every RS available says Biden won the election, there was extremely minimal to nonexistent evidence of fraud, the lawsuits were dismissed, and those who contested the results have been completely discredited by WP:RS outlets. It is not surprising Rokita would want this scrubbed from his record, but it is a historical fact and belongs in the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Go4thProsper what proposed additions do you support specifically? Guy Macon So other than templating me and angrily demanding that i pass your purity test, do you have anything to say about the actual edits? Bonewah (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read an follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Besides the fact that if you continue acting this way you are likely to end up blocked, from a practical standpoint if you want to get your way you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS by convincing other editors, and you won't accomplish that with your current WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Yes. I do have something to say about your actual edits. Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality are trying to follow the sources. You are not. I detailed exactly how your edits failed to match what was in the source earlier in this thread, and your response has been to pretty much insult everyone you interact with the moment they dare to disagree with you. You might want to try working with other editors rather than attacking them. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In answer to Bonewah, the specific edit I support is one based on RS information per WP:RS rules. Specifically, the edit needs to say clearly that Rokita’s claims were false. There is no evidence to support the claims and the impact of this misinformation stretches well beyond Rokita. It is not enough to leave the edit at his claim the election was “stolen.” It must be clarified that the claim itself is false. That is and will always be the historical record according to RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Guy Macon, ill assume that you think your recent behavior is a model of civility that you would prefer i follow and just behave like that.


 * Guy Macon Answer me, yes or no, do you consider this source to be a reliable source for the claims being made about Rokita's Valentines day tweet in question?


 * If the answer to the above is yes, then, yes or no, do you acknowledge that the source above contains the following line "The tweet featured a meme with floating red hearts and the text "You stole my heart like a 2020 election." Below the text is a cartoon-like portrait of Donald Trump."?


 * If the answer to the above is yes, then, yes or no, do you acknowledge that the statement "In February 2021, Rokita tweeted "You stole my heart like a 2020 election." along with a cartoon of Donald Trump." is therefore, reliably sourced to the citation in question ?


 * Ill answer those questions myself. Yes, yes and yes.  The statement I described and previously added *is* properly sourced to a reliable source in this context.  Do you agree or disagree? Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, and No -- not even close.

Again, you changed


 * "In February 2021, Rokita falsely implied on Twitter that the 2020 presidential election had been "stolen" from Trump."

to


 * "In February 2021, Rokita tweeted "You stole my heart like a 2020 election." along with a cartoon of Donald Trump."

The source says

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/15/todd-rokita-tweets-valentines-day-meme-claiming-trump-won-2020-election/4488240001/

Todd Rokita tweets Valentine's Day meme implying 2020 election was stolen from Trump

Johnny Magdaleno

Indianapolis Star

On Sunday, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita published a Valentine's Day-themed tweet on his personal Twitter account implying that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from ex-president Donald Trump.

The tweet featured a meme with floating red hearts and the text "You stole my heart like a 2020 election." Below the text is a cartoon-like portrait of Donald Trump.

Twitter has since blocked activity on the tweet, clai

Indiana Democrats responded to Rokita's tweet this morning with their own. They described the state's top lawyer as "one very, very sad individual."

Twitter responds:Twitter warns Rokita's election fraud tweet may spur violence

"It once again proves how the (Indiana GOP) would rather swear allegiance to one person rather than our nation and our values," the tweet said.

IndyStar has reached out to Rokita's office to request comment.

Trump has claimed he won the 2020 election despite offering no proof of widespread voter fraud. Courts in key swing states repeatedly rejected arguments made by Trump's legal team.

It's not the first time Rokita has appeared to back Trump. Rokita in December urged the Supreme Court to hear a lawsuit Texas filed claiming that four states had unconstitutional election practices, claims that court ultimately rejected.

Call IndyStar courts reporter Johnny Magdaleno at 317-273-3188 or email him at jmagdaleno@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @IndyStarJohnny

You are cherry picking one particular line ignoring the context, and thus misrepresenting what the source actually says. I could do the same thing, changing your
 * "In February 2021, Rokita tweeted 'You stole my heart like a 2020 election.' along with a cartoon of Donald Trump."

to
 * "In February 2021, Indiana Democrats described Rokitaas 'one very, very sad individual'."

That would be an equally wrong example of cherry picking, using a direct quote from the source out of context and thus misleading the reader about what the source actually says.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you changed "Trump refused to concede while making false claims of fraud" to Trump refused to concede." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You are also cherry picking one line from the source. More importantly, when you admit that that the source in question contains the line "In February 2021, Rokita tweeted "You stole my heart like a 2020 election." along with a cartoon of Donald Trump." you are admitting that the line in question is Reliably sourced to the citation in question. So when you insist, like you did here that "Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality are trying to follow the sources. You are not. I detailed exactly how your edits failed to match what was in the source earlier in this thread" you are, in fact wrong. You claim that I am not 'following the sources' is plainly false as you already admit that the line i prefer is in the source in question.  Further, you claim that my "..edits failed to match what was in the source" is also false, as, again, my edits quote the source in question exactly.  The fact that you and other editors would prefer a certain cherry picked line from that source does not mean that any other line from that source isnt reliably sourced, it just means that you dont like it.


 * And if you want to make the case that it is better to say what someone else think is implied by a tweet than the tweet itself then go ahead, but stop acting like this is somehow a sourcing issue, it is not.


 * As for your waiting for you to explain why you changed "Trump refused to concede while making false claims of fraud" to Trump refused to concede.", you can look here where i answered that question. In case that its unclear my answer was and is "Because the extra material adds no value.  This isnt a page about the 2020 elections or Trumps reaction to it." Bonewah (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Rokita's nonsense about the 2020 election being stolen is clearly in relation to Trump and other Republicans' false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. That's pertinent context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that in regard to the line containing "Trump refused to concede." or the 'valentines' tweet? Bonewah (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Something strange about the Indianapolis Star source
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/15/todd-rokita-tweets-valentines-day-meme-claiming-trump-won-2020-election/4488240001/


 * "Twitter has since blocked activity on the tweet, clai"

Can anyone find a version that doesn't cut off the sentence? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information
I found this recent edit concerning as it removed entire sections of property sourced content. Ushistorygeek (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Unless there are objections, I advocate we follow WP:REMOVAL and restore content. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please use the diff2 template when trying to call attention to a specific edit. In this case, .  General Ization  Talk  03:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion @General Ization. Yes, that is the edit in question. Ushistorygeek (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored another section, Economy, deleted in the same edit referenced above. The section now reads as follows under the Economy subhead: "In 2017, Rokita voted in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017". I continue to be perplexed as to why it was removed and welcome discussion if editors believe it should not be included. Ushistorygeek (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Restoring abortion
I'm restoring the well-sourced abortion section that was removed by an editor without cause. Given the abundance of local and national media covering the events it warrants inclusion Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur. Whereas the subject was relatively unknown outside Indiana prior to this incident, he has now received national and international mention as result of this gaffe, and both he and the incident are likely to receive even more exposure during the current and future election cycles, not to mention possible lawsuits concerning the incident. Therefore it is and will very likely remain highly relevant to the subject's notability, which is the test of recentism.  General Ization Talk  16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As to the comment "If you want to re-add take it to talk first", the editor who removed the content should review the guidance at WP:REMOVAL concerning the retention of good-faith content until and unless it is established that there is consensus for removal.  General Ization Talk  16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per WP:BRD You boldly added new material, I reverted it. And now we discuss it. WP:REMOVAL doesnt supersede that at all, it merely notes that mass, unexplained removal can be reverted. I have explained my removal, its recentism, a lot of media hype that as of yet, has amounted to nothing of note.  2) Recientism is "Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens." Also we are encouraged to consider the 10 Year Test.  Will this still be relvent in 10 years? Maybe but as it stands now its just so much media hype.  Even User:General Ization describes it as possible lawsuits and claims that it will very likely remain highly relevant.  If it does, then we should add it.  As it stands now, its nothing more that a war of words. Bonewah (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We agree to disagree, which means there is no consensus. And to the article that have nothing to do with recentism or any of your other objections.  Perhaps you would like to revert yourself at this point, rather than have me do it. Also, false accusations of edit warring are not well thought of at WP:EWN.  If you think edit warring has occurred, take it there.  General Ization  Talk  19:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You didnt even engage in any kind of discussion whatsoever. Waving your hand and saying that recientism doesnt apply isnt the same thing as discussing the edits in question. I didnt accuse anyone of edit warring, i described the events around Rokita as a 'war of the words' as in, a lot of people talking angrily but nothing actually happening. Until something does actually happen, i dont see how any of this would pass the 10 year test, or even basic notions of relevance. If you disagree, make your argument here, per Wikipedia guidelines. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the second paragraph above. And the comment "Now Discuss and stop edit warring" is an accusation of edit warring; I'd be interested to hear why you think it isn't. Now please either chill and edit collaboratively, or leave it alone.  General Ization Talk  20:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I take issue with your statement. "You didnt even engage in any kind of discussion whatsoever". As a new editor, I find this notable, as you reversed my edits without so much as a comment after I alerted the talk page of my intentions prior to editing, updated the talk page on multiple occasions with my progress, and welcomed discussion from editors with differing viewpoints. I would kindly ask you revisit Content removal as it appears to provide guidance for this very situation. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my reply above was to user's @Bonewah's comments. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also note I left a message on @Bonewah's talk page inviting him to discuss these edits on this talk page prior to his reverting. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As to whether this incident has had and is likely to have a significant impact on, and is relevant to, the subject's notability, I think the pageviews chart for this article makes that case very effectively. Views have increased to more than 1000 per day, while they averaged around 50 per day prior to July 14. This is not a coincidence. The section concerning the abortion issue is not "overburdening" the article by any measure, and the editor who expanded it has been busy expanding other sections as well.  General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you are that hung up about an edit summary then yes, seeing as edit warring is defined as "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." i accused you of edit warring when you reverted my revert without discussion. Again, WP:BRD you boldly added, i reverted, we discuss.  Note it does not say you revert back and we complain about which version is the 'correct' one. Im not reverting any more as to avoid edit warring, but one of you two should. The charge that you didnt discuss the changes was in reply to User:General Ization who replied to my substantive objection with "We agree to disagree, which means there is no consensus." I stand by my statement, that response is not discussion in any meaningful sense of the word.  Having said that, User:General Ization's next response is at least an attempt at justifying the proposed edits. My response, an increase in the number of page views on this subject is exactly what you would expect during a news spike, which is one of the examples of how recentism can unbalance an article.  I would argue that this event could warrant mention, but that the current wording is both overly detailed and non-neutral.  Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, both of you need to see WP:ONUS which states "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (emphasis mine) Bonewah (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * please note that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy, that describes an optional method of resolving potential conflict between editors. It is clearly not the only way to do so. Under Alternatives at that article, see also Bold, discuss and Bold, discuss, revert proposed as perfectly reasonable ways of handling this situation. If you think the "current wording is both overly detailed and non-neutral", perhaps you can identify specific ways to improve it instead of reverting entire additions to sections of the article, including additions that have nothing to do with your stated objections (which is what you did in the edit I reverted which reversion, BTW, was only the second edit I had ever made to this article, the first being in May  which negates your argument about "editors who ... repeatedly override each other's contributions"). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to revisit this talk page Bonewah. I appreciate your willingness to engage in finding a solution to reach consensus. I noted in my earlier comment that I "alerted the talk page of my intentions prior to editing, updated the talk page on multiple occasions with my progress, and welcomed discussion from editors with differing viewpoints", and that I "left a message on [your] talk page inviting him to discuss these edits". Following these steps, your first action was to restore a much earlier draft, deleting 7000 characters, and multiple edits.
 * Can you help me understand how I could have better engaged you, and the community, in this process? Further, how can we work together moving forward? Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, this incident is highly significant. But, we don't need a large amount of detail on the cease-and-desist letter.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, ive edited this section to cut out the POV pushing and incidental stuff. We dont need every aspect of he said she said.  We dont need Rokita's nor the doctors table pounding.  If any law suits or legal action ever comes to anything more than posturing, we can re-add it.  Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * please note that WP:REMOVAL is also an essay. ONUS, however, is policy. Bonewah (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you sincerely want to better engage editors then you should discuss your changes and concerns here rather than re-adding contentious material. I offered a compromise edit by request that you reverted with merely an edit summary that it was 'disingenuous'.  Explain here why you think your prefered edits are superior to mine.  Offer a real argument as to why we need to hear about a cease and desist letter, or what someone alleged.  Etc etc.  I accept that this even is notable enough to warrant mention here, but i dont agree that every public statement need repeating. And i dont think the way its worded currently is in any way NPOV. Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm Sorry @Bonewah. I'll follow your example then, and make edits as I see fit, and then alert the talk page afterwards. In this case, I'll offer my view: the top law enforcement official of Indiana publicly accusing a person of a wrongdoing, making national news in the process, is notable, and should be included.  Ushistorygeek (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A formal complaint and request for disciplinary investigation has now been filed against Rokita with the Indiana Supreme Court, alleging misconduct. Posting here rather than adding to this section, since there seems to be some debate as to whether this is relevant to the subject or just "kerflufle". <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree @General Ization. I reviewed BLP documentation (along with others at the request of Bonewah) and am following guidance from this text:
 * In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it Ushistorygeek (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK lets mention it. To what extent should we cover it?  I see no reason to cover it in such detail. Most of the items included at this point are someone's opinion or actions, such as a cease and desist letter, which are inconsequential at the moment.  Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to comment. The details included are warranted. The section contains Rokita's actions as a public official, which include naming a subject of an investigation publicly, reactions to those actions, and responses from notable figures (dean of the law school from Indiana University's R-1 flagship campus) and the subject of the investigation, I disagree with your assessment that these are inconsequential. Additionally, the 'kerfluffle' has been the subject of continued national press coverage. Ushistorygeek (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bonewah: For your review. I've added recent articles that I believe support inclusion:
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/27/abortion-doctor-girl-rape-caitlin-bernard-investigation/
 * https://fox59.com/news/come-spend-a-day-in-my-clinic-indiana-doctor-discusses-impact-of-abortion-restrictions/
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-bans-caitlin-bernard-doctor/
 * https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/us/indiana-doctor-child-rape-abortion-ag-investigation/index.html
 * https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113577718/indiana-doctor-abortion-ohio-10-year-old
 * https://www.indystar.com/story/news/health/2022/07/27/indiana-ag-rokita-still-investigating-ob-gyn-dr-caitlin-bernard-lawyer-says/65384533007/ Ushistorygeek (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

removal of more fluff. He said, they complained
Ive removed the entry from the 'secretary of state' section about some supposed gaff about slavery. There is no indication that this had any impact on Rokita's life or career nor is relevant to him in any meaningful way. Remember, just because something is sourced and true does not mean that it should necessarily be included in a biography. Bonewah (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As an elected official verifiable and sourced views are important and notable. These edits remove important context to and for his career. Ushistorygeek (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, I found this topic was addressed previously in this talk archive under the subhead "Controversies/Trivia". At the time an editor wrote "By stating it is trivial but having no problem with the other information within the controversy section you are suggesting sexism is trivial compared with racism." and "only the facts of an internationally televised interview concerning a historic event where he used sexist commentary to divert the journalist's questions. Really, we can go back and forth all day, week, month, or year on this. You have not articulated any consistent reason to exclude the text."
 * I would advocate this previous editors' views are correct and are consistent with BLP policy on public figures "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Ushistorygeek (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal, per WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. Some gaff about slavery.  This isn't a tabloid. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * re: WP:BLPSTYLE & WP:BLPBALANCE the event resulted in notable news coverage, was addressed by subject of the article, and reactions by notable figures at the time were reported in reputable sources. There is little else in this section to describe his time in elected office, to that aim you are welcome to add more @Magnolia677. Ushistorygeek (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The restaurants celebrities dine at is often published in reliable sources, but that doesn't make the event encyclopedic. Consensus is required when inclusion is questioned, per WP:VNOT. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What an odd analogy; I think at face value you would agree the secretary of state discussing voting, which relates to his primary duties in said elected office, would be of considerably more interest than where someone eats [regardless of who reported it]. Ushistorygeek (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "controversial comments": Three of the four citations are dead links, so if there's no adequate sourcing, why should it be included? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All three four sources have been recovered at archive.org. "Dead links" is rarely an argument for removal of content, since links are generally restorable from the archive. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 15:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments were notable enough at the time to warrant coverage in the media. Further, the topic was publicly addressed by the elected official himself. He offered a public apology for the actions, and this apology was again picked up by the press with additional context and comments from notable figures of the time. Ushistorygeek (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)