Talk:Vance McAllister

divorce
I have several objections to the line "According to the woman's husband, himself a high school classmate of McCallister, the episode led to the breakup of their marriage" Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone elses marriage is not strictly on topic for the BLP of McAllister
 * WP:NOT a tabloid.
 * The source says "on the road to divorce". Not divorced. Not broken up. We do not have a WP:CRYSTAL ball and should not be saying what might happen in the future.
 * I've changed it to "seek a divorce" as per the exact text of the article quoted. This was a three-party relationship (love triangle) involving McAllister, Mrs. Peacock, and Mr. Peacock. The history of McAllister's relationships - when they receive substantial media coverage - is absolutely acceptable for BLP; this was one of those relationships and is as on-topic as his simultaneous other relationship with Mrs. McAllister. BlueSalix (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * please identify the specific quote that says he is seeking a divorce (Not "headed for divorce" not "on the road to divorce" etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need to quote people, WP provides synthesis - WP is not a word-by-word transcript of public statements. As per multiple RS, the man has said he will seek a divorce (specifically [|as per Politico], which may not even be listed anymore as a reference, you may have already deleted it - it's difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of deletions you're making to pertinent information in this article). BlueSalix (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

please discuss edits before engaging in wholesale page rewriting
Gaijin42, kindly use the Talk page to collaboratively improve this article with other interested editors in a calm and consensus-building manner. It is very difficult to keep up with the sheer volume and substantial nature of the edits you're making. Also, if you have a COI with respect to the topic of this article, disclosure would be appreciated. Many of your edits, such as insisting on placing periods outside of quotes, are becoming extremely disruptive. Thank you, kindly, in advance. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no COI. I haven't been to Louisiana in 20 years. I saw the story on my RSS reader when it broke, and knew it was going to be a magnet for WP:BLP violations. which it is. You are making repeated assertions about a BLP that are not supported by the sources. Removing BLP violations is not disruptive, it is REQUIRED BY POLICY. I do apologize for the period/quote issue. McAllister is WP:WELLKNOWN and the scandal is covered. It should be included. His staffer, her husband, etc are NOT. Their names should not be included. Misquoting them, and making up information about acceptance of Open marriages when the sources say no such thing is a blatant violation of BLP. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never included the names of the Peacocks in the article, though to avoid confusion I have referenced them in the Talk page. Please do not make false accusations against other editors. This is not Battle-Wiki. If you have other issues they should be discussed on the Talk page before you begin disruptive editing and making bad faith accusations against fellow editors. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The wikilink to "Open marriage" was clearly and entirely inappropriate, as no reliable source has suggested, much less claimed, any such thing existed. And no, Wikipedia does not provide original synthesis - that is specifically prohibited by the No original research policy.
 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:SYNTHNOT - SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." This is not a case of original synthesis. Thank you for choosing to use dialog instead of making mass revisions. I welcome your continued collaborative approach. There is, however, no need to shout. BlueSalix (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are claiming that there was an open marriage. No source has reported that and it is an unambiguous violation of the biographies of living persons policy to make such an unsourced negative/contentious claim. I have removed it, I will continue to remove it and if you persist on reinserting it I will request that you be blocked for inserting unsourced negative/contentious information into a living person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made no such claim and I would challenge you to point out where I have. I inserted a hyperlink to the article for Open Marriage as part of the link building process that is core to WP. A wikilink does not constitute a claim. Nonetheless, I have removed this wikilink pending further discussion. As the subject of this article is a USG employee and you have self-identified as a USG employee, I would ask you consider COI before engaging in the style of aggressive editing that has been your hallmark to date. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lawlz. No such conflict of interest exists. But nice try at turning this into an attack on me rather than a discussion of your aggressive attempts to tabloidize Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been a WP:CIVIL discussion to date. Please AGF and stop responding to my comments with "lawlz" and with claims I'm trying to "tabloidize" Wikipedia. I do not appreciate it and it is unkind. There are other articles available on WP for editing if you find you have a COI that prevents you from engaging in a mature and collaborative manner on this one. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

YOU need to WP:AGF you have accused two different editors of WP:COI when both of us are just removing your blatant and repeated WP:BLP WP:OR WP:NPOV violations. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, stop it. Please. You have been making mass deletions of sourced information and then accusing editors who have inserted said information of BLP, OR, NPOV and everything else you can accuse them of; I'm not sure what the end-game here is but this is not what Wikipedia is about. I initiated this dialog in an effort to engage you in collaboration after you made a large number of edits in a space of 25 minutes without Talk discussion and I hope you make the choice to approach it in the way it was intended. We're just here to edit, not fight. Also the constant ALL CAPS and bold is not necessary. Let's talk softly and civilly. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is not about creating the implication that someone has an open marriage when no reliable, verifiable source has reported any such thing. I'm glad you agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've twice previously stated, of course I agree. Thanks, NorthBySouthBaranof! BlueSalix (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit was 100% redundant, as it simply added, nearly word-for-word, a second copy of the exact same statement which is referenced in the middle of the paragraph - "According to members of McAllister's staff, Kelly McAllister was aware of the affair." I assume that this was inadvertent and that BlueSalix does not think we need to say the same thing twice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was inadvertent. Thank you for handling that. This is one of the problems that arises when editors choose to engage in Battle-Wiki. The rapidity and substance of edits make it difficult to follow whether a particular piece of information has been deleted, moved, reworded, etc. This is one reason I prefer a process of discussion and collaboration prior to making edits, to avoid these kind of missteps. Thanks again for correcting my error! BlueSalix (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved some sentences around to improve flow. I'm not convinced that the sentence stating that McAllister's wife knew of the affair is necessary or properly worded; right now I read it and ask myself, "why does it matter that she knew?" It's at the end of that paragraph but could use so rewording or removal. Ca2james (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * absolutely agree it's unneeded. it was just there so Salix could link to open marriage as a way to toss some more scandal at the situation IMO. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kiss was not "about 30 seconds"
Anyone with access to the video and a stopwatch can determine for herself that the kiss was less than 20 seconds. It is not appropriate to cite distortions or intentionally misleading articles. 75.185.75.30 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't watched the video and do not need a stop watch. I removed the sentence since the exact same thing is said in the 2nd sentence preceeding it, so I removed it as redundant. --Malerooster (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)