DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Graham Platner

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Cheney Comments

[edit]

@Generalrelative

Thank you for your explanation per removal of my Cheney comments section. I believe there has been enough coverage of it now, and we should be able to revert to my initial edit? If not, please let me know.


https://wgme.com/news/local/senate-candidate-graham-platner-says-he-wont-be-mourning-dick-cheneys-death https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5590778-graham-platner-dick-cheney-iraq-war/ https://baltimoresun.com/2025/11/05/maine-senate-candidate-slams-cheney-criticizes-collins-in-fiery-video-on-x https://foxnews.com/politics/iraq-war-vet-running-us-senate-says-he-wont-mourn-dick-cheney?msockid=19344ae819136e182d595fc418226f5e

Thebritishsenator (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, The Hill and Baltimore Sun are both solid here. WGME is a fine outlet but their piece is the length of a tweet, so not ideal. Fox News is unreliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. I will be happy to defer to others here: is two good sources enough to say this is DUE for inclusion? Generalrelative (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is probably not, unless there's sustained coverage. These were all quick news hits on the day or shortly after the video, and I would be surprised if the news cares about it in a week or a month from now. He's going to make a lot of statements and videos during his campaign, many of them are going to hit the news because he's so in the spotlight right now, and it's not feasible to include all of them. If it receives sustained coverage, or if Dick Cheney somehow becomes a recurring part of Platner's message, then it might make sense. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument though, is that the comment wasn't necessarily connected to his campaign and is more related to his political positions and backs up his criticism of US military campaigns in the early 21st century, but if the general consensus is that it isn't relevant because of lack of sustained coverage, then we won't revert to my edit.
Thebritishsenator (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Generalrelative and GorillaWarfare. The sources are fine but the story itself does not warrant inclusion in the article. GorillaWarfare said it best: He's going to make a lot of statements and videos during his campaign, many of them are going to hit the news because he's so in the spotlight right now, and it's not feasible to include all of them. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tattooing category

[edit]

Starting a discussion here regarding the addition (and re-addition) of the Category:Tattooing category to this page. @GettingSwole: The "Tattooing" category is not meant to include any person who has a tattoo, or whose tattoos have been described in the media. There is a Category:People known for being heavily tattooed, but that's for people who are known because of their tattoos (e.g. Lucky Diamond Rich). See Wikipedia:Overcategorization. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not that he has a tattoo. I would never add someone into this category for simply having a tattoo. This guy is controversial/known partly if not primarily because of a tattoo he had. That is why he belongs in this category. GettingSwole (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are we keeping his controversies outside of the intro? GettingSwole (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This man would not be part of the national conversation if not for controversy after controversy. His controversies are defining aspects of who he is. Absolutely. 100%. Undeniable. Let's not be afraid to discuss them in a header. It's part of our job! GettingSwole (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was part of the national conversation before any controversy happened. Overcategorization is rampant on the wiki, and putting a guy in the tattooing category meant for discussion of tattooing at large because of his controversial tattoo fits that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not for people who are controversial because of their tattoos, though, or else it would contain a significantly larger set of biography articles. Nor should it be — see WP:POVCAT and WP:BLPCAT. The category is meant to contain articles that are highly relevant to the subject of tattooing — which is why it contains various articles about notable tattoo artists, techniques, etc.
Regarding the controversies and their weight, feel free to start a new discussion on that topic if you think they should be added to the intro. However, I disagree that they belong there.
Regarding your claim that Platner would not be notable if not for the controversies, that is simply not true. Here's the article as it stood prior to those events: Special:Permalink/1317009932. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GettingSwole: If a category you add to the page is challenged, can you please discuss it on the talk page rather than reverting it? [1], [2]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

Let's mention why this guy is so controversial in the intro.GettingSwole (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)20:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)GettingSwole[reply]

Also, "2025 controversies in the United States" is a good category for this fellow.20:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)GettingSwole
It most certainly is not and I hope that you stop WP:EW on this page and try to gain consensus for your addition, as the WP:ONUS is on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The controversies are properly described in the article, but I believe it would be WP:UNDUE to put them in the lead. Noting this has already been discussed at Talk:Graham Platner/Archive 1#More disputed content. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GettingSwole: Perhaps the lead could mention broadly that there have been some controversies about his past, but that is vague and doesn't really add any useful information, because what political figure doesn't have some controversies?
We can't go about cherry picking one thing or another (like the tattoo), and it doesn't seem to make sense to mention a laundry list of things like Reddit comments, a tattoo, people leaving his campaign, etc., all in the lead. Just my thoughts on that.
EDIT: Oh, it looks like this user was blocked as a sock puppet account. ~2025-34416-43 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears moot, but I agree that the lead is appropriate without these details. If editors wish to add such details, it would help to suggest specific language to consider adding. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Online comments not counting

[edit]

@Generalrelative: you said that his previous public comments weren't worth mentioning as they weren't necessarily current. However, reliable sources have widely reported on them and explicitly drawn attention to them as indicative of his political development. I don't see any policy that says "we can't discuss his prior political positions" and "Reddit comments don't count". If they receive sustained coverage in reliable sources, that's a very clear indication that inclusion of them is DUE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this particular comment about the DSA received sustained coverage? If so, I agree that it would be due. I just saw the one source you cited. Generalrelative (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comments came out in October. There's the Politico piece from 5 December, so that's nationwide coverage. Then there's this (archived link for non-subscribers) from 18 December in the Portland Press Herald (which looks to be a statewide paper of record), so that's a second piece of sustained coverage. Thanks for the quick response! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to include the content within the body as @Pbritti says, but another sentence can be added using the New Yorker interview @Generalrelative mentioned, where he states he does not identify as a socialist. I don't think any this should be in the infobox, which was removed in a previous edit. That's reserved for people like AOC.
StalkerFishy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StalkerFishy. Marquardtika (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And so do I. While I'm going to add that material under political positions, I encourage any editor who sees a better landing spot for that content to move it to a different section or place within that section. Glad we could work together on all this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. That sounds very reasonable. Generalrelative (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]