Talk:Scott Walker (politician)

Official social media links

Friendly reminder that according to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and more specifically, https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided social media links are avoided UNLESS/EXCEPT https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links. The Twitter and Instagram accounts referenced in External Links are Official and therefore are allowable.

But only if there is no regular website; the subject only gets one link to a site they control, and that's normally their official website. We don't use a Twitter, Facebook or Instagram account unless that's all there is.

New PoV Tags

PoV and factual accuracy tags have been put on this page, but this article does not appear to be particularly slanted one way or the other nor is it sourced poorly. The summary of his tenure describes his governorship as "polarizing" and the factual coverage in the sources backs that up. Sourcing wise, this article has a strong mix of reliable sources, Milwaukee and Wisconsin media is represented along with all the best national sources like the NYT, WSJ, and AP. I would like to start a discussion (Ethnic laundry was the one who placed the tags) before removing the tags, so that any concerns can be addressed. SWL36 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic laundry, you tagged the Scott Walker article for problems with POV and factual accuracy. Please visit the article talk page and explain the reasons for the tags. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SWL36 and SunCrow: I placed the POV tag after reading the article. There appears to be consistent use of phrasing and modifiers that can intentionally affect the reader's opinion. A few excerpted examples (bold below) from early in the article:

* "the selective Boys Nation..."; I suppose that's true, but Starbucks (for example) could equally be called selective in its employment practices.
* "a record number of students voted..."; I could find no documented support for the use of this word.
* "a strong supporter of a bill to require voters to show photo ID..."; again Google failed to find any reason to use the adjective (also the associated link is dead).
* "he took the lead in a truth-in-sentencing bill..."; According to the referenced article, Walker himself credits the American Legislative Exchange Council; he is described as merely advocating for the bill.

I also note the article contains frequent irrelevancies (eg: the "19-point resume"), which confuse and obfuscate.

Please understand - I don't feel the article favors a single viewpoint, but rather it has the "cobbled-together" appearance of being constructed from opposing articles - each of which has a definite pro- or anti- viewpoint. The problems (a small sample of which I address) seem to be left-overs, but they do detract (and I believe significantly) from the utility of this article. Indeed, reviewing some of these "weasel-ish" words led me to add the factual-accuracy tag. Minor stuff, but lack of support is a lack of support... Maybe there are "mini-tags" for this type of issue?

I presently don't feel I can treat the subject with justice. So I'll not do the job. I hope somebody will - Walker is truly a polarizing figure and his efforts have current significance.

I apologize for the delay in my response - I needed time to address a family emergency. I appreciate your patience.

Ethnic laundry (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Ethnic laundry. I hope that your family emergency has been resolved. I have removed a few POV-sounding words from the article, which I hope has solved the problem; please review and see what you think. Also, since you did not identify any factual inaccuracies, I took the liberty of removing the tag that indicated problems with accuracy; if you do see any specific inaccuracies, please point them out and/or correct them. Finally, please remember to include an explanation next time you tag a page. Thanks. Regards, SunCrow (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My son is okay for now, and the emergent component has shifted from medical to financial (how to pay for surgery)... Thnaks for good wishes SunCrow. I'll review the article Ethnic laundry (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow - revisiting the specific inaccuracy issue:

On 7/14/2015 a non-logged-in user (74.127.175.164) changed the lead text "the only governor in the U.S. to date to win a gubernatorial recall election" (referencing Eyder Peralta's 6/5/2012 NPR article) to the unsupported and false statement "the first American governor to survive a recall effort." During the fifty years 1962-2012 - in the state of California alone - there have been unsuccessful efforts to recall Governors Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown, George Dukmejian, Pete Wilson, and even Arnold Schwarzenegger (though the last appears not to be documented in Wikipedia).

As you seem interested in the article, I'm asking you to review and correct the problem; I'll look back in a week (5/17) and change it if you haven't. Thanks! Ethnic laundry (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, Ethnic laundry. Thanks for the heads up. SunCrow (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Flint

You should add somthing about the Flint lead poisoning.

Also https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/435390-wisconsin-dem-governor-removes-82-scott-walker-appointees-added-during — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Scott Walker 2016 presidential campaign

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merged into Scott Walker (politician) as proposed. Surachit (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Only a few paragraphs of info that aren't in Scott Walker's main article. pbp 17:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. There's not much actual substance to that article that couldn't be on the main Scott Walker article. His campaign wasn't that prominent as he dropped out early and didn't receive a very high vote share. Not to say that it's completely insignificant, because it definitely is relevant to this topic, but not significant enough to warrant its own article. TNats  ₃  00:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. A blip in a career that does not warrant its own article. Many Wikipedians are far too eager to create spin-off articles based on what's in the day's news, giving no heed whatsoever to WP:RECENTISM or perspective. WP:NPOV does not mean everything must be covered (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), merely that things should be covered in proportion to their prominence. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support His campaign for President wasn't significant enough per WP:GNG to have its own separate article. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.