Talk:Mandela Barnes

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mandela Barnes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130127023644/http://m.jsonline.com/166210236.htm to http://m.jsonline.com/166210236.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Property tax issues

As much of a supporter of Barnes I am, I do believe it is worth noting in this article that he was delinquent on property taxes for a while. He did tweet that the "check is in the mail" on June 17th, 2019, but he was delinquent on the taxes since he did not pay it by January 31st of the aforementioned year. The issue people have had with it is not only that is he a government official, but he appeared to shrug it off in the same tweet. Anyways, I do not know where this would be most appropriate. Hopefully a far better tenured Wikipedia editor will make this change. Autumnsec (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the addition of 3 things to the article, the tax return issue, badgercare (is that insurance), plus unpaid parking tickets. I think it's undue weight for a BLP to go into depth on this. It seems relatively minor. I can see the need to discuss this in some limited scope, but not at length with a separate section, given its limited weight in the sources. Andrevan@ 22:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree these are undue weight. Glinden (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The tax nonsense seems quite UNDUE. If he were charged with criminal activity, that'd be different. Or if he made a campaign issue out of it, [https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/trump-brags-about-not-paying-taxes-that-makes-me-smart.html. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So would a single sentence like "Barnes faced criticism during his tenure for his overdue property tax bills, and in abruptly left an interview when asked about the issue" appropriately address the weight issues with the "limited scope" that @Andrevan mentioned? BBQboffin (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That message was from months ago. If anything, it's even more relevant now. So I really think the property tax issue belongs here!Andre🚐 17:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

College degree discrepancy was removed

Where did this data go? Was here a couple days ago until he won the primary election on 8/9/22. This man outright lied about graduating from college for years until he was questioned in 2019. Then suddenly he finished his degree and acted like it was not a big deal. I would lose my job if it was discovered that I lied about having a degree not to mention losing my CPA license. Lying about verifiable facts is a prevalent issue with this man. 184.58.152.78 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Prejudicial and not neutral, obviously should not be included in a summary of education at the beginning of the article. Glinden (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's too much weight for a minor thing. Maybe it merits a sentence but not a huge portion. Andre🚐 17:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone else put it back. I think we may have to flag the page? In any case, if someone else thinks this is undue weight, please fix it, as I don't want to be solely reverting the change. Glinden (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The latest edit put it back because Herschel Walker supposedly is similar, but that is debatable at best. The discussion of Hershel Walker's lying about his college degree and college work is much lower on the page and not prominently featured. This is undue weight and someone should fix it. Glinden (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's only high on the page because the page is in chronological order, and "early life and education" comes early in chronology, oddly enough. (For what it's worth, I'm the guy that restored the item, and I'm a Wisconsinite and a fanatically firm supporter of Barnes in this election.) Orange Mike | Talk 00:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)--23:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

So, assuming you are following it pretty closely then. Do you have any more insight as to why the story is important or what the deal is? What was the technical issue with his transcript that preventing him from getting a degree? I mean it's an understandable thing and seems like such a non-big-deal, but the way it's written right now feels like a prominent portion of the article. I think, maybe it is just unclear what exactly happened or why. He didn't receive a college degree on time due to a technical issue and he got it later. But, the way it's written, which is why I think it reflexively sounds like to people less supportive of him, he either wasn't forthcoming about the truth of how much college he completed, or worse. Andre🚐 00:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the original anonymous post at the top of this thread. This is the right-wing's spin on it: that Barnes is a big ol' liar who (GASP!) fudged his resume, and that it's important about him, unlike the way they downplayed the very shady and possibly criminal circumstances of Scott Walker's expulsion-that-wasn't-an-expulsion-or-was-it from Marquette University. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But Barnes got the degree - did he have to go back to school and do a few more classes or he just got it? Andre🚐 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So, wait, Orange Mike, why are you restoring it to the non-neutral version? I don't understand. You are saying this text is very much not neutral (which means it should be removed), but then you say you restored the non-neutral version? Glinden (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike, I can see the argument for including the story to make it NPOV, which would also have the effect of "setting the record straight on it" but I do agree with our red-linked friend that as written, it feels like there are enough unclear details about it that it's borderline besmirching Barnes' credibility to even include such a thinly-sourced story or event - fairly or unfairly, I do not know, but that was my instinct and why I removed it earlier. I am also supporting Barnes spiritually though I can't vote for him. If he has his degree and he didn't have it on a technicality, I think including the accusation seems unnecessary, unless there is more to it. Andre🚐 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This article gives more info on the situation. It's not so much that he didn't graduate on a technicality, it's that he led people to believe that he had graduated when he had not. "While running for lieutenant governor in 2018, Barnes told the public he finished college and received a degree." Marquardtika (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So that article explains that he walked at graduation but wasn't given a diploma/degree due to an incomplete that he received in one class, due to coursework not being turned in and he never did the paperwork to get it addressed back in 2008. When it came to light in 2020 he turned in said coursework and did whatever was required to get the degree issued. If we consider this entire issue worthy of inclusion, I think we should include this additional mitigating detail in the article so people understand that he all-but graduated college, walked at graduation, never got his diploma due to the incomplete, then he later officially graduated. As to whether he was forthcoming on the issue, the Isthmus Weekly article [1] seems to be where it all started, and he stated, "I didn’t leave on a bad note. It’s not like there was some deficiency where I dropped out.... I was the senior class vice president," Barnes says. "This is something that [the university] wants to see resolved as much as I want to see resolved." And it now has been. Do we disagree on the general shape of events and intention on how to treat it in the article? As to whether he is accurately described as an "alumnus," alumni at least at my alma maters, included folks who had attended any amount of coursework. I completed an undergrad and didn't complete my master's - I barely did anything for the master's, but they still send me alum newsletters from that school. Andre🚐 15:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

He misrepresented the situation: "In response to a Wisconsin State Journal candidate questionnaire last year when he was running in the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor, his campaign stated he had a 'BA in Broadcast Journalism—Alabama A&M University.' A BA is a bachelor of arts degree." Technicality or not, he led the public to believe that he had received a college degree when he had not received a college degree. That's why this issue has been covered in the media. See also the AP "Barnes came under criticism two years ago for saying that he had a degree even though he had not yet fulfilled all the requirements to receive one." Marquardtika (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and refactored the text for NPOV according to this discussion. Andre🚐 16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That's better, but still looks like undue weight to me with the paragraph above-the-fold in the article. I continue to think that this is not important to include in the article. Glinden (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it has some coverage in reliable sources we should include it. The fold is kind of incidental, it just happens to be in the early life and education section. If we can flesh out his early life more, the education part won't be as prominent. Andre🚐 16:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's better. Thanks for making the change and resolving the dispute. It's a good compromise. Glinden (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal life section

The personal life section appears to give undue weight to a minor tax issue rather than discussing his personal life in a neutral voice. While the content could be listed in a Controversies section, I don't think the content is appropriate at all. Similar content regarding traffic tickets was deleted earlier for undue weight. I believe the entire section should be deleted. It looks like that was done a couple times by someone else, then reverted without explanation. Perhaps it should be discussed? Glinden (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you find to be WP:UNDUE weight about the content? It's well-sourced and neutrally written, and about content that numerous independent media sources found noteworthy enough to cover. Every other mildly controversial topic has already been scrubbed from the article. The thing that's looking like a weight issue at the moment is that we're not covering any criticism of Barnes at all...Marquardtika (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I was clear why I consider it undue weight. I said it is a minor tax issue and a small amount of money, and overemphasizing it seems to be trying to make it a scandal, like prominently mentioning someone's traffic tickets on what is supposed to be a summary of what is important for people know about a major figure. Perhaps others could chime in with opinions? As you can see in the edit history, I haven't been the only one to consider this content undue weight. Let's see what others say. Can others chime in please? Glinden (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Glinden. It seems odd to cover accidential money when the donor is the one that is supposed to acknowledge that they're within the correct limits and wouldn't be something a campaign notices until they're auditing. I think this would be a different issue if a candidate used deceptive tactics to scam donors out of money they did not intend to donate. Wozal (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not undue weight if it is covered by multiple, neutral news sources. Removing negative issues under the quise of them being minor but including minor positive items like self-sourced endorsements is inappropriate. Tchouppy (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CAE seems clear that endorsements are desirable but "try to stay away from too much detail on the candidate's life outside of politics unless it is relevant to the election or otherwise noteworthy." Glinden (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CAE is a weird page to trot out. First of all, it's inactive (see the note at the top that says "Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear.") We put lists of candidate endorsements on election pages, not on candidate pages. Ask at WP:AmPol if you want to. See 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin, which has very comprehensive looking endorsement tables for each candidate. Now, no one has come up with a policy-based reason not to include the well-sourced content about Barnes' past tax issues, so I'm going to restore it. "Undue" seems ambiguous and dubious given that the only content currently in the "Personal life" section is about two speeches he gave, sourced only to local news sources. There's no universe in which that content is more "due" than the content about his taxes. Frankly, there are a lot of new editors who seem way too interested in adding marginally sourced positive content about Barnes and whitewashing any content perceived to be even mildly negative. This is not encyclopedic or WP:NPOV. Marquardtika (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to add this content back repeatedly over other's objections. Others have indicated they disagree with you. You keep adding it back anyway. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps seek dispute resolution? Glinden (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally I agree that the property tax issue isn't a significant enough occurrence in Barnes' life that it needs to be covered in the article as such. I think because he's running for Senate, dirt on minor stuff is being dug up on him. The property tax thing and the unpaid parking tickets are just small potatoes oppo research IMO. Andre🚐 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing about unpaid parking tickets in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I know but someone was adding that in back in August. Andre🚐 16:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I added back the property tax text as that's being reported in NYT and several other sources. Probably the best way to improve the page is to add more content, not remove it. BBQboffin (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BBQboffin, That edit might be tricky due to WP:EPTALK. As seen above, this is something that is being discussed by a number of editors including myself, @Glinden, @Marquardtika,@Andrevan and @Tchouppy. Wozal (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. As for the unpaid property taxes, those have been covered in multiple reliable sources, like the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Associated Press, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times. Not including this content is a violation of WP:NPOV. Does anyone have a reason not to include it that isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Wording changes, etc.? Because just not including it at all really isn't an option when it has been well-covered in numerous reliable sources. Marquardtika (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:10YEARS, this is extremely minor stuff and should not be included, and it's not a violation of NPOV not to include this stuff. We don't include every local oppositional scoop on candidates - we don't do it for right or left-wing candidates. Those first 2 sources are actually not really about his property taxes. They are about the fact that he paid no income tax and was on Badgercare. The AP article is actually just reporting on the Journal Sentinel article, "he didn’t file a state or federal income tax return that year...was on the state’s Medicaid program BadgerCare Plus for his health insurance that year, but did not receive food stamps or unemployment compensation". The NYT article, states, Mr. Barnes has been the target of criticism as well. He has been cited for paying his property taxes late. The US News article is also reporting on a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article None of this establishes why this is significant biographical information on the man. He paid a few bills late. Andre🚐 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

His Milwaukee property became eligible for foreclosure because of his repeated failure to pay property taxes on it. That's not "paying a few bills late." And it seems quite significant to me, especially since Barnes could soon be setting U.S. tax policy as a U.S. Senator. Marquardtika (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Andrevan. I and others have been clear that this is minor and distorts what is supposed to be a useful biography of a major political candidate. I also believe, like Andrevan, that your links don't support your argument well. For example, the New York Times article you link to says, in the context of talking about criticism of both candidates in this race, "Mr. Barnes has been the target of criticism as well. He has been cited for paying his property taxes late, and Republican activists and local leaders have sought to paint him as a far-left Democrat who supports stances like abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement." That's not the New York Times saying this is an important issue. That's the New York Times saying that Republican critics of Barnes are trying to make it an issue. Glinden (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you restore a bunch of endorsements that belong on the election page after I informed you that Wikipedia:CAE is an inactive essay? Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes has paid his delinquent property tax bill. Barnes owed the city of Milwaukee about $2,200 for his 2018 property tax bill. The money was due at the end of January. He received a delinquent bill in February and again at the beginning of June. According to the treasurer’s office, the city received the payment in full on Wednesday, June 26. He paid the bill late. It's pretty much the end of the story, and shouldn't be included. Andre🚐 16:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrevan, it's a bit hard to take you seriously when you posted above that you are "supporting Barnes spiritually." We need to build and edit this article in an objective, detached way that complies with Wikipedia policies, not with personal feelings about the candidate in mind. Marquardtika (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think it might be useful to emphasize what it says at the top of this talk page: "Assume good faith. Be polite and avoid personal attacks. Be welcoming to newcomers. Seek dispute resolution if needed." If you feel so strongly about this, and feel unable to discuss this here on the talk page, perhaps seek dispute resolution? Glinden (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about my personal feelings on the candidate as pertaining to this question. I stand by the argument. Andre🚐 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, he walked out of an interview because he was mad the interviewer asked about the property taxes. https://www.fox6now.com/news/lt-gov-mandela-barnes-walks-out-on-interview-after-unpaid-property-tax-question That is noteworthy. But again, we don't decide what is noteworthy, the relieable news sources do. Tchouppy (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

He walked out because it's quite a petty question. It's a local news report. Not every local news report is relevant or worthy of inclusion. He had a couple of overdue bills which are now paid. The incident doesn't rise to the level of something that merits discussion in one's biography. Andre🚐 00:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how disputed content keeps getting added by @Marquardtika and others without discussing it on the talk page. I don't see how this is okay or consistent with Wikipedia editing policy. @BBQboffin just reverted a change to add disputed content back, the endorsements issue we resolved here on the talk page. When removing it, @BBQboffin said, "The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include the disputed text; get consensus on talk page first." Does that not apply to this change as well? Whether it is appropriate or not is clearly disputed. Why is it repeatedly getting added back without discussing first on the talk page and getting consensus? And without consensus should it not stay off the page? Glinden (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's now no consensus for this material and a RFC should be started for the disputed material about property taxes. Andre🚐 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Mandela Barnes. It is honestly very bizarre to me that someone could maintain that a laundry list of self-published endorsements, sourced only to advocacy groups, as well as some local speeches he gave, sourced to local media outlets, are "DUE" and yet evidently nothing about his property tax issues, which have been covered in AP, US New & World Report, and NYT, etc. is "DUE". That's just...not consistent. Marquardtika (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking toward dispute resolution. I think we agree that more involvement from other editors would be helpful. Glinden (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should leave out both the additional endorsements and the property tax issues, so that should meet your standard for consistency. Andre🚐 21:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I must reiterate that the tweets, the parking tickets and the property taxes should not be included, it's undue weight for minor oppositional material. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I'm not whitewashing or protecting the guy, this is consistent across political articles. Minor stuff shouldn't be included. It has to be relevant to their public statements, political positions, or major personal life issues - not a late property tax bill or a couple of old tweets being reported on. Andre🚐 16:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "we don't report on tweets for other pols"? See, for example, Donald Trump#Public profile#Social media. Or the lede of Jim Coughlan, or Kelly Loeffler, or Candace Owens, or Dinesh D'Souza#Views#Opinions expressed on Twitter, or Roseanne Barr, etc. If reliable sources cover the social media use of public figures, we do too. The gatekeeping on this article is getting ridiculous. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'm reverting myself, and putting the tweets back. But I still agree the parking tickets and the property tax bill are not significant. Andre🚐 17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The attempts to smear this politician are the thing getting ridiculous. If we are going to include this content, which is just a news article reporting on tweets, at least include the full text. For example, Mandela Barnes criticized George Washington for owning slaves ("Yeah. I mean, if slave owning is your thing, have at it!"). And he only said gun owners should bear costs if a gun is mishandled ("I really could not care less about a 2nd Amendment 'right'. Bear arms all you wish, but you should pay for your mishandling."). Finding the most controversial tweets, excerpting them in unflattering ways, and then including them as major political positions for a candidate seems to me to be undue and like a clear effort to influence this close and upcoming election. I really think, in general, any attempt to add content like this needs to be discussed on the talk page first, then add it once you have consensus. That's how this is supposed to work on a major political figure and any important biography page. Talk about it first. As @BBQboffin just said, "The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include the disputed text; get consensus on talk page first." I think that @Andrevan was right to remove the content, that it should be removed, and generally content like this shouldn't be added without proposing it on the talk page first and waiting for agreement. Glinden (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoa. Accusing other editors of being involved in smear campaigns is certainly not good faith. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

But accusing others of gatekeeping is good faith? Glinden (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I must agree there appears to be plenty of bad faith by both Marquardtika and Glinden in this dispute. Let's all take a step back and cool off. Andre🚐 00:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The property tax thing, by itself, was perhaps trivial by itself, but having been reported on in the national media has become a campaign issue. If readers are seeing it in NYT, USN&WR, AP, etc. it's no longer trivial. And when the candidate walks out of an interview over a question about it, and that walkout gets reported, that cements it further.

At the very least, Wikipedia should be acknowledging that Barnes has faced criticism in the press over the property tax issue, and over other issues as a sitting Lt. Governor. But even the mere acknowledgment that criticism in the press exists--for anything--is getting reverted on this page. BBQboffin (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think @Andrevan addressed this already above ("I think there's now no consensus for this material and a RFC should be started for the disputed material about property taxes"). There is also discussion above about that the NYT did not cover it, but merely covered that Republican critics were saying it. This keeps coming up like the previous discussion does not exist, but there is plenty of discussion about this on this talk page. As you said yourself, @BBQboffin, the onus is on those wanting to add disputed content, and this content is definitely disputed. Glinden (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we haven't demonstrated that the property tax issue is notable or relevant to his life for BLP. Similar nickel and dime stuff is kept out of other articles. He had a late bill and he paid the bill. The only unusual thing about that is that the press harassed him about it. Andre🚐 00:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Glinden Yes, we should have appropriate context to the tweets. I was quoting the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article which did not give the full tweet or the context you mentioned, and I apologize for not adding it. BBQboffin (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@BBQboffin, I don't understand why you keep adding tweets and other disputed content back when there is still disagreement about including it here on this talk page. You just said, "The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include the disputed text; get consensus on talk page first." Why does that not apply to the disputed text you keep adding? Why aren't you attempting to get consensus first? Glinden (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned WP:ONUS in regards to a specific paragraph explaining details of the property tax controversy (dollar amount, dates, interview walkout, quote from candidate, etc.) which was in dispute. To re-add that whole paragraph, verbatim, yes, consensus would be required. It is not at all wrong for an editor to try to address the problem issues (WP:UNDUE; WP:TENYEARSTEST) and Be Bold and see if the improved text is better. As for the tweets, I read your critique about them, and I agreed with you about the lacking context, and added it. If you and other editors can see a way to improve the writing, please do it. BBQboffin (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Glinden here. Looking at the WJS, the other major issue regarding it is that the person writing that piece which relies on Twitter is also a columnist, not a journalist. A columnist is a regular contributor to a newspaper but they mainly produce opinion pieces to advance a particular view. They aren't constrained to impartiality that governs news writing and other journalists/reporters. Wozal (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The tax stuff belongs on the election page, not the BLP. Unless this becomes a defining or notable aspect of this biography, I think it should be excluded. If, say, he is brought to court over the matter (foreclosure, torts, etc.), then it would make sense to mention that fact here. If, say, he made it into a big issue in the news (e.g., Trump saying he's smart for not paying taxes), then it might belong here. But at the moment, it appears to be attack ad fodder. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed Andre🚐 17:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's no section of the "election page", 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin, which would be appropriate for this content. If I'm mistaken, please tell me what section they are best placed in. The endorsements clearly do belong there, as there are many endorsements already there for both candidates, and these endorsements are for a specific campaign in a specific year for a specific office. But the property tax issues are not campaign-related; they cropped up in 2019, long before Barnes was running for Senate. What weight they should have in this page is a matter of debate, but they are attached to Barnes himself, not his governorship, or a Senate primary or election, so they belong on this page. BBQboffin (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements

The question of whether to include endorsements seems to keep coming up. I think we should discuss more in its own section here. So let's do that.

On the one hand, endorsements are helpful and useful to readers and supported by WP:CAE. On the other hand, there's a good point that only some candidate pages include them, endorsements often are shown only on the election page and not a candidate's page, and WP:CAE might be considered obsolete because the page is marked inactive.

I lean toward including the endorsements because they are useful information for readers. I personally find endorsements almost always helpful when looking at candidate pages and often am disappointed when I can't find them easily. But I don't feel that strongly about it. What I don't want is to keep adding them and removing them here, which I think is unlikely to go well for anyone, so let's try to find a way to reach consensus? Thoughts on this from others? Glinden (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's an appearance of fairness if both candidates in a given race pages include endorsements (Ron Johnson's article contains none, though as a sitting US Senator, he obviously has many), but my preference would be for neither biography to have them. It also looks like puffery on our part when notable national organizations are being listed when in fact it is a non-notable local branch of the organization that is making the endorsement. BBQboffin (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel we don't need the endorsements on the page, especially when we have them on the actual article for the article. It feels entirely WP:UNDUE for inclusion - the only time we usually include endorsements is in the case of incredibly high profile ones -i.e Donald Trump endorsing candidates, or in the rare case of Phil Bredesen, the Taylor Swift endorsement. None of the Barnes ones match this sort of criteria. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The endorsements do indeed seem non-standard so we should probably leave them out, unless there are some that are really important beyond the usual ones from groups like NARAL etc., which can be listed on the 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin page and probably already are Andre🚐 21:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for discussing it. I don't agree at all that they are undue -- I think they're useful -- but there's good points being made that it no longer routine to include them, assuming the advice on WP:CAE truly is no longer valid. They're already removed, it seems. Sounds like we resolved this one unless anyone else chimes in. Glinden (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on not including endorsements. Tchouppy (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

2nd Amendment tweet

@Wozal requested this edit be brought to the talk page. Disparaging the writer as a "columnist" is an odd tactic as the tweet is the meat of the text, and those are Barnes' own words on the subject. Yes, the tweet is from 2013, so we're pretty close to clearing the WP:10YEARTEST as the issue of guns and gun violence is just as relevant (if not more so) today than when the statement was made. If you look at (Barnes' opponent) Johnson's page there is a well-documented section on his political positions while for Barnes we have very little. I would encourage editors here to try to add and expand this section with well-sourced material, or try to improve (WP:NPOV) the prose of what's there, rather than just deleting whole paragraphs along with the sources. BBQboffin (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Again a thing for the election page, not the biography. If we had a section on gun policy, then maybe. But tweets from 9 years ago don't add to the biography EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this conversation here, @BBQboffin. As you mentioned within one of your earlier edit summary, "The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include the disputed text; get consensus on talk page first". A deeper look into the linked WP:ONUS page tells us this: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included (emphasis mine). 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.

The issues of gun is indeed an important one today as debate on what the second amendment means exactly is still debated today. However, time is also tricky. Stances change. We don't know whether the tweet from 2013 is the same stance that Barnes holds today. Presenting it with his political stances is tricky as a result because the article is from 2022 but the tweet is much older. One would believe from the paragraph that it is his current view but citing a tweet from nearly 10 years ago just seems odd especially since we don't know how his current views differ. Per an earlier conversation comment above as a result of the noticeboard "The tax stuff belongs on the election page, not the BLP. Unless this becomes a defining or notable aspect of this biography, I think it should be excluded. If, say, he is brought to court over the matter (foreclosure, torts, etc.), then it would make sense to mention that fact here."

I'd venture to guess that if the tax stuff doesn't belong here and had more coverage in larger newspapers that this tweet probably also doesn't belong here.

EDIT: @EvergreenFir beat me to it. (@EvergreenFir - Can you please provide us some insight on Barnes' security costs? I think it gets into shaky terrority because it involves a decision which Barnes has no control over, but it seems odd to mention Evers impact Barnes' page in this way. (From my understanding, Barnes can't control the costs of his protection as his protection was decided by Evers) Wozal (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO, detailing dollars and hours is excessive and doesn't add anything to the biography. That it's been an "issue" is on the border of notability for me. If we could find more RS saying it's a notable issue, I'd be happier (e.g., i'm wondering if race and the alt-right have anything to do with it).

We need not put every last scrap of news the media publishes. If a reader 10 years from now comes to read about Barnes, will the info on security or 20 year old tweets be useful to that reader to understand Barnes' life? Probably not. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Evergreen Fir Andre🚐 17:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTPAPER, there's no upper limit on how much we can add. Contrast this article, is currently about 40K bytes long, while John Fetterman, another Lt. Governor who is running for 2022 Senate, has a page length of 126K presently, with 14 sections on policy positions. The Fetterman article has 165 references, while this one has just 54. The problem with this page isn't that we're putting in "every scrap of news the media publishes", it's the opposite.

This is a Start-Class page, which is "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources." Our mission here is to improve the page by adding well-sourced content, not delete the content and sources as they are being added. I

I would encourage those who feel there is a WP:ONUS on new content to edit and improve the content so it meets our policy. (When I cited that policy in reference to the endorsements, there was a clear place for those on the 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin page as they were directly related to that specific contest, and most were already there, along with endorsements for Barnes' opponent.)

And to those who feel an issue has undue weight in the article I would kindly encourage to do research to expand other sections to help achieve that balance, rather than to just hit delete and make an already small page smaller. BBQboffin (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Security Cost Details?

The $608,528 cost and 13-1/2 hours/day of the security protection is significant and sourced. While Barnes is not the final decision-maker on the security, he requested it and was aware (as was anyone else who read the newspaper) in the first two months of his term that he was costing the state more in those tow months than his predecessor did in a full year. Doing the math, that's 6x as much. By year 3, the security hours were 10x what they were in the previous administration. Did "race and the alt-right have anything to do with it"? [reliable sources needed]. The only mention of "race" I'm seeing in the sources is that when Barnes ran the Chicago Marathon, cops from Wisconsin had to provide 54 hours of security to protect him.[2] BBQboffin (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

How is this relevant to his biography? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:EDIT, "As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better it is. Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge, and be particularly cautious about removing sourced content" and your edit here appears contrary to both parts of the policy. Your content removal also creates confusion in the paragraph for the reader. My wording had made it clear there were two separate news cycles reporting the security costs: one about his first two months in office, and the second after he had served roughly three years and the cost over the 3 years totaled over $600M. Wikipedia rightly includes security cost details in other biography articles: Christine Blasey Ford and Meghan Markle & Price Harry, for example. When the article subject is also an office holder, such as Rep. Mark Finchem and former EPA head Scott Pruitt, I would argue that more detail is warranted as there should be accountability to the public. This page is a biography not just about Mr. Barnes, the man, but about the sitting Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin. And if such an officeholder is racking up an unprecedented amount of security protection in dollars and man-hours, and that's being widely reported in reliable sources, we should follow WP:EDIT and boldly include it. BBQboffin (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @EvergreenFir that this is not relevant in a biography. Be bold doesn't mean add content that isn't useful to readers. I don't think this is important or useful; there's nothing there. Glinden (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

I would like to add the below information to the "Political Positions" section of Mandela Barnes page.

start --

Barnes proposes a middle-class tax cut.1 Barnes has campaigned on lowering costs and fighting inflation by cracking down on oil and gas companies that use inflation as a "smokescreen" to raise prices.2. Long-term, he argues that the U.S. should focus on bringing manufacturing back to Wisconsin to shore up our supply chains and reduce reliance on overseas production.3 He also argues for reducing dependence on foreign oil by building out and investing in alternative energy sources. Barnes has said the switch to alternative forms of energy is already happening abroad, and it's time that Wisconsin becomes a leader in manufacturing goods like solar panels and wind turbines.

Barnes frequently talks about abortion on the campaign trail -- including his mother's abortion-- and has pledged to get rid of the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade.4

Barnes has also made protecting social security and Medicare a top priority of his Senate campaign. 5.

Barnes released a plan that pledges to fight for a farm bill that protects small family farms and fights back against corporate consolidation of agriculture. He backed defining "product of USA" standards to Prevent corporations that slaughter and process their meat abroad then package it in the U.S. from being able to mislead consumers." 7.

On crime, Barnes has advocated for a holistic approach that supported law enforcement by investing in community resources and violence prevention programs to stop crime before it happens.7. In 2021, The Evers-Barnes Administration announced millions in grants to fund violence prevention efforts and support sheriff's offices.8 As a state legislator, he fought for more funding to address gun violence in Milwaukee and called for a special session of the state assembly to address it. 9

In the state assembly, Barnes introduced legislation to end cash bail and instead keep offenders in detention based on the threat they posed to society, which he stated would prevent violent criminals from being able to "buy their way out of jail."10

-- end

Citations and sources: 1. https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/mandela-barnes-on-inflation-abortion-and-running-for-senate/ 2. https://www.c-span.org/video/?523242-1/wisconsin-us-senate-debate&live 3. https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/barnes-campaign-new-ad-mandela-barnes-fights-for-middle-class-tax-cuts-creation-of-wisconsin-jobs; https://www.wispolitics.com/2022/barnes-campaign-releases-make-it-here-plan-to-boost-manufacturing-and-communities-in-wisconsin 4. https://fox11online.com/news/election/barnes-launches-tour-attacking-sen-johnsons-stance-on-abortion 5. https://www.wkow.com/news/mandela-barnes-talks-social-security-medicare-at-senior-event/article_b548b93c-3e02-11ed-ad85-5fc980495ad4.html 6. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/06/02/mandela-barnes-vows-empower-small-and-mid-sized-family-farms/7476063001/ 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsAMsJE2Ag4&t=10s 8. https://www.news8000.com/gov-evers-spending-45-million-on-violence-prevention; https://www.wpr.org/evers-plan-spends-56m-federal-funding-police-court-backlog 9. https://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Barnes-Letter-to-JFC-Gun-Violence.pdf; https://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/move-up-milwaukees-curfew-to-9-pm-to-keep-kids-safe-b99287643z1-263113351.html/ 10. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/22/mandela-barnes/barnes-plan-end-cash-bail-wouldnt-necessarily-have/ Electrostat13 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This mostly looks OK to me. Andre🚐 22:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources; the text as written would need to be edited somewhat to present the subject matter in a neutral and dispassionate tone, as per our WP:NPOV policy. But the sources are very helpful. We can't use #9 as that is an opinion piece but Barnes did indeed call for a special session to address gun violence, and it wouldn't be hard to find an unbiased news story that says that. Right now the gun violence section is much larger than the other political positions so I hesitate to add to it right now for fear someone will argue (perhaps correctly) that we're giving it too much weight, and then (curiously endemic to this page) the content goes to WP:ONUS purgatory. I'll be adding a lot of this to the page (if other editors don't beat me to it, which I hope they will!) in the coming week, again, thank you. BBQboffin (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@BBQboffin Regarding #9, normally I'd agree with you on opinion pieces, but the author is Mandela himself which would make it subject to WP:SELFSOURCE I think. It reads:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

I think the question becomes this: Given that some of this would naturally intertwine with his roles in Government, has the criteria been met? I really don't know. Wozal (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

By "#9" I meant the opinion piece by James Causey, not Barnes' letter. Yes, I would agree the letter satisfies WP:SELFSOURCE (I think the criteria is met) but since that content needs to be of a "de minimis" amount on the page, we don't want to play that card very often. I think it best to just cite an RS that is in the public domain, and save the valuable SELFSOURCE content for material we could not get added any other way, such as...his height. No RS currently reports how tall the man is, so one of his 18,000 tweets is the only way to get that piece of data into the page. BBQboffin (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Just noting for any interested editors that I'm closing out the edit request template due to multiple disqualifying criteria occurring at this juncture. I'm more than happy to elaborate should anyone ask with a ping. This does not impact this discussion at all nor stop any other editor from inserting any or all of the proposed text. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

J. Mandela Barnes age 18 to 27 (2013) What did he do other than go to college?

J. Mandela Barnes age 18 to 27 (2013) What did he do other than go to college? 2600:6C44:E7F:F15D:594:8D40:F1D0:1772 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To add

CNN KFile. Marquardtika (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Legal name = birth name?

Sources say his "legal name" is J. Mandela Barnes and so we use that in the lede, but in the info box we have his "Birth name" as being "Jesse Mandela Barnes" which today was changed by @Ser! to "J. Mandela Barnes". We don't have a birth certificate for him. Does it really say "J." same as how Harry S. Truman had just the "S." and the relatives with names starting with S all considered it to be in their honor? As we don't have a source providing a definitive answer my preference would be to blank the "Birth name" field in the infobox until we have one. BBQboffin (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. Feel free to change it to that. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for "birth name" field blanked for now. NPR said that his "full name" was Jesse Mandela Barnes in 2010[3] and another source[4] says "Wisconsin born and raised, Jesse Mandela Barnes, who now goes by Mandela Barnes" but that conflicts with in-article sources that say he went by Mandela in his childhood. BBQboffin (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)